What do you think?
Rate this book
The Jazz Age President: Defending Warren G. Harding
"He's the butt of political jokes, frequently subjected to ridicule, and almost never absent a "Worst Presidents" list where he most often ends up at the bottom. Historians have labeled him the "Worst President Ever," "Dead Last," "Unfit," and "Incompetent," to name but a few. Many contemporaries were equally cruel. H. L. Mencken called him a "nitwit." To Alice Roosevelt Longworth, he was a "slob." Such is the current reputation of our 29th President, Warren Gamaliel Harding. In an interesting survey in 1982, which divided the scholarly respondents into "conservative" and "liberal" categories, both groups picked Harding as the worst President. But historian Ryan Walters shows that Harding, a humble man from Marion, Ohio, has been unfairly remembered. He quickly fixed an economy in depression and started the boom of the Roaring Twenties, healed a nation in the throes of social disruption, and reversed America's interventionist foreign policy"
224 pages, Hardcover
First published February 15, 2022
30 people are currently reading
295 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 67 reviews
November 19, 2022
https://wp.me/p302YQ-60k
Warren Harding has long been disparaged as a historically poor president - a man ill-suited to the intellectual and ethical demands of the office, possessing a defective moral compass and perennially plagued both personal and professional scandal.
In this newly-published defense of Harding's legacy, Walters attempts to correct what he sees as an unfair appraisal of his subject's character and presidential performance. While acknowledging the magnitude of his task, Walters argues that no one in possession of the facts can doubt Harding was at least a "good" chief executive.
With 189 pages of text, "The Jazz Age President" is relatively brief and is delightfully easy to read. And it reads more like a book from The American Presidents series than a scholarly (and weighty) presidential biography. But where individual volumes in that series cover former presidents cradle-to-grave, Walters's book is almost exclusively concerned with Harding's twenty-nine month presidency (which ended prematurely with his death).
But while this book is primarily a defense of Harding's legacy, it is also essentially a history of his presidency and of world affairs during those 2+ years. It tends to proceed thematically rather than chronologically, but is rarely hard to follow. And Walters injects enough historical context and commentary to provide most readers with an adequate understanding of the issues.
The book's elemental strength is that it is consistently interesting, provocative and passionately argued. But nearly every important observation is conveyed through a distracting partisan lens. This pervades the text and taints even the most meritorious of its perspectives and conclusions. As a result, readers otherwise willing to be convinced of Harding's qualities are likely to remain cautious and circumspect.
And readers hoping to more completely understand Harding's personality, intrinsic strengths or personal life will surely be dissatisfied. There is virtually nothing in these pages of the five decades of his life prior to his campaign for the presidency - including his twelve-year political career and his extramarital affairs (one of which was proven in 2015 to have produced a child).
Overall, Ryan Walters's "The Jazz Age President: Defending Warren G. Harding" is a thought-provoking and full-throated defense of Warren Harding's presidential legacy which proves selectively convincing at best and needlessly partisan and two-dimensional at worst. But whatever you think of the author's pugilistic style, one thing is certain: it cannot be rated as a traditional biography.
Overall Rating: 3 stars...but “Unrated” as Biography
Warren Harding has long been disparaged as a historically poor president - a man ill-suited to the intellectual and ethical demands of the office, possessing a defective moral compass and perennially plagued both personal and professional scandal.
In this newly-published defense of Harding's legacy, Walters attempts to correct what he sees as an unfair appraisal of his subject's character and presidential performance. While acknowledging the magnitude of his task, Walters argues that no one in possession of the facts can doubt Harding was at least a "good" chief executive.
With 189 pages of text, "The Jazz Age President" is relatively brief and is delightfully easy to read. And it reads more like a book from The American Presidents series than a scholarly (and weighty) presidential biography. But where individual volumes in that series cover former presidents cradle-to-grave, Walters's book is almost exclusively concerned with Harding's twenty-nine month presidency (which ended prematurely with his death).
But while this book is primarily a defense of Harding's legacy, it is also essentially a history of his presidency and of world affairs during those 2+ years. It tends to proceed thematically rather than chronologically, but is rarely hard to follow. And Walters injects enough historical context and commentary to provide most readers with an adequate understanding of the issues.
The book's elemental strength is that it is consistently interesting, provocative and passionately argued. But nearly every important observation is conveyed through a distracting partisan lens. This pervades the text and taints even the most meritorious of its perspectives and conclusions. As a result, readers otherwise willing to be convinced of Harding's qualities are likely to remain cautious and circumspect.
And readers hoping to more completely understand Harding's personality, intrinsic strengths or personal life will surely be dissatisfied. There is virtually nothing in these pages of the five decades of his life prior to his campaign for the presidency - including his twelve-year political career and his extramarital affairs (one of which was proven in 2015 to have produced a child).
Overall, Ryan Walters's "The Jazz Age President: Defending Warren G. Harding" is a thought-provoking and full-throated defense of Warren Harding's presidential legacy which proves selectively convincing at best and needlessly partisan and two-dimensional at worst. But whatever you think of the author's pugilistic style, one thing is certain: it cannot be rated as a traditional biography.
Overall Rating: 3 stars...but “Unrated” as Biography
November 19, 2022
The Jazz Age President: Defending Warren Harding by Ryan S. Walters (Washington D.C.: Regnery, 2022) – A review by Heribert von Feilitzsch
Published through an imprint of Salem Communications, a conglomerate of conservative and Christian media outlets, Walters prefaces his monograph as looking at the Harding presidency through a conservative lens. I appreciate the transparency. True to his word, Walters presents the 29th American president as a likable, hard-working, conservative patriot who in his short 2.5 years in office pulled the US economy out of recession (which Walters labels a “Depression”) and laid the groundwork for unprecedented economic growth that trickled down to the lowest rungs of the American wealth pyramid. According to the author, Harding laid the economic and financial tracks, on which his successor Calvin Coolidge continued. According to the author, President Wilson caused the 1919 “Depression,” Harding fixed it in a few months, and created unprecedented wealth that lasted for a decade. Herbert Hoover, the closet liberal (he calls him a progressive), without the necessary ideological foundation caused the Great Depression. What was Harding's ideological bedrock? “Putting America first.” (Chapter 7)
A spectacular show of historical acrobatics are the author’s efforts to spin away the well-documented corruption of the Harding administration that sold out American domestic and foreign policy to oil tycoons Harry Sinclair and Edward Doheny, and turned the burgeoning federal Bureau of Investigation into the administration’s fixer organization. While the author very superficially touches upon the Teapot Dome scandal that led to the prison sentence of Albert B. Fall, Harding’s Secretary of the Interior for accepting bribes, he contends that Harding had no idea and, when he found out, reacted responsibly. The opposite, of course, is the case. Harding personally signed papers that allowed Secretary Fall to lease oil rich navy properties to Doheny and Sinclair for a pittance. When Congress investigated the scandal in 1923, the FBI was so corrupted, that the US Secret Service was deputized to lead the investigations. The author mentions Gaston B. Means as a “former federal agent,” who is part of the cabal of authors and journalists maligning President Harding. As a matter of fact, the former German agent and conman had been hired as a Bureau of Investigation special agent during the Harding years. Head of the Bureau was Harding’s friend and fellow Ohioan William “Billy” Burns, who turned the federal agency into a cesspool of corruption. Means is a posterchild for the state of affairs of the Harding administration.
Walters’ lopsided story paints Woodrow Wilson a typical southern racist, while Harding was a “national healer,” who even pardoned his political opponent, the socialist Eugene Debs, and invited him to the White House. A heartwarming anecdote if viewed out of context. The author makes no mention of the Ku Klux Klan, which reached its zenith of eight million members in 1923 and terrorized minorities across the entire country. The Harding administration’s Justice Department under the corrupt leadership of Harry Daugherty, Harding’s former campaign manager, not only sat idly by, but the administration also adopted the clan’s America First slogan.
To further the ideological argument, the author blows the recession of 1919 completely out of proportion and squarely blames the Wilson administration for causing it. Once again, no mention of the flu, decommissioning millions of army soldiers, and adjustment of the economy to peacetime, which are the main factors of the brief economic downturn. Rather than Harding solely and single handedly saving the economy, the United States economy boomed as it collected on its wartime loans and supplied the utterly destroyed Europe with its products. The author’s lack of research and understanding of the historical environment show in painful mistakes, such as the Punitive Expedition to punish Pancho Villa for attacking Columbus, New Mexico in 1916 lasting three years (which would have prevented the US to participate in World War I - the US ended the incursion after nine months), or the occupation of Veracruz, Mexico in 1914 lasting two days (it lasted seven months).
