What do you think?
Rate this book
Where They Stand: The American Presidents in the Eyes of Voters and Historians
For the 2012 presidential race, the author of the acclaimed and successful biography of President James Polk offers a fresh, playful, and challenging way of playing “Rating the Presidents”—America’s favorite game—by pitching historians’ views and subsequent experts’ polls against the judgment and votes of the presidents’ own contemporaries.
The author of the acclaimed biography of President James Polk, A Country of Vast Designs, offers a fresh, playful, and challenging way of playing “Rating the Presidents,” by pitching historians’ views and subsequent experts’ polls against the judgment and votes of the presidents’ own contemporaries.
Merry posits that presidents rise and fall based on performance, as judged by the electorate. Thus, he explores the presidency by comparing the judgments of historians with how the voters saw things. Was the president reelected? If so, did his party hold office in the next election?
Where They Stand examines the chief executives Merry calls “Men of Destiny,’’ those who set the country toward new directions. There are six of them, including the three nearly always at the top of all academic polls—Lincoln, Washington, and FDR. He describes the “Split-Decision Presidents’’ (including Wilson and Nixon)—successful in their first terms and reelected; less successful in their second terms and succeeded by the opposition party. He describes the “Near Greats’’ (Jefferson, Jackson, Polk, TR, Truman), the “War Presidents’’ (Madison, McKinley, Lyndon Johnson), the flat-out failures (Buchanan, Pierce), and those whose standing has fluctuated (Grant, Cleveland, Eisenhower).
This voyage through our history provides a probing and provocative analysis of how presidential politics works and how the country sets its course. Where They Stand invites readers to pitch their opinions against the voters of old, the historians, the pollsters—and against the author himself. In this year of raucous presidential politics, Where They Stand will provide a context for the unfolding campaign drama.
The author of the acclaimed biography of President James Polk, A Country of Vast Designs, offers a fresh, playful, and challenging way of playing “Rating the Presidents,” by pitching historians’ views and subsequent experts’ polls against the judgment and votes of the presidents’ own contemporaries.
Merry posits that presidents rise and fall based on performance, as judged by the electorate. Thus, he explores the presidency by comparing the judgments of historians with how the voters saw things. Was the president reelected? If so, did his party hold office in the next election?
Where They Stand examines the chief executives Merry calls “Men of Destiny,’’ those who set the country toward new directions. There are six of them, including the three nearly always at the top of all academic polls—Lincoln, Washington, and FDR. He describes the “Split-Decision Presidents’’ (including Wilson and Nixon)—successful in their first terms and reelected; less successful in their second terms and succeeded by the opposition party. He describes the “Near Greats’’ (Jefferson, Jackson, Polk, TR, Truman), the “War Presidents’’ (Madison, McKinley, Lyndon Johnson), the flat-out failures (Buchanan, Pierce), and those whose standing has fluctuated (Grant, Cleveland, Eisenhower).
This voyage through our history provides a probing and provocative analysis of how presidential politics works and how the country sets its course. Where They Stand invites readers to pitch their opinions against the voters of old, the historians, the pollsters—and against the author himself. In this year of raucous presidential politics, Where They Stand will provide a context for the unfolding campaign drama.
320 pages, Hardcover
First published June 26, 2012
28 people are currently reading
316 people want to read
About the author
Robert W. Merry
22 books51 followersRobert W. Merry is an American journalist, publishing executive, commentator, and author. He is the editor of The American Conservative.
Robert W. Merry was born in 1946 in Tacoma, WA. He served three years in the U.S. Army, including two years as a counterintelligence special agent in West Germany. He graduated from the University of Washington with a bachelor's degree in journalism in 1968 and earned a master's degree from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism in 1972.
Merry started his career as a reporter for The Denver Post and became a Washington-based political reporter in 1974 when he joined the staff of the National Observer, a Dow Jones weekly newspaper. When the Observer folded in 1977, he became a reporter for The Wall Street Journal, and spent twelve years there covering Congress, national politics, and the White House, among other beats. In 1987 Merry became managing editor of Congressional Quarterly. He was promoted to Executive Editor in 1990 and became President and Editor-in-Chief in 1997. He held that position for 12 years and led CQ into the digital age.
Robert W. Merry was born in 1946 in Tacoma, WA. He served three years in the U.S. Army, including two years as a counterintelligence special agent in West Germany. He graduated from the University of Washington with a bachelor's degree in journalism in 1968 and earned a master's degree from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism in 1972.
Merry started his career as a reporter for The Denver Post and became a Washington-based political reporter in 1974 when he joined the staff of the National Observer, a Dow Jones weekly newspaper. When the Observer folded in 1977, he became a reporter for The Wall Street Journal, and spent twelve years there covering Congress, national politics, and the White House, among other beats. In 1987 Merry became managing editor of Congressional Quarterly. He was promoted to Executive Editor in 1990 and became President and Editor-in-Chief in 1997. He held that position for 12 years and led CQ into the digital age.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 46 reviews
April 27, 2016
Ranking of presidents began with Arthur Schlesinger’s polling of historians in 1948. It was revived in 1996 by his son Arthur Schlesinger Jr. who commissioned a poll of 32 participants. There were many other ratings which are discussed in detail. They were all similar in that they ranked Lincoln, Washington and Roosevelt as greats.
What seems to be the best way to rank the presidents is to use The 13 Keys to the Presidency by Allen Lichtman and Ken DeCell. The author uses these keys extensively. The most important key to success was a President who was not only reelected himself but is succeeded by a President of his own party. These Presidents include Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Lincoln, Grant, McKinley, T Roosevelt, Coolidge, F Roosevelt and Reagan. That is a pretty good list of good or great presidents, in my opinion.
He categorizes the presidents into “War and Peace”, “Split decision presidents” and “Leaders of Destiny Presidents.”
The War and Peace Presidents include: Madison, Polk, Lincoln, McKinley, Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson, Nixon, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush and Obama.
The split decision presidents are presidents who were reelected but failed to produce a president from the same party to follow.
They include: Wilson, Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Clinton, and George W. Bush.
The Leaders of Destiny President’s include Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Franklin Roosevelt. These presidents’s have set the direction of American history.
The author, Robert Merry, talks about most of the Presidents. I am going to focus on only a few.
The 1975 book “Fathers and Children: Andrew Jackson and the subjugation of the American Indian” by Michael Paul Rogin ruined President Jackson’s reputation by focusing on injustices done to Native Americans. It neglected to point out that the Trail of tears Indian relocation was done to protect the Indians from angry white settlers. At the time of Indian removal, one out of every 10 white families had been attacked by Indians. Jackson feared a severe rebuttal was brewing.
Woodrow Wilson reduced tariffs, created the Federal Reserve and introduced the graduated income tax. He also pushed through the Clayton Anti-trust Act which slowed down unfair business practices. He also created the Federal Trade Commission. However Wilson’s second term was less favorable to him. The American public, for the most part, did not buy his rational for its entrance into WWI. To make matters worse the economy nose dived at the end of his term.
