Potus Geeks Book Review: The Presidents-Noted Historians Rank The Best and Worst Chief Executves
In 2000, 2009 and 2017 the non-profit cable TV network C-SPAN has gathered a group of prominent historians together to rank the Presidents of the United States from best to worst, based on 10 criteria: crisis leadership, public persuasion, economic management, moral authority, international relations, administrative skills, relations with Congress, vision (setting an agenda), pursuance of equal justice for all, and performance within the context of the times. In each rating the current sitting president is excluded, mindful of how in many cases, an appreciation of a President's performance is acquired with the passage of time, though not as appreciated when that President is in office.
The Presidents: Noted Historians Rank America's Best and Worst Chief Executives is a three part examination of the rankings of all of the Presidents from Washington to Obama, followed by a speculative academic discussion of how President Donald Trump may someday be evaluated, based on the lessons of past Presidencies.
The first part of the book contains a discussion by three noted historians on the question of how to rank US Presidents. One of these historians notes how President John F. Kennedy criticized the process of such rankings, stating that "no one has the right to grade a president - not even poor James Buchanan - who has not sat in his chair, examined the mail and information that came across his desk, and learned why he made his decisions." Historians may not agree with Kennedy's chastisement of giving a President a failing grade. But the perspectives of these historians point out the pitfalls in the practice of ranking the Presidents: (1) Perspectives change over time as history evolves our value system, making the President who was yesterday's fool become a man of great principle and a wise forward thinker, with the benefit of hindsight. (2) Whether historians like to admit it, all have biases, and those biases become apparent, usually to everyone except the historian who owns them. The first section of this book is perhaps its most interesting section for the perspectives expressed on the subject of ranking Presidents.
The second and longest section of the book contains a discussion of each president, in order of his most recent ranking, from first (Abraham Lincoln) to last (Lincoln's predecessor, poor James Buchanan). But rather than examine each president and discuss what positive and negative factors contributed to his place in the race, the editors took a rather lazy approach and have instead simply included an edited transcript of a CNN interview with one of that president's biographer. In many cases, the interview focuses on a section of the president's life or one event in it. (For example, the section on Barack Obama talks about some of the women he dated before his current wife, while the section on Abraham Lincoln focuses on the period between his election and his inauguration.) Often these sections seem to make the case that a highly ranked President had flaws that may make the high rating undeserved (such as how Lyndon Johnson was corrupted by power) while the sections on some of the lower ranked Presidents make the case for the subject deserving a higher ranking (as in the case of the sections on Warren Harding or Franklin Pierce.)
This isn't to say that the sections on each President are not interesting. To the contrary, they are very enjoyable to read. This just seems like such an academically lazy way to discuss each Presidency in the context of a book about ranking the Presidency. It is a series of vignettes rather than what the book's title implies - a discussion of why each President is ranked as he is.
The final section, in which the trio of historians discuss the Trump Presidency is rambling and pedantic. There are some very good points that are made in this section, but these points could have been made much more efficiently and much more clearly in the form of an article that trimmed the fat of the meandering dialogue which was once again a needless short-cutting of the work required to properly tackle this subject. The final article in the book is intended as a discussion of the correlation between the presidency and the pursuit of equal justice, but it is problematic for the subtle way in which the author credits the Presidents from one particular party, while omitting the achievements of those from the other party. In politics no single party is possessed of all the heroes nor all the villains.
The book is worth reading as a refresher of all of the Presidents and their spectrum of personalities, abilities and accomplishments. It is unfortunate that such a worthwhile subject as a review of how, where and why all of the Presidents are ranked was not approached with more effort and organization and with the structure and discipline that the ranking system itself was created. Each of the historians are respected and very academically credible. The problem is not in their opinions, but in how the editors of the book have organized and presented them.
The Presidents: Noted Historians Rank America's Best and Worst Chief Executives is a three part examination of the rankings of all of the Presidents from Washington to Obama, followed by a speculative academic discussion of how President Donald Trump may someday be evaluated, based on the lessons of past Presidencies.
The first part of the book contains a discussion by three noted historians on the question of how to rank US Presidents. One of these historians notes how President John F. Kennedy criticized the process of such rankings, stating that "no one has the right to grade a president - not even poor James Buchanan - who has not sat in his chair, examined the mail and information that came across his desk, and learned why he made his decisions." Historians may not agree with Kennedy's chastisement of giving a President a failing grade. But the perspectives of these historians point out the pitfalls in the practice of ranking the Presidents: (1) Perspectives change over time as history evolves our value system, making the President who was yesterday's fool become a man of great principle and a wise forward thinker, with the benefit of hindsight. (2) Whether historians like to admit it, all have biases, and those biases become apparent, usually to everyone except the historian who owns them. The first section of this book is perhaps its most interesting section for the perspectives expressed on the subject of ranking Presidents.
The second and longest section of the book contains a discussion of each president, in order of his most recent ranking, from first (Abraham Lincoln) to last (Lincoln's predecessor, poor James Buchanan). But rather than examine each president and discuss what positive and negative factors contributed to his place in the race, the editors took a rather lazy approach and have instead simply included an edited transcript of a CNN interview with one of that president's biographer. In many cases, the interview focuses on a section of the president's life or one event in it. (For example, the section on Barack Obama talks about some of the women he dated before his current wife, while the section on Abraham Lincoln focuses on the period between his election and his inauguration.) Often these sections seem to make the case that a highly ranked President had flaws that may make the high rating undeserved (such as how Lyndon Johnson was corrupted by power) while the sections on some of the lower ranked Presidents make the case for the subject deserving a higher ranking (as in the case of the sections on Warren Harding or Franklin Pierce.)
This isn't to say that the sections on each President are not interesting. To the contrary, they are very enjoyable to read. This just seems like such an academically lazy way to discuss each Presidency in the context of a book about ranking the Presidency. It is a series of vignettes rather than what the book's title implies - a discussion of why each President is ranked as he is.
The final section, in which the trio of historians discuss the Trump Presidency is rambling and pedantic. There are some very good points that are made in this section, but these points could have been made much more efficiently and much more clearly in the form of an article that trimmed the fat of the meandering dialogue which was once again a needless short-cutting of the work required to properly tackle this subject. The final article in the book is intended as a discussion of the correlation between the presidency and the pursuit of equal justice, but it is problematic for the subtle way in which the author credits the Presidents from one particular party, while omitting the achievements of those from the other party. In politics no single party is possessed of all the heroes nor all the villains.
The book is worth reading as a refresher of all of the Presidents and their spectrum of personalities, abilities and accomplishments. It is unfortunate that such a worthwhile subject as a review of how, where and why all of the Presidents are ranked was not approached with more effort and organization and with the structure and discipline that the ranking system itself was created. Each of the historians are respected and very academically credible. The problem is not in their opinions, but in how the editors of the book have organized and presented them.