To call Walters’ book a revisionist history would be too kind. It is a misinformed, horribly researched propaganda piece that selectively hides or elevates aspects of US history between 1918 and 1929 to suit the “most maligned president in American history,” a title conservative media now accord to Donald Trump. Other than a few memoirs and newspaper articles, the book completely lacks primary sources. In a solid scholarly approach, a historian lets the research lead to a conclusion, that may revise earlier works and conclusions. In this case the conclusion led the research, if one can be so generous as to call the use of a select few memoirs “research.” In summary, this book is a hack job of the first order.
Published through an imprint of Salem Communications, a conglomerate of conservative and Christian media outlets, Walters prefaces his monograph as looking at the Harding presidency through a conservative lens. I appreciate the transparency. True to his word, Walters presents the 29th American president as a likable, hard-working, conservative patriot who in his short 2.5 years in office pulled the US economy out of recession (which Walters labels a “Depression”) and laid the groundwork for unprecedented economic growth that trickled down to the lowest rungs of the American wealth pyramid. According to the author, Harding laid the economic and financial tracks, on which his successor Calvin Coolidge continued. According to the author, President Wilson caused the 1919 “Depression,” Harding fixed it in a few months, and created unprecedented wealth that lasted for a decade. Herbert Hoover, the closet liberal (he calls him a progressive), without the necessary ideological foundation caused the Great Depression. What was Harding's ideological bedrock? “Putting America first.” (Chapter 7)
A spectacular show of historical acrobatics are the author’s efforts to spin away the well-documented corruption of the Harding administration that sold out American domestic and foreign policy to oil tycoons Harry Sinclair and Edward Doheny, and turned the burgeoning federal Bureau of Investigation into the administration’s fixer organization. While the author very superficially touches upon the Teapot Dome scandal that led to the prison sentence of Albert B. Fall, Harding’s Secretary of the Interior for accepting bribes, he contends that Harding had no idea and, when he found out, reacted responsibly. The opposite, of course, is the case. Harding personally signed papers that allowed Secretary Fall to lease oil rich navy properties to Doheny and Sinclair for a pittance. When Congress investigated the scandal in 1923, the FBI was so corrupted, that the US Secret Service was deputized to lead the investigations. The author mentions Gaston B. Means as a “former federal agent,” who is part of the cabal of authors and journalists maligning President Harding. As a matter of fact, the former German agent and conman had been hired as a Bureau of Investigation special agent during the Harding years. Head of the Bureau was Harding’s friend and fellow Ohioan William “Billy” Burns, who turned the federal agency into a cesspool of corruption. Means is a posterchild for the state of affairs of the Harding administration.
Walters’ lopsided story paints Woodrow Wilson a typical southern racist, while Harding was a “national healer,” who even pardoned his political opponent, the socialist Eugene Debs, and invited him to the White House. A heartwarming anecdote if viewed out of context. The author makes no mention of the Ku Klux Klan, which reached its zenith of eight million members in 1923 and terrorized minorities across the entire country. The Harding administration’s Justice Department under the corrupt leadership of Harry Daugherty, Harding’s former campaign manager, not only sat idly by, but the administration also adopted the clan’s America First slogan.
To further the ideological argument, the author blows the recession of 1919 completely out of proportion and squarely blames the Wilson administration for causing it. Once again, no mention of the flu, decommissioning millions of army soldiers, and adjustment of the economy to peacetime, which are the main factors of the brief economic downturn. Rather than Harding solely and single handedly saving the economy, the United States economy boomed as it collected on its wartime loans and supplied the utterly destroyed Europe with its products. The author’s lack of research and understanding of the historical environment show in painful mistakes, such as the Punitive Expedition to punish Pancho Villa for attacking Columbus, New Mexico in 1916 lasting three years (which would have prevented the US to participate in World War I - the US ended the incursion after nine months), or the occupation of Veracruz, Mexico in 1914 lasting two days (it lasted seven months).
To call Walters’ book a revisionist history would be too kind. It is a misinformed, horribly researched propaganda piece that selectively hides or elevates aspects of US history between 1918 and 1929 to suit the “most maligned president in American history,” a title conservative media now accord to Donald Trump. Other than a few memoirs and newspaper articles, the book completely lacks primary sources. In a solid scholarly approach, a historian lets the research lead to a conclusion, that may revise earlier works and conclusions. In this case the conclusion led the research, if one can be so generous as to call the use of a select few memoirs “research.” In summary, this book is a hack job of the first order.
July 10, 2022
Taking the unpopular position of advocating for a president colloquially synonymous with corruption and immorality is a difficult task, but the job was well done. This account highlights Harding's successes and harshly counters the negative narratives set upon him after his untimely death in 1923, while not ignoring where critics have made valid points. The book's tone and literary craft showed improvement from the author's past works, which I enjoyed as well. While intended to convince more than evaluate, the book does rely heavily on evidence rather than anecdote. Harding, as the author says, was not a malicious crook but a betrayed man of integrity, and this statement was not made without evidence. If not for a few poor cabinet appointments and extramarital affairs prior to his inauguration, Harding might be remembered fondly as he deserved. Responsible for both peace and prosperity domestically and abroad in a shortened term, Harding ought to be remembered as successful and admirable.
January 12, 2025
I would actually rate this book 3.5/5.
I legitimately had a hard time finishing this book despite its relatively short length. While I appreciate that someone took the time to give a defense of Harding, and agree that it was needed, I came away with two big issues.
First, this book reads like the paper of a college student that was having trouble filling an essay with content. That student often resorts to “fluff” to fill the pages, repeating things and using unnecessary material and phrases. This book was soooo repetitive. I honestly feel Walters could have done just as good a job in a 30page essay.
Second, most presidential biographies, even ones that set out to correct the record, generally lay out the facts and then end with a conclusion designed to repudiate the major points and draw the reader to decide for themselves whether or not the president was great. This book, however, often resorts to invective and even ridicules the sources that have historically been used to deride Harding. Walters, you could have risen to the occasion, but instead you stooped.
Overall, yes, I believe Harding gets a bad rap he largely doesn’t deserve. Some of the credit he should receive for the booming economy specifically, goes to Coolidge and that is unfortunate. The scandals that his administration is known for pale in comparison to some other scandals in presidential history. I just wish the book had been written differently.
I legitimately had a hard time finishing this book despite its relatively short length. While I appreciate that someone took the time to give a defense of Harding, and agree that it was needed, I came away with two big issues.
First, this book reads like the paper of a college student that was having trouble filling an essay with content. That student often resorts to “fluff” to fill the pages, repeating things and using unnecessary material and phrases. This book was soooo repetitive. I honestly feel Walters could have done just as good a job in a 30page essay.
Second, most presidential biographies, even ones that set out to correct the record, generally lay out the facts and then end with a conclusion designed to repudiate the major points and draw the reader to decide for themselves whether or not the president was great. This book, however, often resorts to invective and even ridicules the sources that have historically been used to deride Harding. Walters, you could have risen to the occasion, but instead you stooped.
Overall, yes, I believe Harding gets a bad rap he largely doesn’t deserve. Some of the credit he should receive for the booming economy specifically, goes to Coolidge and that is unfortunate. The scandals that his administration is known for pale in comparison to some other scandals in presidential history. I just wish the book had been written differently.
August 26, 2022
My high school history teacher, Mrs. Chitwood, dismissed Warren Harding as a "feckless president." She argued that he was nothing but a "ladies man" who spent his presidency playing poker in The White House, and he drank in the early morning hours with his "chums." After all these years I well recall her derisive comments about our 20th POTUS. Sadly, too, when I was in college, majoring in History, my professors had similar opinions.
But after reading Mr. Walters' book, I came away totally surprised on his assessment of Harding. When Harding assumed office on March 4, 1921 unemployment was at 12%. When he died in August 1923 unemployment was at three percent. Harding also cut taxes, which were imposed by his predecessor, Woodrow Wilson, from 63% to 25%. Incidentally, Woodrow Wilson went to the Congress on April 6, 1917 to ask for a declaration of war against Germany. If memory serves only one member of Congress voted no; Congresswoman Jenette Rankin of Kentucky.
