Action bias and the presidency

An intrinsic cognitive flaw is action bias: humans tend to view action more favorably than inaction, even if the inaction would be preferable. This is likely the biggest bias in presidential rankings. Historians and the public give greater veneration, in general, to the presidents who “did something” even if it turned out to have negative overall consequences. The presidents who preside over the most violent deaths tend to get the highest scores from historians (Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt), while those who avoided foreign wars (e.g., Adams, Coolidge, Eisenhower, Clinton) are generally dismissed as “do nothings.” From a classical liberal point of view, this is backward. Given the inherent tendency for tyranny among governments, inaction is almost always preferable to action, and yet our presidential rankings system rewards the opposite. As long as presidents are seeking historical greatness (inevitable) and we define greatness in terms of action, we will likely continue to get unnecessary wars and other illiberal policies from our executives.