Recarving Rushmore: Ranking the Presidents on Peace, Prosperity, and Liberty (Independent Studies in Political Economy) [Hardcover]

Ivan Eland (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: January 9, 2009 | ISBN-10: 1598130226 | ISBN-13: 978-1598130225 | Edition: 1

Profiling each president on the merits of their policies and on the core principles of peace, prosperity, and liberty, this ranking system takes a distinctly new approach. Historians and scholars have long tended to respect the war heroes and men who have succeeded in expanding the power of the executive office. However, this new examination cuts through longstanding bias and political rhetoric to offer a new nonpartisan system of ranking that is based purely on strength of policies and adherence to the Founding Father’s guidelines for limited government. These rankings will surprise most and enlighten even acknowledged experts on the presidency.

Editorial Reviews

Review

"While conventional accounts glorify the flagrant misdeeds of the ‘Imperial Presidency,’ this insightful and crucial book provides an inspiring vision for both conservatives and liberals on the crucial need to reign in White House power and restore peace, prosperity and liberty."  —Ron Paul, U.S. Congressman

"According to American historians, the best presidents get us into the biggest wars, impose the most interventionist economic policies, and trample civil liberties by expanding executive power beyond what the Constitution permits. Eland makes a novel proposal: Why not rank presidents according to the traditional American values of peace, prosperity and liberty? Read this important new book and find out why John Tyler may be America's greatest president!"  —Thomas DiLorenzo, professor of economics, Loyola College, Maryland; author, The Real Lincoln, Lincoln Unmasked, and Hamilton's Curse: How Jefferson's Archenemy Betrayed the American Revolution

"A much-needed corrective to the American history we are all taught in our schools. We are propagandized to adulate all American presidents regardless of what their record might have been. Dr. Eland has provided a far more accurate account of the actions of these men (and they are indeed men, not gods). Historians who are dedicated to the truth are indebted to him for his efforts.”
—Ronald Hamowy, professor emeritus of history, University of Alberta, Canada

"A 'very good' collection of concise assessments of each administration's domestic, defense and foreign policies. This book is 'better' in terms of the analysis of each administration's role in an evolving process of shaping the legacy of prior administrations for their successors.  And the book is 'best' in the ways it provides insights into how a libertarian perspective on these issues is meaningful for the broader policy debates. Hence this volume's focus concurrently warrants the praise: 'Very Good, Better, and Best.'"  —Edward A. Olsen, emeritus professor, National Security Affairs, Naval Postgraduate School

"Judging presidents by a deceptively simple metric—their impact on peace, prosperity and liberty—leads Eland to reach radical conclusions about the rankings of presidents. Whether you agree that Coolidge was a good president and FDR a bad one, you'll never again glibly think that it is obvious which presidents are good or bad. It isn't—and Eland shows us why."  —Richard Shenkman, editor, History News Network; author, Just How Stupid Are We: Facing the Truth About the American Voter, Presidential Ambition: Gaining Power At Any Cost, and Legends, Lies, and Cherished Myths of American History

"Colorful, entertaining, and profound. Ivan Eland shatters the grand illusion that great presidents are those who wage war or deprive people of their liberty, either here or abroad. This new 'gold standard' for measuring presidential performance will upend what we 'know' about 'great' presidents and will challenge your view of political history, one president at a time."  —Jonathan Bean, professor of history, Southern Illinois University

"By focusing on peace, prosperity, and liberty, Recarving Rushmore moves us miles closer to a proper evaluation of America's presidents—especially those of the 20th century—than the hallowed (but misleading) Schlesinger poll of prominent historians. Eland makes an eloquent and persuasive case, for example, that Harding and Coolidge were better presidents than were FDR and LBJ."  —Burton W. Folsom, Charles F. Kline Chair in History, Hillsdale College; author, New Deal or Raw Deal? How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America

"Well-written and fascinating, Recarving Rushmore provides a long-overdue reassessment of the actual record of all U.S. presidents. Thanks to Ivan Eland's efforts, the traditional classroom narrative of our 'great presidents' and their glorious deeds lies in well-deserved ruin."  —Thomas E. Woods, Jr., senior fellow, Ludwig von Mises Institute; author, The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History and 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask

About the Author

Ivan Eland is a senior fellow and director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute. A leading expert on defense issues, he is a frequent guest on ABC, NPR, CNN, Fox News and the BBC, and is the author of The Empire Has No Clothes. He lives in Washington, DC.