By 1921 those war taxes were still collected. The Armistice was signed on November 11, 1918. In the 17 months of the war 117,000 men were killed. Furthermore no one was immune from these taxes. The poor paid 4% of those taxes.
The Spanish Flu started at Fort Riley, Kansas in March 1918. The troops brought this deadly flu with them from the unsanitary trenches in Europe. World wide 100 million people died from the Spanish Flu. According to Mr. Walters, President Wilson "did nothing." In the United States the death toll was at 675,000.
During the 1920 campaign, Harding had adopted the slogan "Return to Normalcy." Harding's critics, which were numerous, mocked that slogan and the man himself. But on election night Harding had won in a historic landslide.
Something else I was unware was that Warren Harding was twice nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his 'Disarmament." All other European Countries joined with the USA in reducing the military strength. It was argued that World War One was over, and the cost was too extreme to maintain. Most historians lambast Harding for that as well.
Harding also improved relations with Latin America. "The one thing we must assiduously avoid is the development of groups and class organizations in this country. The demagogue, who would array class against class and groups against groups should be avoided."
When Harding unexpectedly died in August 1923 his death was greatly mourned. The Teapot Dome Scandal was not exposed until after Harding's death. Harding was not personally involved with that scandal or the others. But Harding was responsible, however, for putting those men in those positions.
All in all I thought this book was an enjoyable read, and I learned something new about our 20th POTUS.
But after reading Mr. Walters' book, I came away totally surprised on his assessment of Harding. When Harding assumed office on March 4, 1921 unemployment was at 12%. When he died in August 1923 unemployment was at three percent. Harding also cut taxes, which were imposed by his predecessor, Woodrow Wilson, from 63% to 25%. Incidentally, Woodrow Wilson went to the Congress on April 6, 1917 to ask for a declaration of war against Germany. If memory serves only one member of Congress voted no; Congresswoman Jenette Rankin of Kentucky.
By 1921 those war taxes were still collected. The Armistice was signed on November 11, 1918. In the 17 months of the war 117,000 men were killed. Furthermore no one was immune from these taxes. The poor paid 4% of those taxes.
The Spanish Flu started at Fort Riley, Kansas in March 1918. The troops brought this deadly flu with them from the unsanitary trenches in Europe. World wide 100 million people died from the Spanish Flu. According to Mr. Walters, President Wilson "did nothing." In the United States the death toll was at 675,000.
During the 1920 campaign, Harding had adopted the slogan "Return to Normalcy." Harding's critics, which were numerous, mocked that slogan and the man himself. But on election night Harding had won in a historic landslide.
Something else I was unware was that Warren Harding was twice nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his 'Disarmament." All other European Countries joined with the USA in reducing the military strength. It was argued that World War One was over, and the cost was too extreme to maintain. Most historians lambast Harding for that as well.
Harding also improved relations with Latin America. "The one thing we must assiduously avoid is the development of groups and class organizations in this country. The demagogue, who would array class against class and groups against groups should be avoided."
When Harding unexpectedly died in August 1923 his death was greatly mourned. The Teapot Dome Scandal was not exposed until after Harding's death. Harding was not personally involved with that scandal or the others. But Harding was responsible, however, for putting those men in those positions.
All in all I thought this book was an enjoyable read, and I learned something new about our 20th POTUS.
February 22, 2022
To his credit, author Ryan Walters has broken ranks with nearly all other presidential historians who for decades have ranked Warren G. Harding as one of the nation's worst presidents. Most Americans know little of Harding other than, perhaps, being vaguely aware of the Teapot Dome scandal and Harding's boozy poker games. There was much more to his presidency as Walters writes in The Jazz Age President. "Perhaps we can't all agree that Warren Harding was a great president," Walters writes, "but who among us that knows the facts can doubt that Warren Harding was at least a good president?"
In his short, easily readable book, Walters credits President Harding for setting the economic stage which led to the economic boom during the nineteen-twenties, for hosting the world's first disarmament conference, for creating the Veterans Bureau and the Budget Bureau, for being the first sitting president to travel to the Deep South to argue for racial equality, for soothing tensions with Mexico and Latin America, for appointing Andrew Mellon, Herbert Hoover, Charles Dawes and Charles Evans Hughes to his cabinet and other positions, men who would make significant contributions for the next decade and beyond.
Most historians credit Calvin Coolidge, Harding's vice-president who was elected president in 1924 after Harding's sudden death, for the economic boom of the nineteen-twenties. But Coolidge inherited Harding's policies and appointees and was wise enough to make few changes. The Roaring Twenties resulted.
Walters' book is a refreshing look at a forgotten president, and worth reading.
In his short, easily readable book, Walters credits President Harding for setting the economic stage which led to the economic boom during the nineteen-twenties, for hosting the world's first disarmament conference, for creating the Veterans Bureau and the Budget Bureau, for being the first sitting president to travel to the Deep South to argue for racial equality, for soothing tensions with Mexico and Latin America, for appointing Andrew Mellon, Herbert Hoover, Charles Dawes and Charles Evans Hughes to his cabinet and other positions, men who would make significant contributions for the next decade and beyond.
Most historians credit Calvin Coolidge, Harding's vice-president who was elected president in 1924 after Harding's sudden death, for the economic boom of the nineteen-twenties. But Coolidge inherited Harding's policies and appointees and was wise enough to make few changes. The Roaring Twenties resulted.
Walters' book is a refreshing look at a forgotten president, and worth reading.
October 17, 2024
I don’t have beef with the author being a conservative. I don’t have beef with him defending a president who, evidently, has been considered one of the worst presidents ever (I can name a worse one!).
My beef is the author’s ego and conceit interfere with the points he tries to make throughout what ends up to be a shrill, whiny “You guys are being mean to Warren GAMELIEL” Harding! Listen to me instead!” diatribe.
After reading the preface and introduction, I almost put the book down. The phrase “The lady doth protest too much” went through my head throughout. Similar to current right wing politicians, he sets up the book with a kind of “if you disagree with me it’s because I’m a conservative.” He doesn’t leave room for the fact that his book is insufficiently cited, poorly researched, repetitious - and, to be honest, written in ways that he criticizes other people for.
In the end, I gave it two stars because I did learn a few things. I don’t know who he wrote this book for - I do know I went in knowing nothing about Harding and I closed this book with the following messages:
1. Yes there were scandals in his presidency but they didn’t break until after he died, so he’s not responsible.
2. Wilson: BAD! Warren GAMELIEL Harding: GOOD!
3. Womanizer? Kinda - but before he was President and other presidents were worse and he didn’t have sex with them in the White House so it’s not so bad.
Hope to find another book on Harding that is less defensive and more useful to learning about this president who appears to be more than how he’s been represented in other texts.
My beef is the author’s ego and conceit interfere with the points he tries to make throughout what ends up to be a shrill, whiny “You guys are being mean to Warren GAMELIEL” Harding! Listen to me instead!” diatribe.
After reading the preface and introduction, I almost put the book down. The phrase “The lady doth protest too much” went through my head throughout. Similar to current right wing politicians, he sets up the book with a kind of “if you disagree with me it’s because I’m a conservative.” He doesn’t leave room for the fact that his book is insufficiently cited, poorly researched, repetitious - and, to be honest, written in ways that he criticizes other people for.
In the end, I gave it two stars because I did learn a few things. I don’t know who he wrote this book for - I do know I went in knowing nothing about Harding and I closed this book with the following messages:
1. Yes there were scandals in his presidency but they didn’t break until after he died, so he’s not responsible.
2. Wilson: BAD! Warren GAMELIEL Harding: GOOD!
3. Womanizer? Kinda - but before he was President and other presidents were worse and he didn’t have sex with them in the White House so it’s not so bad.
Hope to find another book on Harding that is less defensive and more useful to learning about this president who appears to be more than how he’s been represented in other texts.
January 31, 2024
I've always believed Harding was a corpulent, greedy, womanizer who became president solely for personal gain. It was a relief to read about all positive aspects of his presidency, even if it was too sympathetic. Walters paints a broad swathe of glory, making Harding out to be a good guy who was taken advantage of. And, like Grant, that was probably too, but Harding was also human. And the affairs, the indulgences, the lacking areas in his humanity are undoubtedly present, more so than Walters is willing to look. It's important to read many sides of every issue, so I think I'll research a more balanced biography. All in all though, it's a great read. The writing is succinct, and personal, and it's not long, at 189 pages. This definitely precludes an in-depth look at the issues, but is a good overview of the positive aspects.