When President Reagan took office the country was suffering. Unemployment was at 7.4%, the GDP declined by 1.5%, interest rates were at 21% and inflation sat at the extremely high rate of 13%. The President responded by cutting top income tax rates from 70% to 50%. The results, four years later, were evident. The country had experienced 25 straight months of economic growth. The GDP grew to a robust 6.2% and 7.3 million new jobs were created. In 1986 the President reduced top rates form 50% to 28%. When President Reagan left office the GDP had grown by 3.4% a year, inflation nearly disappeared at just 3% and unemployment had reached a 14 year low at 5.5%. One of the only just criticisms of President Reagan were the large budget deficits that came with the strong economy. However, when the author looked at them he found that they were decreasing as Reagan’s tenure was ending due to the great economic activity which took place.
President George H W Bush raised the top rate up to 31% in the 1990 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. What followed was an annual growth rate below 1%. This doomed his reelection despite reaching the highest ever recorded approval rating of 90% near the beginning of his term.
This is a great book for anyone who wants to learn more about the leaders of the greatest country that ever existed.
What seems to be the best way to rank the presidents is to use The 13 Keys to the Presidency by Allen Lichtman and Ken DeCell. The author uses these keys extensively. The most important key to success was a President who was not only reelected himself but is succeeded by a President of his own party. These Presidents include Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Lincoln, Grant, McKinley, T Roosevelt, Coolidge, F Roosevelt and Reagan. That is a pretty good list of good or great presidents, in my opinion.
He categorizes the presidents into “War and Peace”, “Split decision presidents” and “Leaders of Destiny Presidents.”
The War and Peace Presidents include: Madison, Polk, Lincoln, McKinley, Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson, Nixon, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush and Obama.
The split decision presidents are presidents who were reelected but failed to produce a president from the same party to follow.
They include: Wilson, Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Clinton, and George W. Bush.
The Leaders of Destiny President’s include Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Franklin Roosevelt. These presidents’s have set the direction of American history.
The author, Robert Merry, talks about most of the Presidents. I am going to focus on only a few.
The 1975 book “Fathers and Children: Andrew Jackson and the subjugation of the American Indian” by Michael Paul Rogin ruined President Jackson’s reputation by focusing on injustices done to Native Americans. It neglected to point out that the Trail of tears Indian relocation was done to protect the Indians from angry white settlers. At the time of Indian removal, one out of every 10 white families had been attacked by Indians. Jackson feared a severe rebuttal was brewing.
Woodrow Wilson reduced tariffs, created the Federal Reserve and introduced the graduated income tax. He also pushed through the Clayton Anti-trust Act which slowed down unfair business practices. He also created the Federal Trade Commission. However Wilson’s second term was less favorable to him. The American public, for the most part, did not buy his rational for its entrance into WWI. To make matters worse the economy nose dived at the end of his term.
When President Reagan took office the country was suffering. Unemployment was at 7.4%, the GDP declined by 1.5%, interest rates were at 21% and inflation sat at the extremely high rate of 13%. The President responded by cutting top income tax rates from 70% to 50%. The results, four years later, were evident. The country had experienced 25 straight months of economic growth. The GDP grew to a robust 6.2% and 7.3 million new jobs were created. In 1986 the President reduced top rates form 50% to 28%. When President Reagan left office the GDP had grown by 3.4% a year, inflation nearly disappeared at just 3% and unemployment had reached a 14 year low at 5.5%. One of the only just criticisms of President Reagan were the large budget deficits that came with the strong economy. However, when the author looked at them he found that they were decreasing as Reagan’s tenure was ending due to the great economic activity which took place.
President George H W Bush raised the top rate up to 31% in the 1990 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. What followed was an annual growth rate below 1%. This doomed his reelection despite reaching the highest ever recorded approval rating of 90% near the beginning of his term.
This is a great book for anyone who wants to learn more about the leaders of the greatest country that ever existed.
January 1, 2021
As the current presidential administration comes to a close, it seems an appropriate time to wonder how it will be remembered by history. Robert Merry's book, written back in 2012, doesn't really provide any direct answers. But it's a fascinating look at how presidential reputations have risen, fallen or calcified over the years.
The hook of "Where They Stand" is the various surveys that are conducted from time to time, in which historians and others are asked to rank the presidents from best to worst. Merry's book is like a meta-ranking - he doesn't attempt to rank the presidents himself, but instead tracks how presidents have changed positions on those lists over the years, and why.
The book is at its strongest when it focuses in on the historiography of presidential reputations. Sometimes new information comes to light, new perspectives take hold, or a popular biography is written (i.e. Truman, Grant), that causes a president to rise in the rankings. Other times, this can work the other way (i.e. Jackson), as presidents once seen favorably begin to lose standing in the rankings.
Some chapters of the book that meander from this focus aren't as strong, such as when Merry discusses the creation of the office of the president itself, and when he provides overlong summaries of the successes and failures of our more recent presidents, who haven't really been judged by history yet. Merry displays his own political views at times, devoting a considerable amount of space to defending the reputations of Nixon, Harding and Reagan. But he cleverly insulates himself from any criticism or accusations of bias, by explaining that the whole point of his exercise is to discuss people's opinions about our presidents - so he's just providing his own, and invites readers to disagree if they'd like.
So as a tumultuous presidential administration comes to a close, it invites the obvious question of how Trump will be ranked in future best-and-worst lists. Merry acknowledges that it will probably take a generation or more for history to pass judgment in a dispassionate way on our most current presidents. But he offered his own early opinions, in an article for the Sunday Times published not long after the 2020 election. "History will not be kind to this man," he wrote about Trump. "Most likely it will not place him at the bottom of the heap with James Buchanan, Warren Harding, Franklin Pierce and Andrew Johnson. But he will not be much above those losers."
I think that's being too charitable. But to paraphrase Merry, that's just my opinion.
The hook of "Where They Stand" is the various surveys that are conducted from time to time, in which historians and others are asked to rank the presidents from best to worst. Merry's book is like a meta-ranking - he doesn't attempt to rank the presidents himself, but instead tracks how presidents have changed positions on those lists over the years, and why.
The book is at its strongest when it focuses in on the historiography of presidential reputations. Sometimes new information comes to light, new perspectives take hold, or a popular biography is written (i.e. Truman, Grant), that causes a president to rise in the rankings. Other times, this can work the other way (i.e. Jackson), as presidents once seen favorably begin to lose standing in the rankings.
Some chapters of the book that meander from this focus aren't as strong, such as when Merry discusses the creation of the office of the president itself, and when he provides overlong summaries of the successes and failures of our more recent presidents, who haven't really been judged by history yet. Merry displays his own political views at times, devoting a considerable amount of space to defending the reputations of Nixon, Harding and Reagan. But he cleverly insulates himself from any criticism or accusations of bias, by explaining that the whole point of his exercise is to discuss people's opinions about our presidents - so he's just providing his own, and invites readers to disagree if they'd like.
So as a tumultuous presidential administration comes to a close, it invites the obvious question of how Trump will be ranked in future best-and-worst lists. Merry acknowledges that it will probably take a generation or more for history to pass judgment in a dispassionate way on our most current presidents. But he offered his own early opinions, in an article for the Sunday Times published not long after the 2020 election. "History will not be kind to this man," he wrote about Trump. "Most likely it will not place him at the bottom of the heap with James Buchanan, Warren Harding, Franklin Pierce and Andrew Johnson. But he will not be much above those losers."
