Here is a suggestion that countries’ leaders should be ranked with different standards than are usually used. The focus is on the US–with Obama’s inauguration and all–but I guess it could apply anywhere.
Presidential rankings should be based on different standards: Did the president uphold the Constitution, and have an agenda that contributed to peace, prosperity, and liberty, and was he reasonably adept at getting that agenda implemented?
The author, Ivan Eland, downgrades the rank of very popular presidents who have served during periods of large wars. He argues, basically, that it would have been better to avoid war altogether. Sensible enough. He also praises the presidency of Jimmy Carter, always a favorite of mine, for reducing government spending, beginning deregulation, and tightening money supplies, allowing for the growth years that followed.