November 1, 2022
Want to read a book defending Harding? Robert Murray did a far far far superior job in the 1960s. Want a shorter read but a better defense? Go with Robert Ferrell’s book. This book goes way over the top in defending Harding.
December 13, 2023
An interesting approach to an interesting presidency. This book was as much an indictment of Wilson as it was a defense of Harding. This was not your typical biography, but a systematic examination of the policies and scandals that marked Harding's political career.
November 21, 2023
Probably one of the worst books I've ever read. While the premise is probable, the execution is biased and arrogant. There are other biographies of Harding that are much better. Skip this one.
August 14, 2022
It is hard to figure that there was anything positive about Harding’s time as president, but lo and behold, there is an author who makes the case. Harding came to power during a transition time for the US, and in one sense, Harding may have been the right man at the right time. An unassuming president who didn’t view America as the solution to all the world’s problems, the US did see economic growth under Harding. However, there were a number of corrupt officials appointed that came to haunt the Harding administration, and with Harding’s death, and how his wife destroyed most of his correspondence, the view is that Harding earns his ranking of one of the worst presidents ever.
The author feels that is unfair. The writing offers some compelling arguments. However, the clear bias of the author will hurt the reception of his message. A guy who is hard right will turn off a number of readers. Harding was no saint, but who was? He held to his convictions, but one can wonder what if he didn’t pass away and what if his wife hadn’t destroyed so much of his correspondence?
I won’t be in a hurry to elevate Harding yet, but there is some food for thought. If nothing else, there are lessons for leaders to make dang sure they appoint the right people for key positions. Worth a read, but not sure it will change perception about the man.
The author feels that is unfair. The writing offers some compelling arguments. However, the clear bias of the author will hurt the reception of his message. A guy who is hard right will turn off a number of readers. Harding was no saint, but who was? He held to his convictions, but one can wonder what if he didn’t pass away and what if his wife hadn’t destroyed so much of his correspondence?
I won’t be in a hurry to elevate Harding yet, but there is some food for thought. If nothing else, there are lessons for leaders to make dang sure they appoint the right people for key positions. Worth a read, but not sure it will change perception about the man.
December 7, 2023
I normally don't write reviews on books, but I had to for this one. I am trying to work my way through at least one biography of each president and grabbed this one for Harding. While I appreciate biographers who try to put their subject into context and bring new vision and view to the person, this one was so disappointing. The author sets his bias out at the beginning, noting that his politics are conservative and he is viewing Harding through that lens. That's not a problem - I appreciate the framing and honesty! Unfortunately, he then spends the rest of the book fawning over Harding and offering only light coverage of some of the more contentious aspects of his administration. There's no objectivity, no balance, no analysis. It all comes across like a whining fanboy who is tired of his idol receiving criticism (fair or unfair criticism, it doesn't matter). This book had a lot of potential. The author clearly did some research on Harding's life and could have been a good voice for new perspectives and analysis on a widely-critiqued presidency. I was ready to reconsider my thoughts on Harding, but the beating over the head with praise and whining defense was just too much.
February 25, 2023
3 stars for bringing what I knew about President Harding from none to some and for painting a solid though stolid picture of the US in the early post WWI period.
The author belabors his point about Harding not getting a fair shake from other historians but the evidence he uses to refute the claims is shallow and, in some cases, dismissive.
A savage editor may have been able to raise the level of Walters' writing and certainly would have saved him from characterizing Harding's administration as 'sprendthrift' when he was trying to make the point that it was intent on cutting costs and taxes.
The author belabors his point about Harding not getting a fair shake from other historians but the evidence he uses to refute the claims is shallow and, in some cases, dismissive.
A savage editor may have been able to raise the level of Walters' writing and certainly would have saved him from characterizing Harding's administration as 'sprendthrift' when he was trying to make the point that it was intent on cutting costs and taxes.
February 13, 2025
Not as dry as many biographies, this account of the original Warren “G” attempts to rescue the Harding legacy from the dung heap of history. To be sure my opinion on Harding’s post-WWI term was largely unformed, but by this account at least, he seemed like a pretty good egg.
February 17, 2023
The author starts out by admitting a prejudice: Harding was not only not as bad as we have been led to believe, but he was actually both straightforward and competent. He states clearly that he plans to change our "common knowledge" that the opposite was true. Then he proceeds to do so. An eye-opener.
December 6, 2024
Well, I certainly picked the wrong book to learn about Warren G Harding. Walters tries to redeem Harding’s reputation as one of the worst American presidents. He extols his personal kindness and friendliness and work ethic. But completely glosses over both Harding’s personal scandals and the rank corruption of his administration. Walters asserts that it wasn’t Harding’s fault that his Cabinet was filled with a bunch of crooks. He essentially says that they were his friends and he had no idea what they were doing. I suppose that’s a sign of flaws in his administrative abilities or the fact that he was just stupid. It’s hard to believe he wasn’t aware of the facts.
At the same time, Walters presents his case for redeeming Harding’s presidency from the vantage point of an “America First” right wing conservative. The book reads more like a polemic on any of the progressive approaches to government, complaining about the Federal income tax and the Central Banking System, etc. He spends about half the book lambasting the move toward progressive policies of any kind, especially those beginning with Theodore Roosevelt’s presidency through Woodrow Wilson’s. It’s basically ultra conservative propaganda in the guise of “historical facts.”
At the same time, Walters presents his case for redeeming Harding’s presidency from the vantage point of an “America First” right wing conservative. The book reads more like a polemic on any of the progressive approaches to government, complaining about the Federal income tax and the Central Banking System, etc. He spends about half the book lambasting the move toward progressive policies of any kind, especially those beginning with Theodore Roosevelt’s presidency through Woodrow Wilson’s. It’s basically ultra conservative propaganda in the guise of “historical facts.”
May 7, 2022
This book is well written but is a right wing polemic. I was displeased by the constant reference to WW I as Wilson's War. I did not like continual reference to Wm. McAdoo as Heir Apparent. There is a complete lack of reference to the extraordinary Democrat convention of 1920 which made Harding's election easier.
May 2, 2022
This is just a great defense of one of the most obscure presidents. The part that stuck with me was that President Harding addressed the graduating class of Lincoln University in Pennsylvania in 1921. An all black college. This was way before its time, and came right on the heels of the infamous Tulsa race massacre. A really bold and excellent statement on race equality by President Harding. Quite educational and a good read
November 3, 2022
I agree with this book's premise, but it undermined itself with hagiography. A stronger case would be made for Harding if the author hadn't tried so hard to present absolutely every facet of his life and work in a positive light.
June 19, 2024
Despite conventional wisdom, Warren G. Harding was NOT America's "worst" president. In fact, he was a pretty decent one. In terms of reputation though he is the most unlucky, though a combination of bad luck and poor personal decisions.
First to set the record straight--Harding, while a man of little philosophy, was a good president. He served capably if not extraordinarily in several Ohio state offices; built up a decent Ohio newspaper; married a woman who may have lacked love and lust but shared his ambition; and he served ably as a United States Senator during the trying times of the first World War.
Woodrow Wilson's presidency ended in disaster with a debilitating stroke and Congressional Republicans repudiating his League of Nations. Then former President Theodore Roosevelt, who was clearly positioning to run again, died suddenly. Enter genial, handsome, non-controversial Warren Harding. Promising a return to "normalcy," Harding trounced the 1920 election.
Realizing his shortcomings, he appointed some brilliant men to his cabinet such as Herbert Hoover and Charles Evans Hughes, and largely stayed out of their way. He persuaded Congress to adopt a resolution formally ending World War I and healed wounds by releasing Eugene Debs, a Socialist presidential candidate whom the Wilson Administration had arrested and convicted for speaking out against the war (sorry Liberals, Trump is not the first convicted presidential candidate!). When a post war recession/depression struck instead of today's deficit spending, he cut the government and government regulation and provided the economy with confidence by signing legislation creating the first federal budget office, and the 1921 depression ended. In fact unemployment dropped to less than 2 percent. Charles Evans Hughes would hold the Washington Naval Conference that led to disarmament and certainly delayed World War II.
At a time when the Ku Kux Klan was active, Harding, who had been assailed by a critic as being of mixed race, politically poisonous at the time, gave a courageous speech speaking out against racism. All in all for serving less than a single term Harding had many accomplishments. But there was in fact a darker side.