Product Details

• Hardcover: 448 pages
• Publisher: Independent Institute; 1 edition (January 9, 2009)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1598130226
• ISBN-13: 978-1598130225
• Product Dimensions: 6 x 1.5 x 9 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.8 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.7 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (18 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #754,803 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

51 of 52 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars Is Grover Cleveland a "great" president and Woodrow Wilson a "bad" one? See why it might be so.... January 13, 2009

By K. M. VINE™ VOICE

Format:Hardcover|Amazon Verified Purchase

Wikipedia's article "Historical Rankings of United States Presidents" ([...]) features a spreadsheet of twelve scholarly surveys. In general, the presidents were judged on "achievements, leadership qualities, failures and faults (such as corruption)." Consistently topping the lists were Lincoln, Washington, FDR, and Jefferson, with conservative and liberals disagreeing only on the placements of our 1st and 32nd presidents.
Ivan Eland questions the criteria used in these conventional rankings. In his RECARVING RUSHMORE, his Introduction states that undesirable biases shape surveys conducted by such as the Siena Research Institute. There is the "effectiveness bias" which supposedly focuses on a president's ability to get his programs enacted while not weighing the value of the programs. In other words, action trumps judgment. Then Eland mentions biases for "charisma," "service during a crisis" (i.e., war or depression), and "activism."

Eland wants to evaluate presidents on other criteria, namely, how well they procured or perpetuated peace, prosperity, and liberty. His rankings "reflect the degree to which presidents upheld the founders' original vision of a limited federal government with an appropriately constrained executive" although Eland concedes that "each president has to be evaluated at his point in time" and "cannot be blamed for the size of government he inherited or the power he was expected to wield at the time he took office." Still, the idea is to assess the presidents on whether they avoided "wars of choice;" whether their economic policies contributed to prosperity; and whether they respected the constitution, checks and balances on their office, and individual freedoms....

The resulting Eland ranking is consequently radically different from the Siena (2002) or Wall Street Journal (2006) surveys reprinted in RECARVING RUSHMORE for comparison. Among the Eland "Excellent" presidents is Grover Cleveland (#2). He ranks at #12 in WSJ and at #20 in Siena. Bill Clinton comes in at #11 (Eland), but at #22 (WSJ) and at #18 (Siena). George W. Bush registers close to the bottom with Eland (#36) whereas he fared somewhat better with WSJ (#19) and Siena (#23).

The bulk of RECARVING RUSHMORE consists of chapters on each president examining his record on peace, prosperity, and liberty. Woodrow Wilson's chapter, for instance, naturally discusses his entry into World War I at length and is labeled the "Most Interventionist President in U.S. History." He also scores poorly for prosperity because he pursued "an activist domestic agenda contrary to the history of the Democratic Party, which has been a bastion of small government." Likewise, Wilson received low marks for liberty because his policies eroded civil liberties and because to him "some racial groups were more equal than others." These chapters are invaluable as a means of viewing the presidents from perspectives seldom published.

RECARVING RUSHMORE is a contrarian reevaluation of presidential contributions. And it is precisely for this reason that it ought to be widely read (or at the very least studiously browsed) and its conclusions debated. Eland has supported his rankings with solid arguments and a definite and distinctive philosophy about what Americans ought to look for and value in men and women they choose to hold the office of President of the United States. Recommended. 4.5 stars. Read more ›

24 of 25 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars Important, Thought provoking February 22, 2009

By Thomas Ross

Format:Hardcover|Amazon Verified Purchase

This is an important and thought provoking book. The author clearly has a detailed understanding of US Presidential history as well as a sound understanding of economics, and uses that knowledge to rank the Presidents by the degree to which they tried to advance peace, prosperity, liberty, and their adherance to the Constitution. The result is enlightening; but also sure to create debate over the resulting ranking. He is careful to explain that his ranking is based upon the actions and results of the Presidents while in office, not before or after. He also doesn't demand that later day Presidents strictly uphold the Constitution, only that they try to move in the right direction within their abilities to do so. This results in, for instance, Jefferson being ranked in the bottom 20, while Ford, Carter, and Clinton are in the top 20. This, despite the fact that Jefferson was fully concious of the original meaning of the Constitution and understood full well his limitations under it. He agonized over the unconstitionality of the Louisiana Purchase and sucessfully reduced the size and scope of government to adhere to its Constitional limits. Yes, he abused his power in regards to the embargo and Native Americans; but should his Presidency be judjed more harshly than the modern Presidents who seem so utterly ignorant of and disinterested in Constitutional government? Jefferson's America was flawed by his inconsistancies; but it was a society in which government was all but non-existant in the daily lives of most people. The government of the modern Presidents is all intrusive. Each reader will need to wrestle with these issues. It is to Mr. Eland's credit that he kindled this debate.

