Customer Reviews

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

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

Wikipedia's article "Historical Rankings of United States Presidents" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.

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.

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.

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.

In his book, "Recarving Rushmore," Ivan Eland uses a different procedure in measuring the "greatness" of each of our Presidents, not including President Obama, who has not yet finished his term in office. Where most historians have rated Presidents on such characteristics as their charisma, their ability to push their programs through Congress, and how they dealt with crisis situations, especially war, Eland feels that they SHOULD be measured on how good their legislation was for the country, how well they stuck to their job description as outlined in the U.S. Constitution, and how they limited Big Government in general (or NOT), as well as whether they used our military might for peace or otherwise. According to these, in my opinion, more important and relevant criteria, Eland comes up with some real surprises. Interesting, well researched, and well written, but goes against many of the common perceptions the general public has about the subject, especially those that have been spread by the mainstream media over the years. Read it!

"Redcarving Rushmore" is worth the read simply for it's perspective. It shifts the lighting on its subject,American presidents,bringing out different features, different shadows. Eland credits presidents for their restraint in expanding the role of the office and, especially, in taking the country to war. Most historians take a different view,rewarding aggressive presidents,especially in undertaking progressive goals, and assuming that war is one of the essentail tests in order to achieve greatness. One does not have to agree with the premise to enjoy the results; the list is nearly reversed in order from the one we are all familiar with. It's hard to surpress a smile at seeing Tyler, Cleveland, Van Buren and Hayes at the top and Polk, McKinley, Truman and Wilson at the bottom. Eland may be a libertarian, but his approach is not partisan. Carter and Clinton rank quite high and Reagan and both W and HW Bush are ranked low. Eland knows his subject well, certainly well enough to make his argument. The scholarship quibbles made in some of the other reviews, even if they are right, are far less important than the benefit of the exercise of using different and, at least, perfectly legitimate standards in measuring presidents. I do not agree with all the assumptions and certainlhy disagree with many of the conclusions, but I find myself thinking differently about the evaluation process. Only a few of the books I read every year change my mode of thinking. This is one of them.

"Recarving Rushmore" provides an interesting counterweight to the usual surveys ranking U.S. Presidents on their "greatness," as Eland basically favors those Presidents who did little while in office, preferring instead to let events run their course with little or no intervention. This yields some counter-intuitive results; the notion that John Tyler and Grover Cleveland were our best Presidents is a bit startling. He's at his best when pointing out the transgressions against liberty by such revered Presidents as Lincoln and Wilson, and weakest when giving kudos to those Presidents usually forgotten or passed over in the conventional history books. I certainly would not recommend "Recarving Rushmore" as the ONLY book one should own on this subject, but it's a good source of rebuttals to the spate of Lincoln-worship we are subjected to every February. I'd give it 3.5 stars if Amazon allowed half-star ratings.

Ivan Eland's work on the history of presidents in light of the concepts of freedom, liberty and prosperity would make people think no matter what political philosophy one holds onto. A conservative would cheer at seeing FDR getting roasted by Mr. Eland, but will cringe at his beatdown on conservative icon Ronald Reagan. That Bill Clinton is treated so kindly would brighten the liberal's opinion of Mr. Eland, but will frown on his excoriation of John F. Kennedy.

In filtering my outlook of this book, I can think about the Kings of Judah and Israel who were supposed to uphold the laws of God, but failed to one extent of another. I can equate Jefferson's failure to uphold his own Constitutional philosophy with King David's failures as a king who was after God's own heart. All of us have moral failings and all of our presidents did as well.

As I grow more libertarian in my outlook, I have come to embrace Mr. Eland's belief that many of our wars have had disasterous consequences on the freedom and liberties of our nation. The Constitution is in danger of disappearing if not gone already due to the overreach of our imperial government. A wonderful book in my opinion despite some his statements regarding abortion and gay marriage, stuff that shouldn't have been brought into the federal realm in the first place had it not been for the meddling of the Supreme Court. The 10th Amendment and the statments expressed by James Madison in Federalist No. 45 should give the states that right to cover these issues.

Five stars for this book.

As a libertarian, I purchased this book hoping to glean new insights into the American presidents and which ones stayed true to the Constitution and which ones strayed far from it. As I read the introduction, I grew very excited, because his formula for deciding on Presidential greatness was decided on Peace, Prosperity and Liberty, and I thought I would begin to read a well-thought out summary of each president and his policies. Instead, I was greatly disappointed with the author and his assertions.

His conclusions for each president and their rank are very arbitrary and not backed by reality. Instead, each president seems placed in their ranks by mere whim. On many historical issues, the author takes a very different take on history, and assuring that each instance is true without explaining why.

For instance, take Martin Van Buren, who presided over the Depression of 1837. Martin Van Buren is rated very favorably in the author's system because he didn't condone any government intervention to help save a flagging economy. As a libertarian, I agree with Van Buren's policy, but the author takes as fact that Van Buren's non-intervention helped save the economy since it allowed the business sector to fix things on it's own. While that very well may be the case, it is hard to state as fact something that we can never know and only suppose. It took 6 years for the economy to recover, when the depression ended in 1943. So to say Van Buren's policies worked is a great stretch of logic.

Now take Lincoln. He is ranked very poorly among presidents using this system. And while I agree his policies were very close to dictatorial, the author goes farther to say that Lincoln instigated the Civil War and is responsible for America's bloodiest era. Never mind that the issue of slavery was boiling over ever since the Constitution was written by the founders, and any legislation passed (The Missouri Compromise, The Compromise of 1850 etc.) only seemed to push back the war indefinitely until the kettle exploded in Lincoln's face. According to the author, the correct way for any president to have acted in the face of southern secession was to let the South go peacefully, and provide a haven for blacks who escaped from slavery, thereby eventually draining the South of their entire slave population. Now this theory of a possible solution to the slavery problem just seems extremely naive and unrealistic. I believe that the Constitution gave the federal government the right to preserve the Union and go to war, to protect federal property when Fort Sumter was attacked, etc. The author even agrees with this assessment, but just goes on to say that Lincoln could have avoided war by letting the South secede. I just can't agree with him here. He even goes on to say that Lincoln's generals violated the Geneva Conventions of 1864 when they burned the South. He neglects to mention that the USA didn't sign those conventions until Chester Arthur's term in office and thereby the USA wasn't bound by them. While I agree the burning of the South must have been horrendous, you really can't claim they were in violation of something that did not pertain to the US at the time. That assertion is just disingenuous and serves to mislead the readers of his book.

There are many more cases that I don't have the space to outline here. While I can agree with the author's rankings with possibly a few exceptions, his reasonings behind these assertions seem to be highly whimsical and not based on historical fact. It was as if he sat down with a pen and paper and decided which presidents he liked best and which he reviled the most, then came up with reasons to back his claims posthumously.

I don't recommend this book to anyone, even to libertarians who the book is geared to. I imagine you will be highly disappointed in the end.

Fascinating that so many people react strongly because of their existing prejudices and expectations, and criticize the author for his. My issue with the book is that it's not done very well. His thesis is not consistent, his logic is flawed and his writing is marginal. His conclusions derive well enough from his inconsistent thesis and his variable logic. Unlike so many who wanted to find validation for their own opinions and were frustrated when they did not find them, I had no expectations from this book, but hoped that I might learn something new, a different way to consider history. In that I was, as others have been, frustrated. Nothing to see here; move along.