The Leaders We Deserved (and a Few We Didn't): Rethinking the Presidential Rating Game | 
 enlarge | Author: Alvin S. Felzenberg
Publisher: Basic Books
Category: Book
List Price: $29.95
Buy New: $17.00
You Save: $12.95 (43%)
New (38) Used (7) from $17.00
Avg. Customer Rating:  13 reviews
Sales Rank: 43188
Media: Hardcover
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 480
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1.7
Dimensions (in): 9.3 x 6.5 x 1.5
ISBN: 0465002919
Dewey Decimal Number: 973.099
EAN: 9780465002917
ASIN: 0465002919
Publication Date: June 9, 2008
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
|
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
A new approach to a favorite pastime--rating the presidents--just in time for the inevitable debate about President Bush's place in history. It's a perennial pastime to rate U.S. presidents on an all-time ranking: Certain presidents were "Great," others were "Near-Great," and so on down to "Failures" and "Unmitigated Disasters." (OK, we made that last category up.) But as Alvin Felzenberg points out, there are many flaws with these rating systems. Despite reams of new historical information, the rankings never seem to change very much. They all favor a certain kind of president--those who tended to increase executive power. That aside, the idea of rating presidential performance on a simple linear scale is absurd. The Leaders We Deserved (and a Few We Didn't) breaks presidential performance into easily understandable categories--character, vision, competence, foreign policy, economic policy, human rights, and legacy--and assesses, for each category, the best and worst. The result is a surprisingly fresh look at how the various presidents stack up against each other, with some of the "greats" coming off far worse than their supposedly mediocre colleagues.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 8 more reviews...
It's a Fun Game December 10, 2008
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
Whether you agree or disagree with Prof. Felzenberg's assessments, it's difficult to dislike a book like this one. Everyone, whether a history buff or not, enjoys the presidential rating game. And Felzenberg has given us a fresh approach. Instead of just giving us the results of some survey of opinions, he makes an attempt to quantify his results. Before giving us an overall score, he rates the presidents in six separate areas: character; vision; competence; economic policy; preserving & extending liberty; and defense, national security and foreign policy. It's clever, actually. Instead of giving a vague overview of a presidency, it gives him an opportunity to criticize particular areas of a president's performance while still giving credit where credit is due.
Felzenberg does some other things right, too. He does a good job of focusing specifically on a person's performance while president, and not on his achievements outside of his term(s). Jefferson, for example, rates lower on his list because the character and ideals of liberty he espoused so well in the Declaration of Independence and in the opposition party were not carried out in his presidency. He does a good job at assessing not only the immediate but also the long-term impacts of a president's policies. Jackson, for example, suffers much in this regard. He is also very good at giving us some background on most of the presidents. We get to hear some detail about Coolidge, Harding, Polk, Fillmore and Buchanan, among others who usually get short shrift in these kind of works. (Still, Lincoln, Washington, the Roosevelts, etc. get most of the pages.)
But let's not fool ourselves. The game is rigged. All of the analysis is Felzenberg's own so it reflects his own prejudices. The presidents he chooses to discuss in each chapter seem haphazard at times. His chapter on preserving and extending liberty focuses almost exclusively on the rights extended to African Americans. While this is important, issues like the Alien and Sedition Acts, immigration policies, womens rights and suspension of habeas corpus surely deserved more discussion. Despite his attempts at objectivity, he's clearly a fan of certain presidents and not fans of others. His chapter on economic policy clearly favors Reagan's ideas as opposed to FDR's. Other historians and economists might have different opinions on this, changing the ratings of these and other presidents.
Ultimately, I suppose, how one likes this book will depend, on some level, on how much one agrees with his ratings. For example, I like that he gives serious attention to Washington's achievements as president. I liked that he rated Grant and Truman high. I like that he didn't give into the Nixon revisionism and kept him near the bottom. On the other hand, I think he overrates presidents Teddy Roosevelt and underrates Clinton. And, though he doesn't rate G.W. Bush since his administration wasn't complete by the writing of the book, he clearly seems to favor him. Though, to his credit, he points out that only time will tell on this.
He finishes the book with some suggestions on what to look for and what to avoid in a presidential candidate. Again, his categories are interesting but almost impossible to apply in advance. It completely depends on how you interpret things. It was kind of a flat closing to an otherwise interesting book.
In the end, Felzenberg deserves real credit for a smart way of analyzing presidencies and writing interesting accounts of the presidents to illustrate his ideas. What I would like to see is Felzenberg's treatment attempted by a group of scholars to see what kind of consensus they come to. That would make for some very interesting reading--a great supplement to a very good book.
Interesting, Educational...and Somewhat Biased October 13, 2008
1 out of 2 found this review helpful
I was inspired to read this book based on the very mixed reviews here. I agree that the glorified review of Reagan, one of the most partisan of presidents, was highly biased - indeed, most of his reviews of the presidents after Kennedy showed a definite slant. His main economic reference was Milton Friedman. And the assessment of character can be highly subjective - although he justifiably gives Jimmy Carter high points here.
But when you go back further, it gets more interesting. The author proves that he is not just a knee-jerk conservative. He disagrees with many historians in that he gives Grant a relatively high rating - largely because of his efforts to promote the freedom and well-being of blacks during Reconstruction. Likewise, Wilson and Jackson are marked down because of their racist policies. Another interesting section pertains to James Madison - the author discusses why President Madison could have (and should have) avoided the War of 1812.
So I would recommend reading the book, although I wish it were organized differently (with a separate section for each president). It is probably impossible for one person to write a completely unbiased book on this topic.