I think that's being too charitable. But to paraphrase Merry, that's just my opinion.
May 22, 2022
This book wasn't quite what I was expecting. I thought it would be a ranking of the various Presidents and why the author agreed or disagreed with the rankings after all the book starts out stating that everyone loves to play the ranking game. While there is some of that it isn't the book's focus.
The author takes pains to point out that the historical rankings are lacking since it is only a part of the picture. How well a President does or doesn't do in a historical context doesn't always explain why they may have been considered a success or failure in their own time. So he points out that one should also consider contemporary views as well. Thus a President that may be seen as a success by Historians, may have been considered a failure by the electorate. It is an optimistic book in the view that the author feels that while you may be able to fool the people to the extent that you are elected but the voters won't keep you in power if they feel you are failing to deliver.
The author takes pains to point out that the historical rankings are lacking since it is only a part of the picture. How well a President does or doesn't do in a historical context doesn't always explain why they may have been considered a success or failure in their own time. So he points out that one should also consider contemporary views as well. Thus a President that may be seen as a success by Historians, may have been considered a failure by the electorate. It is an optimistic book in the view that the author feels that while you may be able to fool the people to the extent that you are elected but the voters won't keep you in power if they feel you are failing to deliver.
March 3, 2017
Great reminder of scandals past. Gives you perspective. Helps you sleep at night to see things have gone horribly askew in the past and we moved forward.
November 9, 2012
Because of the 2012 election, I wanted to study up on the hisorical perspective of U.S. Presidents and what rational is used to rank the greatness of these individuals. As I researched this subject, I continued to see the book "Where They Stand" by Robert W. Merry as a new and valuble source. The book is filled with charts and listings of previous polls concerning Presidental ranking. The same polls I found free on the internet. He also proposes a unique rational of evaluating the greatness of a President based on the electorate of the time i.e. if a President is reelected for a second term and his party wins the next election, this could be construed as a strong indication of greatness. I'm not sure I buy this theory. In my mind "popularity" does not necessarily equal "greatness". A great President needs to have a vision to move the country forward and this often means taking a risk and pushing programs or policies that may at the time be unpopular among the electorate. This is why "progressive" Presidents tend to be ranked higher by historians. Presidents who promote a vision to better the country in the long term have a better chance of being viewed as great by history. There were some quotes and details related to past Presidents that I found interesting, but his consistent debate with previous polls and his constant push of Ronald Reagan as a great President became irritating. He has a perspective but didn't sell it to me.
December 11, 2018
Great informative book on past presidents approvals by the voters.
January 15, 2014
I'm no expert on presidential politics, but I find ranking the presidents an intriguing idea. Lincoln, Washington, and FDR are kings of the domain, whereas James Buchanan, Ulysses S. Grant, and Andrew Johnson are the turds in the punch bowl (a bunch of FLOTUS in the POTUS, so to speak [wait what??]). But why is it considered a consensus that the Presidents Roosevelt and the men on our money (except Grant of course) sit atop the power rankings? Is it because all the academics involved are liberal shysters bent on obfuscating the legacy of King Reagan? Or does history and popular thought indeed favor a certain type of leader?
In short, there is truth to both sides of the hyperbole. A few academic surveys have been conducted since 1948 to rank the presidents, and, while the rankings are largely stable, there is some vacillation that matches the ideological fads of the day. For instance, Grover Cleveland saw an unsustainably high ranking in the initial survey, largely due to a favorable biography that was published soon before. And the rankings depend on who you ask; military historians dislike Carter and rate Eisenhower highly, Teddy Roosevelt and James K Polk are voted down by women's historians for their machismo, and Polk & Madison are opposed by specialists in black history (both owned slaves). So, there is a liberal bias in the polls (Reagan is rated lowly by the left and top-ten by the right), but even correcting for that bias yields a surprisingly consistent list.
One parameter for success is the president's popularity via voting record; almost all one-term presidents are considered a flop simply because they couldn't curry enough favor for re-election. However, a second term is not a free pass, as Wilson, Nixon, and George W Bush all experienced a severe downturn in public opinion the second time around. The best were able to maintain momentum and get a member of their party elected following their final term.
The rest of the book is spent dissecting the specifics of the best and worst. Consistently, vision and flexibility are hailed as the hallmarks of greatness, with a healthy dose of luck. Bold domestic programs are a necessity, but they have to be passed and they have to work; Clinton's health care plan is given as an example of an embarrassing misstep. Also, running an endless war on vague terms can sink a leader, as the low opinion of Lyndon Johnson and George W Bush attests. Sometimes, fate intervenes, as it looked like Lincoln was due for a second term defeat until Grant and Sherman scored major victories a month before the election.
In the end, a good president sounds like a good boss: He knows how to motivate you, what you should do, how to react and compromise, and what the project should look like in 6 months and 10 years.
In short, there is truth to both sides of the hyperbole. A few academic surveys have been conducted since 1948 to rank the presidents, and, while the rankings are largely stable, there is some vacillation that matches the ideological fads of the day. For instance, Grover Cleveland saw an unsustainably high ranking in the initial survey, largely due to a favorable biography that was published soon before. And the rankings depend on who you ask; military historians dislike Carter and rate Eisenhower highly, Teddy Roosevelt and James K Polk are voted down by women's historians for their machismo, and Polk & Madison are opposed by specialists in black history (both owned slaves). So, there is a liberal bias in the polls (Reagan is rated lowly by the left and top-ten by the right), but even correcting for that bias yields a surprisingly consistent list.
One parameter for success is the president's popularity via voting record; almost all one-term presidents are considered a flop simply because they couldn't curry enough favor for re-election. However, a second term is not a free pass, as Wilson, Nixon, and George W Bush all experienced a severe downturn in public opinion the second time around. The best were able to maintain momentum and get a member of their party elected following their final term.
The rest of the book is spent dissecting the specifics of the best and worst. Consistently, vision and flexibility are hailed as the hallmarks of greatness, with a healthy dose of luck. Bold domestic programs are a necessity, but they have to be passed and they have to work; Clinton's health care plan is given as an example of an embarrassing misstep. Also, running an endless war on vague terms can sink a leader, as the low opinion of Lyndon Johnson and George W Bush attests. Sometimes, fate intervenes, as it looked like Lincoln was due for a second term defeat until Grant and Sherman scored major victories a month before the election.
In the end, a good president sounds like a good boss: He knows how to motivate you, what you should do, how to react and compromise, and what the project should look like in 6 months and 10 years.
June 12, 2017
US presidents were rated under the following classifications:
1, Great
2. Near Great
3. High or above average
4. Average
5. Low or Below Average
6. Failure
The three consensus Great Presidents were George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Presidents named in the failure category included James Buchanan, Warren Harding, Andrew Johnson and Richard Nixon.