Beholden to Ohio friends and other politicians who had supported them Harding made some poor appointments of cronies. A massive scandal consumed the veterans bureau, in fact a reporter once came in to find Harding literally choking the corrupt head of the department and the department lawyer later killed himself.
Harding also had a secret life. The First Lady wasn't exactly the loving type and Harding previously had a German mistress whom he later gave up to a much younger woman, Nan Britton, who gave birth to Harding's daughter. Harding evidently quietly provided what we would now call child support to Britton.
The stress of the scandals and his secret love life led to a frightening decline in Harding's health in mid 1923. Today we would recognize his symptoms as heart failure--it got to the point that the White House usher later wrote Harding was so short of breath he had to sleep propped up. Then a new scandal, later called Teapot Dome, emerged in the Interior Department. Trying to divert attention, Harding went on a speaking tour of Alaska, the first president to visit the future state. But he suffered a massive heart attack and died in a San Francisco hotel where he had been taken to recover. And this is how he became known as the worst president.
After his death, there was no one to defend him. Many of his cabinet members had their own political asperations and did not want to sully themselves trying to defend him. New president Calvin Coolidge would get much of the credit for the booming economy Harding had birthed. No evidence ever implicated Harding in any way but the Teapot Dome investigation went on for years with guilty convictions. Harding's wife, trying to save face about his mistress, burned many of his papers and his family seized and kept the rest hidden from researchers for decades. The family refused to support Nan Britton and she ended up writing a best-selling book. When scholars started to look at Harding for the centennial of his birth they discovered love letters to his one-time German mistress. Then in the 21st century a DNA test proved beyond doubt Nan Britton's child was Harding's. The man just never could get a break.
But this book shows that Harding was not a bad president and in fact accomplished many good things. He himself unlike Richard Nixon for example, was never personally involved in any of the criminal wrong-doing of a few bad men even if he had made the mistake of appointing them. He supported the child he had fathered and it was his heirs' refusal to continue the support and who denied his paternity that caused those bad echos of history.
Warren Harding lays buried in an elegant but little visited tomb outside his hometown of Marion, Ohio. As this book shows, he wasn't the best president, but he was a steady calming presence in a time that needed it and he does not deserve the ridicule historians and political commentors have heaped upon him.
First to set the record straight--Harding, while a man of little philosophy, was a good president. He served capably if not extraordinarily in several Ohio state offices; built up a decent Ohio newspaper; married a woman who may have lacked love and lust but shared his ambition; and he served ably as a United States Senator during the trying times of the first World War.
Woodrow Wilson's presidency ended in disaster with a debilitating stroke and Congressional Republicans repudiating his League of Nations. Then former President Theodore Roosevelt, who was clearly positioning to run again, died suddenly. Enter genial, handsome, non-controversial Warren Harding. Promising a return to "normalcy," Harding trounced the 1920 election.
Realizing his shortcomings, he appointed some brilliant men to his cabinet such as Herbert Hoover and Charles Evans Hughes, and largely stayed out of their way. He persuaded Congress to adopt a resolution formally ending World War I and healed wounds by releasing Eugene Debs, a Socialist presidential candidate whom the Wilson Administration had arrested and convicted for speaking out against the war (sorry Liberals, Trump is not the first convicted presidential candidate!). When a post war recession/depression struck instead of today's deficit spending, he cut the government and government regulation and provided the economy with confidence by signing legislation creating the first federal budget office, and the 1921 depression ended. In fact unemployment dropped to less than 2 percent. Charles Evans Hughes would hold the Washington Naval Conference that led to disarmament and certainly delayed World War II.
At a time when the Ku Kux Klan was active, Harding, who had been assailed by a critic as being of mixed race, politically poisonous at the time, gave a courageous speech speaking out against racism. All in all for serving less than a single term Harding had many accomplishments. But there was in fact a darker side.
Beholden to Ohio friends and other politicians who had supported them Harding made some poor appointments of cronies. A massive scandal consumed the veterans bureau, in fact a reporter once came in to find Harding literally choking the corrupt head of the department and the department lawyer later killed himself.
Harding also had a secret life. The First Lady wasn't exactly the loving type and Harding previously had a German mistress whom he later gave up to a much younger woman, Nan Britton, who gave birth to Harding's daughter. Harding evidently quietly provided what we would now call child support to Britton.
The stress of the scandals and his secret love life led to a frightening decline in Harding's health in mid 1923. Today we would recognize his symptoms as heart failure--it got to the point that the White House usher later wrote Harding was so short of breath he had to sleep propped up. Then a new scandal, later called Teapot Dome, emerged in the Interior Department. Trying to divert attention, Harding went on a speaking tour of Alaska, the first president to visit the future state. But he suffered a massive heart attack and died in a San Francisco hotel where he had been taken to recover. And this is how he became known as the worst president.
After his death, there was no one to defend him. Many of his cabinet members had their own political asperations and did not want to sully themselves trying to defend him. New president Calvin Coolidge would get much of the credit for the booming economy Harding had birthed. No evidence ever implicated Harding in any way but the Teapot Dome investigation went on for years with guilty convictions. Harding's wife, trying to save face about his mistress, burned many of his papers and his family seized and kept the rest hidden from researchers for decades. The family refused to support Nan Britton and she ended up writing a best-selling book. When scholars started to look at Harding for the centennial of his birth they discovered love letters to his one-time German mistress. Then in the 21st century a DNA test proved beyond doubt Nan Britton's child was Harding's. The man just never could get a break.
But this book shows that Harding was not a bad president and in fact accomplished many good things. He himself unlike Richard Nixon for example, was never personally involved in any of the criminal wrong-doing of a few bad men even if he had made the mistake of appointing them. He supported the child he had fathered and it was his heirs' refusal to continue the support and who denied his paternity that caused those bad echos of history.
Warren Harding lays buried in an elegant but little visited tomb outside his hometown of Marion, Ohio. As this book shows, he wasn't the best president, but he was a steady calming presence in a time that needed it and he does not deserve the ridicule historians and political commentors have heaped upon him.
July 10, 2023
It has to be a challenge to write a biography oh Warren Harding, who is on most historian’s lists of worst US presidents. So it’s just as well that the subtitle to this expressly says it’s a defense of Harding. And it’s timely too. Historians generally are starting to revise views of his presidency.
Ryan Walters does a good job here.
Negative reviews on Goodreads accuse Walters of conservative bias. But I reject that. Because of the reviews, my bias radar was on high alert throughout. But Walters passed with flying colors. Everything he said in support of his case is verified elsewhere. Except for when Walters openly pleads his case, he’s solidly factual.
There’s no getting around the reality that Harding was a good well liked person who came to the presidency with an agenda to heal the country following a chaotic time; WWI, the post war depression, labor strife, Bolshevism, racial strife and an identity crisis as to how we fit into the rest of the world. Harding wanted to sooth the chaos and get back to. normalcy. And he did exactly that… to the extent he could considering his sudden death just 2 1/2 years into his administration.
The disdain for Harding stands on three pillars.
One is character. After his death, it became widely known that he had affairs before he got to the White House. Considering where we are in our history and what we now know of FDR, JFK, Clinton and countless others in high places, that issue, regarding Harding, is no longer worth discussing.
Next come some big infamous scandals. Harding did not participate. And we’re not sure how much he learned before he died. The sh*t hit the fan after he died. Should this continue to stain his reputation? That’s a hard question. Walters thinks not. But I think one would have to dig seriously into other sources to come up with a conclusion on that.
The other issue is conservative versus liberal thought. Harding was a classic conservative.That’a a hard topic to discuss today since both camps are rushing furiously to their most psychotic extremes.
And here, I think, lies the strength of this book. It presents Harding exactly as he was, a classic conservative without all the culture war cruelty that infects conservatism today. And it presents classic liberalism (progressivism) without the childish stupidity that infects that camp today, although Walters is hard enough on Woodrow Wilson to make clear where he stands, Despite that, we see a strong case in support of Harding’s conservatism being what we needed in the early 1920s. Abortion, LBGTQ and bathrooms, prayer in schools, etc. are not part of this debate. It’s back to basics, big vs small government, the role of taxation, the role of federal spending … the basics. I think that today, those who despise Harding really have to boil it down to preferences on issues like that. Is it legitimate to disagree with that kind of conservatism? Absolutely! Is it legitimate to use that disagreement to consider Harding one of our worst presidents? Absolutely not! The evidence is clear Harding was surprisingly effective at implementing his conservative vision given how little time he had.