17 of 18 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars How Presidents Run the Country -- into the Ground May 7, 2009

By Nathan Stewart

Format:Hardcover

This book presents a refreshing evaluation of the presidents. As someone who has studied presidents for quite some time, I found myself agreeing with most of the book's assessments, as if I had written the book myself. I always thought John Tyler, Grover Cleveland, Martin Van Buren, and Warren G. Harding were criminally underrated and that the so-called greats -- Lincoln, Wilson, Reagan, FDR -- were merely cold-blooded, excellent politicians who were blessed with the mantle of greatness not because of their dubious leadership but because they knew how to sell themselves. This book illustrates how the so-called greats were great only in the extent that they harmed the country's prosperity and liberty.

9 of 9 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars Food for Thought September 5, 2010

By Sissy Sue

Format:Hardcover|Amazon Verified Purchase

For those of us who are sick and tired of presidents being rewarded by historians for forswearing their vows to uphold the Constitution, Ivan Eland's book is refreshing.

Too often, a president is ranked by his activism. If he was a war president or a president who expanded the powers of the presidency beyond the scope of the Constitution, he is ranked higher than one who presided over a time of peace or who restrained his power by the judicious belief that "the government that governs best governs least." This has led us to the Imperial Presidency, whereby the president rules by executive order, initiates war by circumventing Congress, involves our country in "entangling foreign alliances," and authorizes bureaucracies within the federal government to bridle the liberty of American citizens. This is not freedom; this is an excuse for freedom, and our Constitution is "irrelevant" only to those who hope to profit by undermining it.

Eland's appraisal of the presidents is based on their performance in three significant areas: Peace, Prosperity, and Liberty. So different is this measurement from those of other American historians that one might be shocked to see John Tyler, Grover Cleveland, Martin Van Buren, and Rutherford B. Hayes in the "Excellent" category. Of these four, only Grover Cleveland is customarily ranked high by other historians.

Note that Eland's highest ranking is "Excellent," not "Great." This was undoubtedly purposeful, as "Great" is an adjective which is generally attached to the man, not to his performance. Eland is not dazzled by the Cult of the Personality. He doesn't grade presidents on their charisma, or charm.... The lure of the Cult of Personality is dangerous for our Republic, as men with personal magnetism have often led their countries to despotism.

Those who are fond of wrapping themselves in the American flag are not necessarily the friends of the ideals upon which our Republic was founded. Our public schools often do not teach young people to respect the ideals upon which the Republic was founded. The proof of this is the fact that Abraham Lincoln is traditionally held up as some kind of saint, the greatness to which other American presidents should aspire. However, he was not as enlightened and freedom-loving as we have been taught to believe, and it is high time that the myths surrounding his sainthood were dispelled. Nonetheless, he fares better in Eland's estimation than one might think, although he still falls within the "Bad" category. The worst presidents, from Eland's perspective, were Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman, William McKinley, James Polk, and George W. Bush, all of whom advanced American imperialism beyond the scope of the Constitution.

The most important passage in the book, however, comes not from Eland but from John O. McGinnis, a professor of law at Northwestern University, who states that a president such as Coolidge can never be considered great, because "he was never tested by a substantial foreign war." This should chill the blood of every American who is of military age, or who has loved ones who are. Presidents spend their first term in office learning the ropes, so they are generally not as dangerous then as they are when they are re-elected to a second term. It is during their second term that they give more thought to their legacy, and, if they are guided by historians such as McGinnis, they will consider war just one means of enhancing their reputations -- at the expense of Americans who have to fight and die for the reputations of those presidents who send them out to war. This is not dying for freedom; this is dying for one's king and country. The so-called "great" presidents who led their nation into war are rewarded by history for putting military men and women in harm's way, and have left in their wake disabled soldiers and grieving loved ones. Their suffering becomes those presidents' glory.

When we elevate our Presidents to some superhuman level, where they are made larger than life and are considered beyond the law and beyond criticism, they might as well be kings. We forget that Teddy Roosevelt (an egotist if there ever was one) warned: "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president , or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

Eland has done us a great service by showing us just how far our presidents have strayed from the Constitution and its limits upon presidential power. Read more ›