In 2302 we discussed how crisis management - especially in a time of war - is good for a president's reputation. Historians tend to give high marks to presidents who held office during war, or led America into battle.
Here's a study that provides empirical proof of that allegation, and here's commentary:
American war casualties, as a fraction of the population, positively correlate with how historians rate U.S. presidents. More death = better presidents. . . . Greatness rankings by historians may prompt presidents to start more wars. The historians may have more blood on their hands than we care to admit.
And more commentary:
Henderson and Gouchenour investigated "the connection between presidents' greatness rankings and the intensity of the wars that those presidents carried on. Using multiple regression analysis, we compare the effect of war intensity with other explanations offered by previous researchers," such as intellectual prowess, GDP growth and involvement in major scandal. They found "a strong positive correlation between the number of Americans killed during a president's time in office and the president's rating."
Presidents have long recognized the "wartime bonus" doled out by historians. Henderson and Gouchenour quote Teddy Roosevelt: "if Lincoln had lived in times of peace, no one would know his name now." (TR would later come to envy Woodrow Wilson because Wilson got to fight the European war TR himself had pushed for.)
Along with the following wish:
Let's hope that the lure of "presidential greatness" doesn't tempt Barack Obama into rash action with Iran.
Some of the above commentators wonder if Congress makes it too easy to go to war. Rachel Maddow's recent book on this theme has stirred things up.
Also worth a look: War Making and State Making as Organized Crime.