This book made me curious to go further so I plan to move on to Coolidge and Hoover.
Ryan Walters does a good job here.
Negative reviews on Goodreads accuse Walters of conservative bias. But I reject that. Because of the reviews, my bias radar was on high alert throughout. But Walters passed with flying colors. Everything he said in support of his case is verified elsewhere. Except for when Walters openly pleads his case, he’s solidly factual.
There’s no getting around the reality that Harding was a good well liked person who came to the presidency with an agenda to heal the country following a chaotic time; WWI, the post war depression, labor strife, Bolshevism, racial strife and an identity crisis as to how we fit into the rest of the world. Harding wanted to sooth the chaos and get back to. normalcy. And he did exactly that… to the extent he could considering his sudden death just 2 1/2 years into his administration.
The disdain for Harding stands on three pillars.
One is character. After his death, it became widely known that he had affairs before he got to the White House. Considering where we are in our history and what we now know of FDR, JFK, Clinton and countless others in high places, that issue, regarding Harding, is no longer worth discussing.
Next come some big infamous scandals. Harding did not participate. And we’re not sure how much he learned before he died. The sh*t hit the fan after he died. Should this continue to stain his reputation? That’s a hard question. Walters thinks not. But I think one would have to dig seriously into other sources to come up with a conclusion on that.
The other issue is conservative versus liberal thought. Harding was a classic conservative.That’a a hard topic to discuss today since both camps are rushing furiously to their most psychotic extremes.
And here, I think, lies the strength of this book. It presents Harding exactly as he was, a classic conservative without all the culture war cruelty that infects conservatism today. And it presents classic liberalism (progressivism) without the childish stupidity that infects that camp today, although Walters is hard enough on Woodrow Wilson to make clear where he stands, Despite that, we see a strong case in support of Harding’s conservatism being what we needed in the early 1920s. Abortion, LBGTQ and bathrooms, prayer in schools, etc. are not part of this debate. It’s back to basics, big vs small government, the role of taxation, the role of federal spending … the basics. I think that today, those who despise Harding really have to boil it down to preferences on issues like that. Is it legitimate to disagree with that kind of conservatism? Absolutely! Is it legitimate to use that disagreement to consider Harding one of our worst presidents? Absolutely not! The evidence is clear Harding was surprisingly effective at implementing his conservative vision given how little time he had.
This book made me curious to go further so I plan to move on to Coolidge and Hoover.
April 14, 2024
Warren G. Harding is largely seen as among our worst, if not our absolute worst president. In this small volume, Walter takes issue with this prevailing wisdom. In a nutshell, Walters shows us that Harding achieved much in his 29 months in office. Harding reversed the spending of the WWI era, resolved domestic issues, reformed taxes, and aggressively cut debt. He was a classical conservative and governed in the manner of a 19th century president. Today Harding would be a supply side economics champion and libertarian limiting the size of government. Walters explains that there is nothing about Harding that makes him anything but a good solid chief executive.
The problem many historians have with Harding is that after TR, Taft, and Wilson, who all expanded the power of the president and the scope of government, Harding turned the clock back. In many ways, in the moment, this was a good thing. However, considering world events over the next 20 years, it appears that Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover missed an opportunity that left Roosevelt playing catch up. In addition, Harding fathered an illegitimate child and appointed a cabinet of crooks; several of whom went to prison over scandals of which Harding was oblivious. The scandals after his death show that he was not in control of his government and his cheating on his wife show his poor character and lack of moral substance which mattered to the electorate at that time. Good administrator or not, Harding was man of poor moral character who was oblivious to the illegal activities of men he directly supervised.
A criticism of the book is that Walters spends many pages bashing other presidents. At times I felt as though this book was a biography of Woodrow Wilson. Walters makes many very good points and supports his arguments well. Unfortunately, he detracts from his own arguments by appearing petty in his bashing others.
In the end, I found the book valuable. I can see that like several well thought of executives, Harding worked hard and was successful dealing with the issues of the day. His tragic death kept him from cleaning house himself as scandals arose leaving his detractors to defame him. Was he a terrible president? I no longer think so. It is obvious Walters is a conservative, I am not. However, I understand that many conservative ideas have their time and place. It seems to me that Harding was well placed to have been a very effective and well thought of executive had he lived out his term and/or even served a second term. However, like Nixon who was an amazingly effective president, it was the breach of confidence, the violation of principle that disqualified him from greatness. Harding had a child with a mistress while in office and the scandals that surfaced after his death showed that he was not in control of his administration. We can respect his conservative vision and achievements while admitting that his lack of respect from historians is still not unreasonable.
The problem many historians have with Harding is that after TR, Taft, and Wilson, who all expanded the power of the president and the scope of government, Harding turned the clock back. In many ways, in the moment, this was a good thing. However, considering world events over the next 20 years, it appears that Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover missed an opportunity that left Roosevelt playing catch up. In addition, Harding fathered an illegitimate child and appointed a cabinet of crooks; several of whom went to prison over scandals of which Harding was oblivious. The scandals after his death show that he was not in control of his government and his cheating on his wife show his poor character and lack of moral substance which mattered to the electorate at that time. Good administrator or not, Harding was man of poor moral character who was oblivious to the illegal activities of men he directly supervised.
A criticism of the book is that Walters spends many pages bashing other presidents. At times I felt as though this book was a biography of Woodrow Wilson. Walters makes many very good points and supports his arguments well. Unfortunately, he detracts from his own arguments by appearing petty in his bashing others.
In the end, I found the book valuable. I can see that like several well thought of executives, Harding worked hard and was successful dealing with the issues of the day. His tragic death kept him from cleaning house himself as scandals arose leaving his detractors to defame him. Was he a terrible president? I no longer think so. It is obvious Walters is a conservative, I am not. However, I understand that many conservative ideas have their time and place. It seems to me that Harding was well placed to have been a very effective and well thought of executive had he lived out his term and/or even served a second term. However, like Nixon who was an amazingly effective president, it was the breach of confidence, the violation of principle that disqualified him from greatness. Harding had a child with a mistress while in office and the scandals that surfaced after his death showed that he was not in control of his administration. We can respect his conservative vision and achievements while admitting that his lack of respect from historians is still not unreasonable.
March 29, 2023
Warren G. Harding, the 29th President of the United States. What usually comes to mind are the historians saying, “Worst President ever.”, “Complete and dreadful nitwit.” But was he? Ryan S. Walters wrote an excellent book dispelling those critics and giving credence to President Harding as a good, if not great President. In his book, “The Jazz Age President”, Walters details Harding’s life both before his rise to the Presidency, during his tenure (albeit short) as President and his legacy after his death. Harding is unfairly considered among the worst Presidents in history. Did he have some faults, yes; did he make some bad choices in his appointments, yes, yet what President did not? Whenever an issue arose with his administration, he addressed the issue without hesitancy. He was by fault, a very trusting person and relied on his appointees to do the right thing, and some did not. He was, though the right President for the time he was elected.
Elected in 1920, just after the end of WWI and the Wilson administration, the country faced a poor economy, high interest rates, social disruption, conflict with other nations, high unemployment and general uncertainty. Under his short presidency, his ideas and policies resulted in an economic boom, unemployment dropped to 1.6%, he restored peace and worked to eliminate civil unrest. He ran on a platform of, “America's present need is not heroics but healing; not nostrums but normalcy; not revolution but restoration; not agitation but adjustment; not surgery, but serenity; not the dramatic, but the dispassionate; not experiment, but equipoise; not submergence in internationality, but sustainment in triumphant nationality.” He stood on a “return to normalcy” campaign. Harding believed that “…every man who does the garb of American citizenship and walks in the light of American opportunity, must become an American heart and soul.” Walters does an excellent job in pointing out the misconceptions of President Harding and how his leadership and his initiatives helped turn the country around during the roaring 20’s.
If you were like me, I knew very little of the Jazz Age President, yet after reading the author’s book, I better understand Warren G. Harding and what he did in the short period he was President and how he laid the groundwork for Calvin Coolidge to continue the growth and prosperity of the American economy. This was an excellent book by Ryan S. Walters on the misunderstood Jazz Age President.
