IN RECENT years a number of scholars have analyzed citizen evaluations of presidentialjob performance (see Hibbs 1982; Kenski 1977; Mueller 1970; and Stimson 1976). By analyzing shifts in public approval over time, researchers have sought to determine whether evaluations reflect, among other things, the performance of the economy and the existence of war, both of which are generally recognized as presidential responsibilities (see Cronin 1980; Koenig 1981). The results of these studies are signficant for students of democratic accountability, for they reveal the bases for citizen evaluations of presidents. Not all the studies are particularly reassuring in that regard (see especially Stimson 1976, who found little relationship between approval ratings and either war or economic conditions.) A somewhat older body of literature assesses citizen and elite evaluations of presidents through history, comparing the performance of one president with the performance of others (see Schlesinger 1980; Maranell and Dodder 1970). The significance of this literature lies in part in the sorts of ideals which are reflected in the evaluations (see Maranell and Dodder 1970). The presidents who are rated most highly serve to establish the expectations against which other presidents are judged. The expectations may in turn shape the ways in which presidents approach their jobs (on the more general concept of the "texbook presidency," see Cronin 1980: chapter 3). A president who enters the office with the role models of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt could hardly approach the job the same way as a president with the role models of Buchanan, Grant, and Harding. The purpose of this analysis is to assess what conditions give rise to an image of greatness in presidents. A number of studies have asked elite or mass samples to evaluate the greatness of our various presidents through history (see Table 1). The process of rating presidents is not without its pitfalls, however (see Amlund 1964; Bailey 1966; DiClerico 1979: 331-40. First, different presidents have confronted different problems during their terms of office. As a result, some have battled clearly defined problems while others grappled with more ambiguous situations. Some presidents faced crises which threatened the survival of the nation, while others struggled with less dramatic and less momentous difficulties. Comparing performance in different situations is hazardous at best (Bailey 1966: 35-36; DiClerico 1979: 333-36). Second, the actions of a president may look different with different historical perspectives. A decision which was reviled and denounced at one point may appear brilliant later. A decision which is acclaimed in one