I will rate the Presidents in my lifetime from 1952 to now:
Harry Truman – high or above average
Dwight Eisenhower – average
John F. Kennedy – higher above average
Lyndon Johnson – average ( would have rated higher if not for the Vietnam War)
Richard Nixon – failure
Gerald Ford – average
Jimmy Carter – lower or below average
Ronald Reagan – average
George H Bush – average
Bill Clinton – higher or above average
George W. Bush – low or below average
Barack Obama – high or above average
Donald Trump – headed for Failure
1, Great
2. Near Great
3. High or above average
4. Average
5. Low or Below Average
6. Failure
The three consensus Great Presidents were George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Presidents named in the failure category included James Buchanan, Warren Harding, Andrew Johnson and Richard Nixon.
I will rate the Presidents in my lifetime from 1952 to now:
Harry Truman – high or above average
Dwight Eisenhower – average
John F. Kennedy – higher above average
Lyndon Johnson – average ( would have rated higher if not for the Vietnam War)
Richard Nixon – failure
Gerald Ford – average
Jimmy Carter – lower or below average
Ronald Reagan – average
George H Bush – average
Bill Clinton – higher or above average
George W. Bush – low or below average
Barack Obama – high or above average
Donald Trump – headed for Failure
September 9, 2021
Recommended.
A book that is more than the title indicates, and a little less. Yes, the author does do some comparisons, looking at seven significant presidential surveys from 1948 to 2005, but not for the whole book. What is given equal time is an explanation of the surveys (methodology), a brief history on the executive office (how it came about, the Founding Father's debates and intentions), an explainer about historiography, and some excellent thumb nail sketches of about half of the presidents who have served (broken into failures, Leaders of Destiny, near misses, and controversial rankings).
His basic premise, entertainingly and exceptionally well written, is we should take into account not just the opinions of those historians, etc. who contributed to the surveys but also the referendums sent down every 4 years by the contemporaneous electorates (the will of the electorate). He argues this convincingly, especially with the thumbnail sketches.
At times I thought he did not adhere to the parameters he initially set out, listing presidents in certain categories that did not meet his criteria, or not listing others, but this could have been me, not understanding his nuances or exceptions.
****Two years ago I set out on a journey to read a biography, in order, of each president. There were two i considered for Polk, one by this author and one by Walter Borneman. For reasons unrelated to knowing the authors, I chose Borneman and enjoyed it tremendously, buying two other books by him. I make note of this to say that although I am well past Polk in my journey, I so enjoyed this author's style, voice, intellect, research, and perspective that I may go back and read his Polk bio.
I also would love for him to do a follow up. This was written in 2012. I am very curious about whether his views on the electorate have changed or remained the same in our politically chaotic times. And I'd love to know his opinion on Trump.
A book that is more than the title indicates, and a little less. Yes, the author does do some comparisons, looking at seven significant presidential surveys from 1948 to 2005, but not for the whole book. What is given equal time is an explanation of the surveys (methodology), a brief history on the executive office (how it came about, the Founding Father's debates and intentions), an explainer about historiography, and some excellent thumb nail sketches of about half of the presidents who have served (broken into failures, Leaders of Destiny, near misses, and controversial rankings).
His basic premise, entertainingly and exceptionally well written, is we should take into account not just the opinions of those historians, etc. who contributed to the surveys but also the referendums sent down every 4 years by the contemporaneous electorates (the will of the electorate). He argues this convincingly, especially with the thumbnail sketches.
At times I thought he did not adhere to the parameters he initially set out, listing presidents in certain categories that did not meet his criteria, or not listing others, but this could have been me, not understanding his nuances or exceptions.
****Two years ago I set out on a journey to read a biography, in order, of each president. There were two i considered for Polk, one by this author and one by Walter Borneman. For reasons unrelated to knowing the authors, I chose Borneman and enjoyed it tremendously, buying two other books by him. I make note of this to say that although I am well past Polk in my journey, I so enjoyed this author's style, voice, intellect, research, and perspective that I may go back and read his Polk bio.
I also would love for him to do a follow up. This was written in 2012. I am very curious about whether his views on the electorate have changed or remained the same in our politically chaotic times. And I'd love to know his opinion on Trump.
December 26, 2017
Being a politico junkie, this was a very interesting read. While I agree with many of Merry's points, he seems to push a little too far from right on some of his points. For instance, the downside of Reagan's enormous tax cuts, mainly for the most weathiest Americans, is that it directly correlates to income inequity steadily worsening since he became President. The fall of the middle and working classes date directly to Reagan. Merry also plays down Clinton's outstanding work in reducing the deficit and having surpluses his last several years in office. These surpluses immediately disappeared with Bush's new tax cuts. Instead, Merry takes the position that such tax cuts were needed - NOT. Lastly, he is critical of Obama not getting any Republican votes for his Obamacare legislation. Hey, have you noticed that since Clinton became Presidential that virtually no Republican have voted for any progressive legislation under orders from Party leaders? No matter how Obama had written health care legislation, no Republican would have voted for it, even though it was based on the Bob Dole plan of 1993.
May 5, 2014
The author states that this book is not for political scientists, but rather political aficionados. I think that's why I had such a hard time getting through this book (TWO WEEKS and I'm a fast reader!)-- I am neither of those; just a person who likes American history and was interested in seeing what others think about our current and past presidents.
For this "record", the author looks at seven (7) historical Academic Presidential Polls: Arthur Schlesinger, Sr. in 1948, Arthur Schlesinger, Sr. in 1962, Porter in 1981, the Chicago Tribune in 1982, Murray Blessing in 1982, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. in 1996 and the Wall Street Journal in 2005 before making some of his own judgments. For the reader's info., these polls and how they rank each president (without explanation) is located at the back of the book.
As such, you can't know where you're going if you don't know where you've been. Merry uses much of the book to discuss some of the "findings" of the historical polls above.
I did learn some interesting things:
Alexander Hamilton said "I believe the British government forms the best model (of government) the world ever produced."
Reagan captured the referendum nature of presidential politics more effectively than any other presidential candidate. During one debate with Carter, he looked into the camera and said "Ask yourself, are you better off today than you were four years ago?" I think people should ask themselves this question today.
I was too young to remember Gerald Ford's presidency, but Merry states that "... people turn almost cruel in their dismissal of a president ... Consider Gerald R. Ford, a veteran congressman who never sought the presidency or even the vice presidency ...... He was a man of simple tastes, unaffected speech, and unadorned directness. His probity and sound judgment were just what the country needed, and his civic contribution, by any objective measure, was immense. He inherited a nation shocked by scandal, rent by a faltering economy, stung by an Arab oil embargo, anguished over the Vietnam legacy, and suffering from a loss of national confidence. He brought improvements in all those areas but particularly in restoring honesty and integrity to government."
Academics at the time credited Ford with winning the hearts of the American people even if they felt it necessary to let him go. Robert K. Murray, the Penn State professor who helped spearhead the most comprehensive academic poll on presidential performance, said at the time of Ford's departure: "I believe he can ... sleep easily with the assurance that history will handle him kindly. His was a caretaker presidency, but it was a caretakership that will have more positive than negative aspects."