Elected in 1920, just after the end of WWI and the Wilson administration, the country faced a poor economy, high interest rates, social disruption, conflict with other nations, high unemployment and general uncertainty. Under his short presidency, his ideas and policies resulted in an economic boom, unemployment dropped to 1.6%, he restored peace and worked to eliminate civil unrest. He ran on a platform of, “America's present need is not heroics but healing; not nostrums but normalcy; not revolution but restoration; not agitation but adjustment; not surgery, but serenity; not the dramatic, but the dispassionate; not experiment, but equipoise; not submergence in internationality, but sustainment in triumphant nationality.” He stood on a “return to normalcy” campaign. Harding believed that “…every man who does the garb of American citizenship and walks in the light of American opportunity, must become an American heart and soul.” Walters does an excellent job in pointing out the misconceptions of President Harding and how his leadership and his initiatives helped turn the country around during the roaring 20’s.
If you were like me, I knew very little of the Jazz Age President, yet after reading the author’s book, I better understand Warren G. Harding and what he did in the short period he was President and how he laid the groundwork for Calvin Coolidge to continue the growth and prosperity of the American economy. This was an excellent book by Ryan S. Walters on the misunderstood Jazz Age President.
September 7, 2022
It is revisionist history at its finest! The author cites dozens of critics of President Harding over time, beginning with his contemporary appraisers, and then he carefully reviews the actual words and actions of Warren Harding during his time in the office. He certainly persuaded me that Harding was a refreshing antidote to his predecessor Woodrow Wilson. It seems that journalists and “academic types” have been supporting damaging political policies for longer than today’s living memories. And they have been vilifying those who disagree with them for just as long. Even when the actions by “the vilified” cause government debt reduction, careful adherence to fairness in application of law, healthy relations with foreign nations, general economic prosperity for the citizens, and other evidences of kindness, hard critics tend to focus upon any flaw (or make some up) of someone disliked. And that has long been the case for President Harding, whose presidency began the “most prosperous decade in American history.”
Read how President Harding traveled to the South to appeal for racial unity and urge fairness of citizenry for the black population; how he pushed for anti-lynching legislation; how he was “open and transparent” with the people and the press, deferential to Congress, and respectful of the Constitution. Read about how the lowered tax rates prompted businesses and individuals to create and build new inventions, which in turn made more productive lives for all. It is sometimes called “Coolidge prosperity,” but President Coolidge carried forward all the policies instituted by President Harding.
The author does not omit description of the “Harding scandals.” But he does demonstrate that blame for much of them falls upon others who themselves betrayed President Harding. He does not present to us a flawless man, but only appeals to our sense of fairness to acknowledge that all presidents—as all humans—are flawed. The book is not a full biography. It focuses upon the man as he exercised his duties as US President.
I recommend it to not only those interested in American presidents, but to those who may need prompting to reconsider what any “consensus” of journalists and, yes, historians may have decreed about someone’s reputation by repetition of each other’s words.
Read how President Harding traveled to the South to appeal for racial unity and urge fairness of citizenry for the black population; how he pushed for anti-lynching legislation; how he was “open and transparent” with the people and the press, deferential to Congress, and respectful of the Constitution. Read about how the lowered tax rates prompted businesses and individuals to create and build new inventions, which in turn made more productive lives for all. It is sometimes called “Coolidge prosperity,” but President Coolidge carried forward all the policies instituted by President Harding.
The author does not omit description of the “Harding scandals.” But he does demonstrate that blame for much of them falls upon others who themselves betrayed President Harding. He does not present to us a flawless man, but only appeals to our sense of fairness to acknowledge that all presidents—as all humans—are flawed. The book is not a full biography. It focuses upon the man as he exercised his duties as US President.
I recommend it to not only those interested in American presidents, but to those who may need prompting to reconsider what any “consensus” of journalists and, yes, historians may have decreed about someone’s reputation by repetition of each other’s words.
June 27, 2025
At the outset, after a whiny, excessive, and arguably unnecessary prologue, I was prepared to give this book a single star. It seemed that the author was on the verge of making his entire case on secondary sources, on gut rather than fact. However, once I got into the first chapter and continued, Ryan Walters proved to be quite the scholar of history, not only citing a high number of primary sources, but deft in his knowledge and presentation of historical nuance, enough that you can actually see, on some level, why it would be useful or wise to defend Harding's presidency. You can even see the legitimate, rhetorical, and patriotic roots of an American First policy that might have once made sense, one that now gets coupled with exhausting partisanship at home (rather than a policy that reaches across and benefits both aisles), demonizing hate, and passive, disregarding cruelty toward so many branches of humanity. Walters deserves credit for making the case that postwar America, in 1920, needed a healer, someone to restore normalcy, and that Harding did a decent (if not good) job in such a role.
At times, I found myself so impressed by the scholarship that I was verging on four stars, but then Walters would drift back into hyperbole and excuses, even going so far as to write and print near the end, "Harding had personal flaws, but nearly all presidents do. Sure, he made a few choices that turned out to be bad, but..." But. But. But. Ugh. That's annoying as hell. Any "historian" who lives in a world of whataboutism, deflecting actions and decisions on generalities of human imperfection, isn't letting those actions and decisions (or history itself, for that matter) speak for themselves. Instead, it's just cherry-picking statements in order to ensure a certain point of view, which is precisely what Walters accused others of doing with Harding in their own biased accounts. I'll concede, for sure, that Harding was better than worst, easily putting Buchanan at the bottom, with Pierce, Andrew Johnson, or even the first Adams below him, but what that means, for Harding, is that he still needs a more comprehensive, unsullied accounting in presidential history, one that doesn't treat him as a filler president any more than it (as Walters does) treat him like an economic and postwar political hero of Republican values.
At times, I found myself so impressed by the scholarship that I was verging on four stars, but then Walters would drift back into hyperbole and excuses, even going so far as to write and print near the end, "Harding had personal flaws, but nearly all presidents do. Sure, he made a few choices that turned out to be bad, but..." But. But. But. Ugh. That's annoying as hell. Any "historian" who lives in a world of whataboutism, deflecting actions and decisions on generalities of human imperfection, isn't letting those actions and decisions (or history itself, for that matter) speak for themselves. Instead, it's just cherry-picking statements in order to ensure a certain point of view, which is precisely what Walters accused others of doing with Harding in their own biased accounts. I'll concede, for sure, that Harding was better than worst, easily putting Buchanan at the bottom, with Pierce, Andrew Johnson, or even the first Adams below him, but what that means, for Harding, is that he still needs a more comprehensive, unsullied accounting in presidential history, one that doesn't treat him as a filler president any more than it (as Walters does) treat him like an economic and postwar political hero of Republican values.
July 11, 2024
For more reviews and bookish posts visit: https://www.ManOfLaBook.com
The Jazz Age President: Defending Warren G. Harding by Ryan S. Walters makes the case that America’s 29th President was one of the better Chief Executives with an undeserved reputation. Mr. Walters is a historian and educator.
This is a short, but very enjoyable book. I didn’t know much about Warren G. Harding when I first started reading the book, and while it’s not and compassing biography I did learn a lot.
The Jazz Age President by Ryan S. Walters concentrates on world affairs during the 2+ years of the Harding presidency. I loved the fact that the author gives the reader historical context, as well as relevant commentary to give the reader an understanding of the issue he’s referring to.
Most of the work, however, is a defense of the legacy of President Warren G. Harding. As he came into office, after Woodrow Wilson’s assault on civil liberties and the economy buckling from World War I, Harding had his work cut out for him. The efforts bore fruit and the country saw a decade of economic expansion not seen before.
Harding’s “America First” policies included reigning in the economy. He reduced government spending, slashed taxes, increased tariffs, and shrank the size of the federal government while reversing Wilson’s racist policies, and championing the hiring of African Americans.
I thought Mr. Walter made his case, that President Harding, inheriting a nation in crisis, led the United States in a laudable manner. Unfortunately, Harding, a good and somewhat naïve man, couldn’t see the corruption of those around him. This reminds me of President Grant who had similar issues.
The book doesn’t ignore the President’s faults. Quite the opposite, they are pointed out but also put up against his accomplishments. Historians treat Harding’s sexual liaisons (two that we know of) much harsher treatment than those of much more “active” Presidents, and his scandals are not any worse than ones in administrations before and after he took office.
The book was very interesting and quite easy to read. Despite its brief number of pages, especially when compared with other presidential biographies, it is interesting and provocative
The Jazz Age President: Defending Warren G. Harding by Ryan S. Walters makes the case that America’s 29th President was one of the better Chief Executives with an undeserved reputation. Mr. Walters is a historian and educator.
