Customer Reviews

Rating The Presidents: A Ranking of U.S. Leaders, from the Great and Honorable to the Dishonest and Incompetent

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

"Rating the Presidents" is a solid primer and reference manual about the many men who have held the highest office in the land, from George Washington to Bill Clinton. Certainly, there have been many attempts in the past to try and quantify to relative successes and failures of each Presidency, and there have definitely been lists of the best to worst Presidents. In most cases, however, these attempts at rankings are nothing more than thinly-veiled, politically biased extrapolations. People with an axe to grind against either political party would likely thrust a President from the opposition party somewhere low on the list. Certainly, there have been many attempts in the past to try and quantify to relative successes and failures of each Presidency, and there have definitely been lists of the best to worst Presidents. In most cases, however, these attempts at rankings are nothing more than thinly-veiled, politically biased extrapolations. People with an axe to grind against either political party would likely thrust a President from the opposition party somewhere low on the list. William Ridings and Stuart McIver, however, make a concerted effort to present as objective a set of criteria as possible for rating the presidents, as well as consulting the least subjective sources for the material and evidence to support the ratings. What results is a relatively fair and balanced assessment of where each Presidency finds itself in the harsh glare of history. There are few surprises with Abraham Lincoln being rated #1 and Warren G. Harding being rated the worst, but people might be surprised to find that Bill Clinton not rated as badly as some would think, while John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan aren't rated as highly as one would assume. The ratings might seem debatable, and they may very well provoke debate, but when one sits down to assess them, they will realize that this books provides a fair judgment of all of our Commanders-in-Chief.

No one system for ranking presidents will satisfy all readers. Ranking presidents, first started by Arthur Schlesinger Sr. and Jr., has become a matter for intense debate. Authors Ridings and McIver have accomplished a difficult task started in 1989. They relied on the input of 719 individuals, 97% from academic historians and political scientists, with input from a few elected officials, lawyers and journalists.

The most intense political debate will involve two of the most recent presidents, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. Both were two term presidents, excellent media performers, each with a strong partisan following.

Ridings-McIver has produced an excellent reference source, educational tool and fair minded ranking of the American presidency.

The concept of this book and the compilation of comments by historians is very good. It is unfortunately marred by some historical mistakes which could have been avoided by the authors. For example, George Washington did not move to Mount Vernon from Pope's Creek. He grew up at Ferry Farm opposite Fredericksburg. US Grant was not forced to resign from the Army for drunkenness. He was homesick for his family (which caused the drinking). He received a promotion to permanent captain (not an easy task in that army) the same day he resigned. Lots of mention of Republican fraud in the 1876 election but none of the Southern intimidation and violence at the polling places. And George Bush did not support the independence of the Soviet republics. He was in Kiev the day before Ukraine declared its independence asking them to stay in the Soviet Union. He did not recognize the Baltic republics until long after Western Europe did. Good marks for concept and ratings, fair for content.

"Rating the Presidents," basewd upon a wide ranging poll of historians, is an interesting exercise for those who love Presidential history. It should be noted that when the polls for this book were taken, Bill Clinton fourth from the bottom for "Character and Integrity," and this was BEFORE the Monica scandal broke. The opinions rendered may be debateable, but they are well reasoned and authoritative.

The chart that begins the book is the only worthwhile reading in this book. It ranks all the Presidents by five categories, and lists them by their overall rating. Number One is Lincoln, and dead last is that ode to mediocrity, Warren Harding. From this page you can learn that according to the 700 "experts" listed in the appendix, Bill Clinton Ranks 38th out of 41 in "character and integrity," while Calvin Coolidge ranks 21st. Will Taft ranks 30th in "political skill," and so on.

This is interesting, if flawed, subjective, and everything else you might say about such a list. Unfortunately, the editors had another 300 pages to fill, and didn't take advantage of the opportunity. The rest of the book is a series of short biographical essays on each of the Presidents. And although the book might qualify as a Handy Reference, it's still pretty lame. Most of the essays are badly written, and they include all the hackneyed phrases and events that surround each President.

The writers tried to weave the Presidential ratings and comments from the "experts" into each essay, but they did a lousy job. Instead of providing fresh analysis, they tacked on some information about the poll into a standard, clichéd biography on each President. Any history undergraduate could have written these essays, with a single biography of each President as their only guide. That's probably what these guys did.

In the final analysis, the chart does not justify the existence of this book. The authors should have simply published the results of their survey in a magazine.

A great book that had so many facts about the presidents. The best part is the chart at the beginning that was very accurate. I really enjoyed reading it and it will come in handy for years to come. I recommend it to anyone out of all ages who are interested in the presidents.

Rating the Presidents is both a fun and important exercise. Many scholars undertake such an endeavor, and the results posted here are both reasonable and well-supported. The essays on each President tend to be more biographical than evaluative, however. But they are useful in gaining a knowledge of past executives who one may not know much about. The book is also a fairly easy read, and rates each President of the basis of several factors, including Leadership qualities, accomplishments and crisis management, political skill, appointments, and character and integrity. For the most part the rankings seem right on: Few would dispute ranking Lincoln, FDR, and Washington at the top, and Harding, Buchanan, Grant, and Pierce near the bottom. That said, what tends to stand out most in a survey like this are the errors. I believe that Jefferson rates too high (no. 4), perhaps as a result of the great things he did not as president, and perhaps because people tend to underestimate just how big a mistake the Embargo Act was. But by far the biggest problem with the book are the most recent ratings, maybe because the debates are too fresh. Rating Jimmy Carter as the 19th most effective President (out of 41!) is sheer lunacy. Carter gets high ratings in the character department, but he was also dogmatic and inflexible. Another study rated him as the tenth worst president ever. And as many have noted, the low ranking of Reagan is really problematic. Destroying the Soviet Union alone should secure him a very high place, but for some reason he is not credited for this. And Reagan was actually a man of high integrity, despite the scandals within his administration. Finally, Clinton gets rated near the middle, but since this book was written, the Monica Lewinsky scandal erupted, along with the Marc Rich pardon. Furthermore, the economy went into recession as soon as he left office, and the peace process in the Middle East, which he so wanted to leave as his legacy, collapsed into violence. And of course, Clinton bears at least some degree of responsiblity for the unprepared state of affairs that led to 9-11. Perhaps the next edition will cover this ground as well.

Like any such book, this one is highly debatable and clearly subjective and, not surprisingly in my view, plays to the politically correct biases of our time. So while the raters, most of them academics, place FDR second on the all time list, Ronald Reagan, inexplicably, rates 26. What did Reagan do: he was instrumental in winning the Cold War, he rebuilt our defenses, restored national pride, and put in place economic and tax policies that we are still benefiting from. Yes, the deficits were unfortunate, but they were a downpayment on what became one of the greatest victories for freedom. Why, then, does Reagan come off relatively poorly relative to Ike, Kennedy, even Clinton and Bush? The answer, in my view, is because he was an unapologetic conservative who trusted citizens more than government. Still, you can enjoy debating the content of this book.

on the market at the same time. Ultimately subjective, but the top 10 & bottom 10 won't vary much book to book. The authors & their 700 plus historians are 20th century men & women. Many of them have their own agendas & are judging 18th & 19th century men. The times a president is elected to has everything to do with his rating. Does he rise (or fall) to the challenge? Lincoln is always #1. One reason. The Civil War. By far it is the most important event in American history. He suceeded. Nobody can predict where he would rank if the Civil War had been averted. It would not be #1. This book has good pictures so that student can get a good look at their presidents. It is useful as a reference book on the high school level.