In the seven academic polls mentioned, ten presidents are placed at the bottom at least once: Harding (in the bottom five all seven times); Buchanan (7 times -- he was president just before Lincoln); Grant (5); Pierce (5); Nixon (4 of 5 times in which his presidency was considered); Andrew Johnson (3 -- he was president just after Lincoln); Fillmore, Taylor, Coolidge and Hoover (once each). For a full discussion on these presidents, please see the book beginning on pg. 94. However, it is important to note that presidents get the credit or the blame for what happened or is happening under their stewardship. This is healthy, as it ensures accountability.
The discussion on Andrew Johnson was intriguing (pp. 104-107).
Of the country's 44 presidents, thirteen (13) were serious war presidents -- Madison, Polk, Lincoln, McKinley, Wilson, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson, Nixon, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush and Obama. Of these, Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon and Obama inherited wars, while the rest (plus Truman again) initiated them.There is a very interesting discussion on all of the presidents mentioned except Obama as his "tenure is too recent for fair assessment."
Later there are also discussions on "split-decision presidents" and the "Leaders of Destiny". The Leaders of Destiny are (in order of service) Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt and FDR. These men set the direction of American history. Other presidents managed the country's civic affairs, but they could not lead it away from the general direction set by the previous "Leader of Destiny".
Among presidents, the Leaders of Destiny were the ones who saw the national need or desire for a new direction and then managed to lead the country along that uncharted course. For the record, I think Obama has the vision, but in four years has not effectively taken the country in a new direction or for that matter, moved it off the path of FDR, or reshaped the political landscape as the Leader of Destiny is defined.
Towards the end of the book is a brief discussion on the "Post-Cold War Presidents": Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Clinton is considered a "split-decision president". Some people think George W. Bush may come out (over time) to be the worst president ever -- only time will tell, but his role in sending our country into not one, but two wars has made him a target for negative "press". For Obama, it's too early to tell where his presidency will fall, but there have been some indicators for where he will fall in the future. Check out the book to learn more!
As much as I learned, this book just wasn't that interesting. It actually put me to sleep more than once. I only recommend this for people who have a die-hard interest into the presidential landscape of the United States of America.
For this "record", the author looks at seven (7) historical Academic Presidential Polls: Arthur Schlesinger, Sr. in 1948, Arthur Schlesinger, Sr. in 1962, Porter in 1981, the Chicago Tribune in 1982, Murray Blessing in 1982, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. in 1996 and the Wall Street Journal in 2005 before making some of his own judgments. For the reader's info., these polls and how they rank each president (without explanation) is located at the back of the book.
As such, you can't know where you're going if you don't know where you've been. Merry uses much of the book to discuss some of the "findings" of the historical polls above.
I did learn some interesting things:
Alexander Hamilton said "I believe the British government forms the best model (of government) the world ever produced."
Reagan captured the referendum nature of presidential politics more effectively than any other presidential candidate. During one debate with Carter, he looked into the camera and said "Ask yourself, are you better off today than you were four years ago?" I think people should ask themselves this question today.
I was too young to remember Gerald Ford's presidency, but Merry states that "... people turn almost cruel in their dismissal of a president ... Consider Gerald R. Ford, a veteran congressman who never sought the presidency or even the vice presidency ...... He was a man of simple tastes, unaffected speech, and unadorned directness. His probity and sound judgment were just what the country needed, and his civic contribution, by any objective measure, was immense. He inherited a nation shocked by scandal, rent by a faltering economy, stung by an Arab oil embargo, anguished over the Vietnam legacy, and suffering from a loss of national confidence. He brought improvements in all those areas but particularly in restoring honesty and integrity to government."
Academics at the time credited Ford with winning the hearts of the American people even if they felt it necessary to let him go. Robert K. Murray, the Penn State professor who helped spearhead the most comprehensive academic poll on presidential performance, said at the time of Ford's departure: "I believe he can ... sleep easily with the assurance that history will handle him kindly. His was a caretaker presidency, but it was a caretakership that will have more positive than negative aspects."
In the seven academic polls mentioned, ten presidents are placed at the bottom at least once: Harding (in the bottom five all seven times); Buchanan (7 times -- he was president just before Lincoln); Grant (5); Pierce (5); Nixon (4 of 5 times in which his presidency was considered); Andrew Johnson (3 -- he was president just after Lincoln); Fillmore, Taylor, Coolidge and Hoover (once each). For a full discussion on these presidents, please see the book beginning on pg. 94. However, it is important to note that presidents get the credit or the blame for what happened or is happening under their stewardship. This is healthy, as it ensures accountability.
The discussion on Andrew Johnson was intriguing (pp. 104-107).
Of the country's 44 presidents, thirteen (13) were serious war presidents -- Madison, Polk, Lincoln, McKinley, Wilson, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson, Nixon, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush and Obama. Of these, Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon and Obama inherited wars, while the rest (plus Truman again) initiated them.There is a very interesting discussion on all of the presidents mentioned except Obama as his "tenure is too recent for fair assessment."
Later there are also discussions on "split-decision presidents" and the "Leaders of Destiny". The Leaders of Destiny are (in order of service) Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt and FDR. These men set the direction of American history. Other presidents managed the country's civic affairs, but they could not lead it away from the general direction set by the previous "Leader of Destiny".
Among presidents, the Leaders of Destiny were the ones who saw the national need or desire for a new direction and then managed to lead the country along that uncharted course. For the record, I think Obama has the vision, but in four years has not effectively taken the country in a new direction or for that matter, moved it off the path of FDR, or reshaped the political landscape as the Leader of Destiny is defined.
Towards the end of the book is a brief discussion on the "Post-Cold War Presidents": Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Clinton is considered a "split-decision president". Some people think George W. Bush may come out (over time) to be the worst president ever -- only time will tell, but his role in sending our country into not one, but two wars has made him a target for negative "press". For Obama, it's too early to tell where his presidency will fall, but there have been some indicators for where he will fall in the future. Check out the book to learn more!
As much as I learned, this book just wasn't that interesting. It actually put me to sleep more than once. I only recommend this for people who have a die-hard interest into the presidential landscape of the United States of America.
May 27, 2019
Wonderful, learned survey of the Presidency. I learned some things I did not know before. Robert Merry is careful, judicious in his historical judgments. He balances his narrative with facts alongside the subjectivity of personality and character weaknesses and strengths. Greatness rises to the occasion when the country is in need of a course correction, seen especially in Lincoln and the later Roosevelt. And it is not the historians who have the last word, but we the people -- the voters. This was a very enjoyable read. The appendices are an excellent summary of his argument.
Read
June 28, 2020Great book, I'm sure there will always be disagreements as to where we think a president should be in looking back. It's kind of like arguing over who is the best quarter back or who the best basketball player was.
Learned about the methodology as to what causes one president to be ranked higher than another, the impact of recent biographies on rankings.
I'm really interested in reading a book he spoke of Thirteen Keys to the Presidency.
All in all, well worth my time to listen to this book on Audible
Learned about the methodology as to what causes one president to be ranked higher than another, the impact of recent biographies on rankings.
I'm really interested in reading a book he spoke of Thirteen Keys to the Presidency.
All in all, well worth my time to listen to this book on Audible
December 2, 2020
Recommended by and borrowed from a friend, I found this book to be a crash course on the history of America's presidents. I'm haven't memorized the list of presidents during the reading of this text though I did gain a much more academically grounded understanding of the characteristics of both the men and the circumstances of their time in office. One surprise - President Polk, the only one of our elected presidents who proclaimed and followed through on a commitment to serve only one term, is known as the best one term president in our history.