This is a short, but very enjoyable book. I didn’t know much about Warren G. Harding when I first started reading the book, and while it’s not and compassing biography I did learn a lot.
The Jazz Age President by Ryan S. Walters concentrates on world affairs during the 2+ years of the Harding presidency. I loved the fact that the author gives the reader historical context, as well as relevant commentary to give the reader an understanding of the issue he’s referring to.
Most of the work, however, is a defense of the legacy of President Warren G. Harding. As he came into office, after Woodrow Wilson’s assault on civil liberties and the economy buckling from World War I, Harding had his work cut out for him. The efforts bore fruit and the country saw a decade of economic expansion not seen before.
Harding’s “America First” policies included reigning in the economy. He reduced government spending, slashed taxes, increased tariffs, and shrank the size of the federal government while reversing Wilson’s racist policies, and championing the hiring of African Americans.
I thought Mr. Walter made his case, that President Harding, inheriting a nation in crisis, led the United States in a laudable manner. Unfortunately, Harding, a good and somewhat naïve man, couldn’t see the corruption of those around him. This reminds me of President Grant who had similar issues.
The book doesn’t ignore the President’s faults. Quite the opposite, they are pointed out but also put up against his accomplishments. Historians treat Harding’s sexual liaisons (two that we know of) much harsher treatment than those of much more “active” Presidents, and his scandals are not any worse than ones in administrations before and after he took office.
The book was very interesting and quite easy to read. Despite its brief number of pages, especially when compared with other presidential biographies, it is interesting and provocative
June 23, 2023
In one class at Pacific a professor quipped "the only good thing that Warren Harding did for the Country was to die." The more you read about Harding's presidency that judgment is simply wrong.
Harding succeeded a disabled, virulent racist who declared to one of his cabinet people - I am here because God wanted me to be here. In the Wilson era it was my way or the highway.
Harding served less time as JFK but during Harding's time he vanquished a deep recession in about a year by lowering tax rates and other choices to improve economic activity, created a major international disarmament conference, took active steps to assure equal rights , Appointed four justices to the Supreme Court, improved our relationships with Mexico and several countries in Latin America, he helped to create the Bureau of the Budget (which began to develop a careful process for the federal budget), he commuted the sentence of Eugene V Debs and invited the Socialist to the White House, he promoted equal opportunity in a speech to Lincoln University, he sponsored (stopped by the Democrats in the Senate) and anti-lynching bill. That is just a short list of his couple of years in office. Oh and then there were his efforts continued by his successor to diminish the national debt.
HE was an early opponent of quotas - decrying efforts by demagogues who wanted to divide the population on race or economics.
So then there were the three scandals. Scum like Harry Daughtery,the AG who sold influence; the VA scandal (when the VA had 20% of the total budget - where the administrator skimmed off the top; then there is Teapot dome (where a former Senator from New Mexico in the role of the Secretary of the Interior) sold off two leases. That is not to suggest that these were nothing but they look pretty puny in light of scandals in future administrations.
Walters points out that many of his detractors built their stories on the gossip of spoiled children like Alice Roosevelt and a series of gossip columnists pretending to be historians. He deserves better and Walters help to turn the tide, just a bit.
Harding succeeded a disabled, virulent racist who declared to one of his cabinet people - I am here because God wanted me to be here. In the Wilson era it was my way or the highway.
Harding served less time as JFK but during Harding's time he vanquished a deep recession in about a year by lowering tax rates and other choices to improve economic activity, created a major international disarmament conference, took active steps to assure equal rights , Appointed four justices to the Supreme Court, improved our relationships with Mexico and several countries in Latin America, he helped to create the Bureau of the Budget (which began to develop a careful process for the federal budget), he commuted the sentence of Eugene V Debs and invited the Socialist to the White House, he promoted equal opportunity in a speech to Lincoln University, he sponsored (stopped by the Democrats in the Senate) and anti-lynching bill. That is just a short list of his couple of years in office. Oh and then there were his efforts continued by his successor to diminish the national debt.
HE was an early opponent of quotas - decrying efforts by demagogues who wanted to divide the population on race or economics.
So then there were the three scandals. Scum like Harry Daughtery,the AG who sold influence; the VA scandal (when the VA had 20% of the total budget - where the administrator skimmed off the top; then there is Teapot dome (where a former Senator from New Mexico in the role of the Secretary of the Interior) sold off two leases. That is not to suggest that these were nothing but they look pretty puny in light of scandals in future administrations.
Walters points out that many of his detractors built their stories on the gossip of spoiled children like Alice Roosevelt and a series of gossip columnists pretending to be historians. He deserves better and Walters help to turn the tide, just a bit.
December 24, 2022
Here we have a historical biography where the author right at the start admits his strong bias and tells us he's a big Trump guy. He wants to revise the story told on Warren G. Harding and how he is similar to Trump....
I want my historians to be as not biased as possible which I conversely believe is essentially impossible but one must strive to be that. This admission made by the author at the beginning of the text is a violation of what I value in a historian.
That aside, I do like reading different sides of the story. Here we have one that is very different than my own personal values talking about the greatness of this president which most feel is one of the worst. It is also my first biography on this leader. I am starting to make myself impatient with this preamble let me get to it.
What I liked: The author was upfront about his bias. The author talked about how he likes conservative thought and highlighted that.
What I didn't like: If the author wasn't so involved with the story then we could hear different arguments. Sure we get a lot of H.L. Menken who couldn't stand Harding but aside from that we get a lot of praise for the president. The entire text felt slanted towards the author.
Ultimately I found Harding to be a sympathetic character. Especially his empathy for other races, not strong for these times but there is a rather low bar in the 20's. Now I have a reference for Harding. Now I feel it is necessary to keep reading about Harding and his time. I do not think this book gave me a comprehensive view but it has given me a valuable insight. I did find this book a very easy read, the author deserves this to be noticed.
3 stars, not 2.5, not 3.5.
I want my historians to be as not biased as possible which I conversely believe is essentially impossible but one must strive to be that. This admission made by the author at the beginning of the text is a violation of what I value in a historian.
That aside, I do like reading different sides of the story. Here we have one that is very different than my own personal values talking about the greatness of this president which most feel is one of the worst. It is also my first biography on this leader. I am starting to make myself impatient with this preamble let me get to it.
What I liked: The author was upfront about his bias. The author talked about how he likes conservative thought and highlighted that.
What I didn't like: If the author wasn't so involved with the story then we could hear different arguments. Sure we get a lot of H.L. Menken who couldn't stand Harding but aside from that we get a lot of praise for the president. The entire text felt slanted towards the author.
Ultimately I found Harding to be a sympathetic character. Especially his empathy for other races, not strong for these times but there is a rather low bar in the 20's. Now I have a reference for Harding. Now I feel it is necessary to keep reading about Harding and his time. I do not think this book gave me a comprehensive view but it has given me a valuable insight. I did find this book a very easy read, the author deserves this to be noticed.
3 stars, not 2.5, not 3.5.
June 18, 2025
I am fine with reading books by conservative authors. I have done so many times before and will continue to do so because I love reading a variety of perspectives. However I want them to be truthful to the facts of history and be balanced and nuanced. I read this book because the thesis fascinated me. Ryan S. Walters had such a great opportunity to make a profound statement with book about how we currently rank and determine presidential “greatness” and success is messed up. For instance why are awful people who did awful things such as Truman, FDR, and LBJ considered to great presidents while people like Jimmy Carter who genuinely cared about doing the right thing and doing their best with what they are given not? This could have been a great book had the author done a deep dive in the complexities and inherent contradictions present in Harding (we all have such complexities and contradictions within ourselves. It is why people are so fascinating to read about) instead of bending over backwards to defend everything Harding did at every turn.However instead of doing that Ryan S. Walter chalks the fact that historians and scholars consistently rank Harding as one of the worst US presidents down to the liberal bias of academia. In the end I ended up agreeing with his thesis but for different reasons than he started. I think how we determine greatness in our leaders is wrong (and a lot of times backwards). Warren G. Harding was a great man who did bad things, things that sometimes hurt a lot of people. If the author had explored that fully he could have yielded a thesis that actually said something profound about Warren Harding. Instead his current thesis says more about his own personal biases than it does about Warren G. Harding.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 67 reviews