|
In fact, some of our Presidents who were perceived as average were rated much higher according to this system. The author identified historical circumstance and then reviewed the behavior of our Presidents. I HIGHLY RECOMMEND IT. VERY INTERESTING READING. The author established an insightful ranking system based on CHARACTER, VISION, COMPETENCE, ECONOMIC POLICY, EXTENDING LIBERTY, AND NATIONAL SECURITY. It is fascinating to read how and why he ranked the effectiveness of each of our Presidents in these categories.
I was surprised to find he was into the incestuous cross-marketing culture of "historical" writers. You have to study the political, international and economic circumstances of their administrations. There are many worthwhile books on those subjects with far greater merit than this.I bought the book because of the favorable comment by a real historian and excellent writer, James McPherson. I only made it halfway through this ranking of the presidents, not according to some supposedly systematic criteria, but instead the author's banal stream of consciousness. He has certainly sullied his reputation in my eyes with his endorsement of this flimsy effort. I say this even though I agree with many of his conclusions.Not recommended. It's a casual narrative, sometimes aimless and often historically simplistic. If you want to understand the presidents, there are no shortcuts.
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. That would make for some very interesting reading--a great supplement to a very good book. He does a good job at assessing not only the immediate but also the long-term impacts of a president's policies. 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. Jackson, for example, suffers much in this regard.
Felzenberg's assessments, it's difficult to dislike a book like this one. The presidents he chooses to discuss in each chapter seem haphazard at times. 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. 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. His chapter on preserving and extending liberty focuses almost exclusively on the rights extended to African Americans. All of the analysis is Felzenberg's own so it reflects his own prejudices.
It completely depends on how you interpret things. And Felzenberg has given us a fresh approach. He is also very good at giving us some background on most of the presidents. Despite his attempts at objectivity, he's clearly a fan of certain presidents and not fans of others. 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. Whether you agree or disagree with Prof.
But let's not fool ourselves. I liked that he rated Grant and Truman high. It's clever, actually. While this is important, issues like the Alien and Sedition Acts, immigration policies, womens rights and suspension of habeas corpus surely deserved more discussion. Bush since his administration wasn't complete by the writing of the book, he clearly seems to favor him. Everyone, whether a history buff or not, enjoys the presidential rating game. And, though he doesn't rate G.W. I like that he didn't give into the Nixon revisionism and kept him near the bottom.
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. His chapter on economic policy clearly favors Reagan's ideas as opposed to FDR's. On the other hand, I think he overrates presidents Teddy Roosevelt and underrates Clinton. 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. Again, his categories are interesting but almost impossible to apply in advance. get most of the pages). 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. Instead of just giving us the results of some survey of opinions, he makes an attempt to quantify his results.
For example, I like that he gives serious attention to Washington's achievements as president. The game is rigged. 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). (Still, Lincoln, Washington, the Roosevelts, etc.
His main economic reference was Milton Friedman. 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.
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). Likewise, Wilson and Jackson are marked down because of their racist policies.
I was inspired to read this book based on the very mixed reviews here. The author proves that he is not just a knee-jerk conservative.
It is probably impossible for one person to write a completely unbiased book on this topic. 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.
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.
I found his reviews instructive and highly interesting. Felzenberg does not play that game. In other words actual performance in office by a president is less important that how the professor/historian himself votes.
Felzenberg undertakes to rate US presidents by establishing standards in certain areas, such as Character, Vision, National Security and others. Their results leave me too often believing that the standards are determined by how liberal or conservative a president has been. In this book Dr.
By their definition liberal is good and conservative, bad. This is an excellent book and I recommend it very highly. 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.
|