June 29, 2018
Historians vs. contemporary voters... who can better judge the job that an American President has done? And the legacy that they have left behind.
Why I started this book: Short, interesting and already downloaded to my phone.
Why I finished it: Interesting idea and I loved the flows of how we have judged our presidents. The changes in popularity from Grant; great to bad back to good. I also like the methodology of ranking presidents in comparison to the first and second terms.
Why I started this book: Short, interesting and already downloaded to my phone.
Why I finished it: Interesting idea and I loved the flows of how we have judged our presidents. The changes in popularity from Grant; great to bad back to good. I also like the methodology of ranking presidents in comparison to the first and second terms.
June 20, 2019
The author clearly had a personal bias that led him to write this book in the first place. He seems to have taken it upon himself to prove that Ronald Reagan was a great president, and found a way to justify that. I enjoyed the unique angle this book took in evaluating presidents, but the author's personal biases, and obvious love affair for Reagan eventually made me almost regret reading the book in the first place.
September 12, 2020
While I don't agree with some of Merry's conclusions, this book made a good counterpoint to the Greenstein book. His analysis of the success of the Presidents and how to assess it, is different. Is the historical summary of each President superficial? Of course! This is a 300 page book on all 44 Presidents. Of necessity it's picking and choosing highlights and lowlights. Well worth reading if, like me, you welcome a review of the challenges faced by our young country over the last 250 years.
October 5, 2017
Somewhat entertaining but really a biography project of each president. The topic is interesting, seeing the presidents rank against each other but not enough juice to keep it going plus a few times of repetition in a short book.
June 3, 2022
My review is here: https://rollcall.com/2012/07/17/makin...
May 6, 2018
The surveys done are by Arthur M. Schlesinger Sr.
The study is in 4 parts
I Academic polls
II Role of the people ; Nature of presidential elections.
III The test of greatness
IV Assess the 5 most recent presidents ??
Robert Merry confesses that he considers the institution to be a work of genius.
1948-- Life magazine published Arthur Schlesinger's work.
The rating system placed presidents in one of the categories: great, Near Great, Average, Below Average, and Failure.
Lincoln, George Washington, Franklin roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Thomas Jefferson, and Andrew Jackson were categorized as Greats (in descending order)
Near Greats: Theodore Roosevelt, Grover Cleveland, John Adams, and James Polk.
Failure: Ulysses S Grant, Warren G Harding.
The Schlesinger's poll caused a great fascination in the presidents by the American people but also it became the fountainhead of subsequent surveys.
In 1981, David L. Porter surveyed forty-one academics ... similar results except Eisenhower was ranked as twelfth and Grant climbed out of the Failure category.
Chapter 2 deals with the vagaries of History--- He anaalyses the books written on Andrew Jackson, mentions the broadway producton portraying President Jackson as a kind of rock star, that he was hopelessly absorbed in the dilemmas of democratic capitalism... etc
Controversial presidents also included Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, and Hoover.
Grover Cleveland was ranked #8 in the poll in 1948 and the author, Robert Merry cannot find a justification for such a high ranking.----- except the book written: Grover Cleveland: A Study in Courage which garnered a Pulitzer Prize for its author.
Merry cites another example in James Madison..
He seems to be considering how the president is perceived as well as portrayed. Interesting.
if a President is reelected for a second term and his party wins the next election, this could be construed as a strong indication of greatness.
For the Split Decision presidents, the author asseses this by those who impressed the voters in one term but failed to do so a second time;
Then for the category he labelled Leaders of Destiny: in order of service: Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt,and Franklin Roosevelt. They set the direction of American history. They saw the national need or desire for a new direction and then managed to lead the country along that uncharted course. He proceeds to describe the accomplishments of George Washington- his prudence and boldness.
He describes Thomas Jefferson as hating conflict but excelling at developing political schemes designed to outmanoeuver his rivals. Elected, reelected and suceeded by his favored candidate, Madison.
The murder of Alexander Hamilton by Aaron Burr (then Vice President) is described here as it happened during Jefferson's Presidency. Why Jefferson even tried to help Burr during this trial? It just caused him more embarassment.
Merry seems more passionate about the Destiny presidents from his writing. This is my opinion.
In the last chapter, Clear and Present Danger, the position/job of a president is discussed. A president is put in a powerful position as a leader but dealing with all types of crises - wars, domestic turmoil, economic travail are inevitable. All crises demand leadership.
The detailed charts and supporting resources, acknowledgements and index are on pages 241 to 298
if a President is reelected for a second term and his party wins the next election, this could be construed as a strong indication of greatness.
So, what is greatness? How important is vision in leading?
A leader must be a risk taker despite the uproar of voters/citizens. This is crucial to building a better future.
The study is in 4 parts
I Academic polls
II Role of the people ; Nature of presidential elections.
III The test of greatness
IV Assess the 5 most recent presidents ??
Robert Merry confesses that he considers the institution to be a work of genius.
1948-- Life magazine published Arthur Schlesinger's work.
The rating system placed presidents in one of the categories: great, Near Great, Average, Below Average, and Failure.
Lincoln, George Washington, Franklin roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Thomas Jefferson, and Andrew Jackson were categorized as Greats (in descending order)
Near Greats: Theodore Roosevelt, Grover Cleveland, John Adams, and James Polk.
Failure: Ulysses S Grant, Warren G Harding.
The Schlesinger's poll caused a great fascination in the presidents by the American people but also it became the fountainhead of subsequent surveys.
In 1981, David L. Porter surveyed forty-one academics ... similar results except Eisenhower was ranked as twelfth and Grant climbed out of the Failure category.
Chapter 2 deals with the vagaries of History--- He anaalyses the books written on Andrew Jackson, mentions the broadway producton portraying President Jackson as a kind of rock star, that he was hopelessly absorbed in the dilemmas of democratic capitalism... etc
Controversial presidents also included Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, and Hoover.
Grover Cleveland was ranked #8 in the poll in 1948 and the author, Robert Merry cannot find a justification for such a high ranking.----- except the book written: Grover Cleveland: A Study in Courage which garnered a Pulitzer Prize for its author.
Merry cites another example in James Madison..
He seems to be considering how the president is perceived as well as portrayed. Interesting.
if a President is reelected for a second term and his party wins the next election, this could be construed as a strong indication of greatness.
For the Split Decision presidents, the author asseses this by those who impressed the voters in one term but failed to do so a second time;
Then for the category he labelled Leaders of Destiny: in order of service: Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt,and Franklin Roosevelt. They set the direction of American history. They saw the national need or desire for a new direction and then managed to lead the country along that uncharted course. He proceeds to describe the accomplishments of George Washington- his prudence and boldness.
He describes Thomas Jefferson as hating conflict but excelling at developing political schemes designed to outmanoeuver his rivals. Elected, reelected and suceeded by his favored candidate, Madison.
The murder of Alexander Hamilton by Aaron Burr (then Vice President) is described here as it happened during Jefferson's Presidency. Why Jefferson even tried to help Burr during this trial? It just caused him more embarassment.