 Truth in Ratings September 6, 2008
1 out of 3 found this review helpful
In this book Dr. Felzenberg undertakes to rate US presidents by establishing standards in certain areas, such as Character, Vision, National Security and others. We are all familiar with the ratings game played by historians, most of whom are university professors and political liberals. They generally rate presidents without announcing any standards they employ. Their results leave me too often believing that the standards are determined by how liberal or conservative a president has been. By their definition liberal is good and conservative, bad. In other words actual performance in office by a president is less important that how the professor/historian himself votes. Felzenberg does not play that game. I found his reviews instructive and highly interesting. This is an excellent book and I recommend it very highly.
Move Over, Arthur Schlesinger! August 30, 2008
2 out of 3 found this review helpful
As Obama and McCain now move to rewrite Presidential history, it is a very good time to receive Al Felzenberg's very good new book that also does. The Leaders We Deserve sets a new and better standard for Presidential ranking surveys. Move over, Arthur Schlesinger!
As a kid in 1962 I remember first seeing Schlesinger's Presidential ranking in the New York Times magazine. It surveyed 75 historians. It was and for some still is the summary snapshot judgment about Presidential governance. It shaped my presidential ranking perception for most of my life. Of course Lincoln was first and Washington second, as in any survey well they should be. FDR, hero of our fathers' generation, was unquestioningly ranked 3rd. "Progressive" Wilson was 4th, "philosophe" Jefferson 5th, and "democratic populist" Jackson 6th. By contrast, "stodgy" Eisenhower was down at 22nd. And "drunkard" Grant was a "failure". The Schlesinger ranking was a historical pronouncement presumed wise and well for a generation of American history students.
When later in life I was unshackled from liberal shibboleths and began to think for myself, I questioned on what basis and by what criteria was Schlesinger's survey made. To my knowledge Schlesinger offered his 75 colleagues no standard or criteria for their choices. How could Hoover, who made such a bust of the calamitous Depression, be rendered a historical gentleman's C in his rank of 19th? How could Grant, the determined yet magnanimous commander in the Civil War and presidential guardian of African Americans rights during the difficult days of Reconstruction, be ranked last, while the traitorous Doeface Buchanan could muddle through at 29th?
Felzenberg offers a objective approach, based on metrics established in six categories: character, vision, competence, economic policy, preserving and extending liberty, and defense, national security and foreign policy. Within each category the presidents receive scores of 1 (low) to 5 (high). Scores of all six categories are added and averaged. In each category Felzenberg ably compares and contrasts various presidents, allowing him to manifest his copious knowledge and comfortable writing style.
In history, as in politics, objective measurement leads to unexpected (inconvenient?) conclusions. Despite his eloquent writings, a temporizing and dissembling Jefferson drops to 14th for his more than mediocre vision and competence as president. Wilson, the priggish absolutist whose rigidity torpedoed the possibility of the League of Nations, and whose righteous but racist personal views tried to keep blacks and women in their place, is downgraded to 14th. The forthright but obscure Coolidge finally receives a fairer assessment, rising from 27th to 12th. Grant finally ascends from presidential ranking hell to take a place he more deserves at 7th. Eisenhower, wiser now than then we knew, rises to 5th. And the criminally racist Jackson, cruel perpetrator of the Trail of Tears upon Native Americans, the worst ethnic cleansing committed in North America, is rightly banished to the lower half at 27th (and should be removed from the $20 bill!)
No such ambitious work can cover all the possible ground. More detail about Polk, for instance, whom Schlesinger ranks 10th but Felzenberg demotes to 20th (and ranks among the worst in character) would have been interesting. A few unedited misspellings also distract just a little from the smooth read. And could the title have been sharpened to something more punchy and particular? (Hard to say: my own lame supposition of something like "Presidential Promise Realized and Refuted" reminds me how difficult a titling task can be.) But these are mere triflings.
On an important presidential subject in this important presidential year, Felzenberg delivers. As an excellent study of the history and caliber of Presidents, and especially in its offering of an objective metrics-based framework for measuring them, Felzenberg's book should be assigned in all high school American history classes. Responsible citizens should also take it up. After his detailed analysis and enlightening assessments, Felzenberg offers a guide for what to seek and to avoid in presidents. As now we progress these next two months to one of America's most historic elections, Al Felzenberg's The Leaders We Deserve can help ensure that we chose even more wisely--and thus realize what his fine book reports and recommends.
Fresh, unconvential take on presidential ratings August 19, 2008
4 out of 5 found this review helpful
Reviews criticizing this book for its supposed conservative bias are off target. (For example, Lyndon Johnson, generally a conservative bete-noire, comes in for great praise for his role in civil rights.) Anyone who's read the book will know that its most original contribution is assigning credit and blame, where appropriate, to lesser-known presidents whose actions had an important impact on economic history, civil rights, etc. For example, the discussions of the civil rights accomplishments of oft-neglected presidents like Grant and Coolidge, or of the various failings of an oft-praised president like Madison, add much new to our generally facile understanding of these presidents.
Of course, many readers may disagree with the author's characterizations of Reagan, which are probably the most controversial element of the book, but the sections on Reagan are neither hagiography nor polemic; they present facts in a measured fashion, and readers are free to interpret them differently than the author does. That does not detract from the overall value of this excellent and thorougly-researched book for readers of all political stripes.
Finally, readers interested in US economic history will find this book a fascinating review of economic policy, especially the monetary system, from the early republic through the modern era of the Federal Reserve system.
This book is highly recommended for readers of all political backgrounds. Though they may disagree with a few of the conclusions, the author's scholarship is undeniable, and Democratic-leaning readers interested in civil rights will find the book's discussion of those issues especially interesting.
|
|
|