Merry seems more passionate about the Destiny presidents from his writing. This is my opinion.
In the last chapter, Clear and Present Danger, the position/job of a president is discussed. A president is put in a powerful position as a leader but dealing with all types of crises - wars, domestic turmoil, economic travail are inevitable. All crises demand leadership.
The detailed charts and supporting resources, acknowledgements and index are on pages 241 to 298
if a President is reelected for a second term and his party wins the next election, this could be construed as a strong indication of greatness.
So, what is greatness? How important is vision in leading?
A leader must be a risk taker despite the uproar of voters/citizens. This is crucial to building a better future.
August 13, 2016
Rating Robert Merry's book: "Where They Stand" The American Presidents in the eyes of voters and historians" (ranking the Presidents.)
A good book to read in a USA Presidential Election year. I enjoyed Merry's discussion style and explanations. His top ten presidents are popularly ranked in the order Merry lists. Merry's middle and mediocre or "failed" Presidents are surprising. I contest his harsh vocabulary and low ranking of the post Civil War presidents Johnson, Grant, Hayes, who were truly courageous leaders carrying forward the abolishtionists implementations of the Union winning the Civil War and saving the country from reverting back to enslavment of African Americans, growing USA development and economy. President and General Ulysses S. Grant (as well as Johnson and Hayes) truly carried foward freedom and civil liberties for African Americans against a rising crowd of dissents. Grant also saved USA post war inflationary economy and is commemorated on USA $50 currency. Grant took a strong stand for multicultural pluralism (Native American Indians, Hispanic, Asians) and building USA infrastructure: roadways and most important Rail Roads. Ulysses S. Grant is a really accomplished albeit low key (Abraham Lincoln's pick for General) and a noteworthy USA president.
The negatives spoken about the USA Presidents who Merry listed as below average could be comments applied to anyone. I challenge listing any of the USA Presidents as failures. Historical timing of national and international events, the nations economy, and the President's goals for USA, create a context within the President's term(s) of service. The context and actual presidential performance, versus popular opinion raised in the media, the people or with scholars and historians is truly a subjective game. No USA president should be shamed or listed as failure. They all can be commemorated for their individual merits and accomplishments.
I hope to read future Presidential Ranking books where all are listed for accomplishments, some much more than others, but all prsedents of USA remembered as courageous achievers for "team USA"!
I really appreciated the style of "Presidential Leadership, Rating the Best and the Worst in the White House" (Edited by Taranto, WSJ, & Leo TFS) as a balanced factual historic compilation of USA Presidential meritorious accomplishments combined with a thoughtful summaries written by a different author for each president. This book lists many rankings of the presidents by different sources. I really appreciated the focus of "Presidential Leadership" upon recognizing acievements and not trying to categorize our USA presidents in any grouping that would bias a classification of merit in a negative way, as Merry's book did.
April 2, 2015
Ranking presidents may not be a national past time, but Robert W. Merry makes us feel that it should be. He encourages his readers to have fun as they play the "Rating Game", and provides fascinating analyses as he moves us around the game board. His thesis: by examining academic polls and the will of the electorate, as measured by results at the ballot box, we arrive at fairly consistent ratings of presidential performance.
We learn a lot about presidents while playing the Rating Game. Mr. Merry's book is as insightful as his delivery is straightforward. His explanations for outliers in various categories are generally spot-on. For example, one term presidents usually don't fare well in the Rating Game. The exception is James K. Polk, who campaigned on a promise to serve only one term. He did, and was able to accomplish an extraordinarily ambitious agenda.
How well does Mr. Merry do in teasing out reliable, non-partisan criteria? Consider an example from his section on "The Test of Greatness". He posits that a strong predictor of greatness is that a president has been elected to two full terms and that his party remains the majority once he leaves office. This formula makes Washington, Jefferson, Jackson and Franklin D. Roosevelt big winners, a result generally consistent with academic polls. Madison, Monroe Grant and Reagan also fall in this category. Although Reagan's presidency lacks the perspective of long-term historical judgment, contemporaneous voter approval bodes well for the Gipper, but did not so much for Madison, Monroe or Grant.
Notable exceptions to this "two full-term with party succession" rule are Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, both ranked highly in historical polls. Teddy Roosevelt almost shoehorns into this category by having been elected vice-president with McKinley, then stepping into the top spot six months later when McKinley was assassinated. On the flip side, Lincoln was assassinated shortly after election to a second term. But voter approval of his legacy perpetuated a Republican Party majority long beyond the dismal presidency of Democrat Andrew Johnson, Lincoln's vice-president. Lincoln is consistently ranked in academic polls as the greatest president, only occasionally falling behind Washington.
Partisanship invariably creeps into academic judgments, but Mr. Merry demonstrates that the fundamental outcomes have not been unduly skewed by political leanings, particularly when viewed in the aggregate. Mr. Merry is persuasive in establishing fair rules of the game, and teaches us a great deal about United States presidents and history in the process.
We learn a lot about presidents while playing the Rating Game. Mr. Merry's book is as insightful as his delivery is straightforward. His explanations for outliers in various categories are generally spot-on. For example, one term presidents usually don't fare well in the Rating Game. The exception is James K. Polk, who campaigned on a promise to serve only one term. He did, and was able to accomplish an extraordinarily ambitious agenda.
How well does Mr. Merry do in teasing out reliable, non-partisan criteria? Consider an example from his section on "The Test of Greatness". He posits that a strong predictor of greatness is that a president has been elected to two full terms and that his party remains the majority once he leaves office. This formula makes Washington, Jefferson, Jackson and Franklin D. Roosevelt big winners, a result generally consistent with academic polls. Madison, Monroe Grant and Reagan also fall in this category. Although Reagan's presidency lacks the perspective of long-term historical judgment, contemporaneous voter approval bodes well for the Gipper, but did not so much for Madison, Monroe or Grant.
Notable exceptions to this "two full-term with party succession" rule are Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, both ranked highly in historical polls. Teddy Roosevelt almost shoehorns into this category by having been elected vice-president with McKinley, then stepping into the top spot six months later when McKinley was assassinated. On the flip side, Lincoln was assassinated shortly after election to a second term. But voter approval of his legacy perpetuated a Republican Party majority long beyond the dismal presidency of Democrat Andrew Johnson, Lincoln's vice-president. Lincoln is consistently ranked in academic polls as the greatest president, only occasionally falling behind Washington.
Partisanship invariably creeps into academic judgments, but Mr. Merry demonstrates that the fundamental outcomes have not been unduly skewed by political leanings, particularly when viewed in the aggregate. Mr. Merry is persuasive in establishing fair rules of the game, and teaches us a great deal about United States presidents and history in the process.
August 1, 2012
An interesting book, and easily readable. Merry takes a critical look at various polls since the 1950's which have ranked and rated U.S. Presidents. His is not another poll, though he does offer thoughts about how he would rank the presidents, but rather he looks at possible criteria for ranking presidents and looks at how the various presidents measure up. His analysis of the presidents was very close to what I read in Andrew Polsky's ELUSIVE VICTORIES. What he maybe failed to do was define "great" - at times it means "successful" but then in whose terms? For example Merry thinks Reagan's fortunes will rise in future polls (and in Merry's mind, deservedly so) to Near Great or Great, but was Reagan a Lincoln? Or perhaps there are different measures of greatness. Reagan defined his times and moved America in a different direction, but did he achieve the goals he set out - he created a huge national debt, a federal bureaucracy which was larger than when he started, no balanced budget? He was popular with voters winning 2 terms and then the GOP won the next presidential election as well which Merry thinks is a pretty good indication that in his time he was successful. The book did keep my attention.
June 2, 2015
This is solidly three stars. The writing is personable, which helps when your topic is every president in history, including the boring ones. However, when it comes to rating each president, there's not a whole lot to say about why they are ranked the way they are. Maybe you learn a bit more about Franklin Pierce (yes, we had a president named Franklin Pierce), but there's precious little of substance that can be said about why the electorate and historians like or don't like a president.
The three solid contributions by the author are:
- An explanation about why the unique position of American President is so well suited to lead a republic like ours. His points are good enough to convince me that the 22nd Amendment (presidents limited to two terms) was a bad idea.
- A definition for a president to achieve the status of "Leader of Destiny", including reelection, party retention of the presidency after that president, and a transformation of the political landscape.
- Noticing that in terms of ranking presidents there is a strong action bias (opinion favors a president who does something even if it wasn't that good). Unfortunately, the author simply accepts it instead of doing something interesting like trying to filter it out.
The three solid contributions by the author are:
- An explanation about why the unique position of American President is so well suited to lead a republic like ours. His points are good enough to convince me that the 22nd Amendment (presidents limited to two terms) was a bad idea.
- A definition for a president to achieve the status of "Leader of Destiny", including reelection, party retention of the presidency after that president, and a transformation of the political landscape.
- Noticing that in terms of ranking presidents there is a strong action bias (opinion favors a president who does something even if it wasn't that good). Unfortunately, the author simply accepts it instead of doing something interesting like trying to filter it out.
October 7, 2012
I have a weakness for presidential history. I heard about this book on Morning Joe. They said, "So readable." I don't think they actually read the book. This is not The Presidents Club. That book actually told a story.
I found the organization of the book very confusing and had to check the table of contents constantly to see where I was. The author has this thesis about rating presidents according to history's ranking and the current electorate's vote. He repeats this thesis over and over and over. The book reads as though an academic is trying to gain credentials.
James Polk comes out looking pretty good. I was surprised. I don't remember anything about Polk. As it turns out, the author of this book wrote a biography of Polk. I wonder whether he's trying to prove some thesis again. His low opinion of Woodrow Wilson surprised me, too. After I gave up ignoring the thesis and wanting more context, I just enjoyed random facts. My interest about Polk is piqued.
I found the organization of the book very confusing and had to check the table of contents constantly to see where I was. The author has this thesis about rating presidents according to history's ranking and the current electorate's vote. He repeats this thesis over and over and over. The book reads as though an academic is trying to gain credentials.
James Polk comes out looking pretty good. I was surprised. I don't remember anything about Polk. As it turns out, the author of this book wrote a biography of Polk. I wonder whether he's trying to prove some thesis again. His low opinion of Woodrow Wilson surprised me, too. After I gave up ignoring the thesis and wanting more context, I just enjoyed random facts. My interest about Polk is piqued.
June 15, 2013
Ever since I was little I've had an interest in presidents. I wanted to be president for a while. (Abandoned that when I found out what the job really entails lol.) But I remember pouring over different president books, memorizing their accomplishments, etc. So when I saw this book at the library I had to check it out.
It wasn't very long, which was nice, though I kind of would have preferred a chronological history of where the author believed the presidents stood in history. I suppose though that it made more sense to put them in groups based on certain factors (war presidents, failures, "leaders of destiny"). Merry didn't so much rank them himself as he did analyze other people's rankings and I felt that he did a good job with being impartial. It didn't seem to me to be overtly supportive of either Democratics or Republicans, which was nice.
I'd recommend this to anyone with an interest in presidents and the presidency. It's an easy but thought-provoking read.
It wasn't very long, which was nice, though I kind of would have preferred a chronological history of where the author believed the presidents stood in history. I suppose though that it made more sense to put them in groups based on certain factors (war presidents, failures, "leaders of destiny"). Merry didn't so much rank them himself as he did analyze other people's rankings and I felt that he did a good job with being impartial. It didn't seem to me to be overtly supportive of either Democratics or Republicans, which was nice.
I'd recommend this to anyone with an interest in presidents and the presidency. It's an easy but thought-provoking read.
Read
June 18, 2013'Merry displays an admirable instinct toward crowdsourcing in his exploration of presidential greatness and failure. “I place stock in collective assessments—the rankings of hundreds of historians through multiple surveys over several decades; and the collective judgment of the electorate as it hired and fired presidents through the course of American history,” he writes.
Of course, there are some problems with holding historians’ assessments in contrast with contemporaneous voters’. One small one is that it presumes that historians ignore voters’ judgments in their ratings. Some may, some may not. But it’s hard to say with certainty that the views of voters are heretofore unaccounted for.'
Read the full review, "Executive Order," on our website:
http://www.theamericanconservative.co...
Of course, there are some problems with holding historians’ assessments in contrast with contemporaneous voters’. One small one is that it presumes that historians ignore voters’ judgments in their ratings. Some may, some may not. But it’s hard to say with certainty that the views of voters are heretofore unaccounted for.'
Read the full review, "Executive Order," on our website:
http://www.theamericanconservative.co...
September 30, 2012
Merry takes a look at the several rankings of US Presidents and adds his own innovation to the mix: that of considering how the people of the time felt about the President and not just at how historians consider things. The innovation doesn't change much for the best and worst Presidents but it does bring up a few interesting inconsistencies: Grant - loved by the people, not by historians; Wilson - not so loved by the people, highly esteemed by historians. Merry discusses Clinton (good), Bush (poor) and Obama (unknown) but advises that at least a generation is needed before their respective performances resolve into something solid. Lots of historical perspective makes the book even more useful and enjoyable.
October 1, 2012
The first section on the academics and their polls of successful presidents is incredibly dry. I was tempted more than once to give up, but I'm glad I didn't. The meat of the book is about the presidents, their successes and their failures. This was the part I found interesting. I knew much of the historical detail, but it was good to put it into the perspective of how the people voted at the following election. How did the populace feel about the War of 1812, for example? Is a president who does little to change policy more likely to be re-elected than one who turns the country onto a different past? Ultimately, Merry concludes that academics and their polls are not representative of the voters of the time.
September 10, 2013
Although I sometimes disagreed with Merry's assessments of American presidents, he provides a lot of good points. Presidential election results are often a matter of timing or good fortune, and I wouldn't put as much stock into those results as Merry has in his book. However, that's the joy in following the various rankings. He raises good questions about why certain presidents get away with problems (corruption, abuse of power) and others are heavily penalized. Overall, I started to see how presidential ranking becomes more of a personal list because it depends on one's own feeling about the proper use of force, power, or how much one tolerates corruption, illegal, or indecent activity of a president and his or her advisors.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 46 reviews