The Leaders We Deserved (And a Few We Didn't): Rethinking the Presidential Rating Game

by Alvin S. Felzenberg

It’s a perennial pastime to compare U.S. presidents, but our current ranking systems are riddled with flaws. In The Leaders We Deserved (and a Few We Didn’t), Alvin Stephen Felzenberg offers logical categories of measuring presidential performance—character, vision, competence, legacy, and so on—while assessing, for each, the best and worst we’ve seen.A fresh and imaginative look at how our presidents stack up against one another, The Leaders We Deserved (and a Few We Didn’t) uniquely deliberates on the standard “greats” of our country’s history, giving them the critical consideration they deserve.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Politics, American History, Presidents

496 pages, Paperback

First published August 5, 2008

Reviews

[Kathleen · Rating 3 out of 5]

"The Leaders We Deserve" is interesting, because the author discusses in detail the criteria he uses to rank U.S. presidents. He ranks all the presidents, except Harrison and , who were in office only a short time before they died. He also does not rank George H.W. Bush, because he was in office as the author was writing the book. The author does, however, give initial thoughts on the Bush presidency at the end of the book.

I agree with most of Mr. Felzenberg's analysis of the successes and failures of most of the Presidents. I especially agree that President Grant is not given enough credit for his successes in enhancing the liberty of Americans and is given too much blame for the scandels during his administration. I also agree with his analysis of President Wilson's failure at home to enhance liberty.

The author says his analysis will help in choosing future U.S. presidents. I didn't see this at all from the book. Voters never see the candidates at real people but only through "sound bites" and "spin." Also much of what Mr. Felzenberg cites as strengths and weakness in the presidents was only revealed after the fact.

I did find the book worth reading.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

This should be required reading in every classroom in America. It's non-partisan -- Reagan and FDR are near the top with the usual suspects like Lincoln and Washington. And Nixon and Buchanan (and Carter) are near the bottom. So this guy isn't one of the Nixon-hung-the-moon, FDR-gave-away-Europe wackos on the right or a Reagan-was-the-worst-ever wacko on the left. He grades most presidents (not the current one who's still in office, or the two -- Garfield and the first Harrison -- who only had a cup of coffee as president) on 6 different categories, and averages them.

It's a fine study. I saw a few typos that a fact-checker should have caught. But nothing most people would notice. (I think he quotes a Lincoln speech in 1865 sted 1860.... But only a freak -- or me -- would notice.)

You know a book is good when you're recommending it to friends before you've even finished.

A must read for any kid who wants to major in history. Or any politician who aspires to be president. Or just for anybody who wants to argue about this subject. (T. Roosevelt better than F. Roosevelt? Coolidge and Kennedy on the same level? Harding gets a higher grade than Old Hickory?)

Enjoy. I did.

[Blaine Welgraven · Rating 4 out of 5]

"An enduring limitation to the usefulness of presidential surveys has been bias on the part of the evaluators....Yet once the bias of evaluators has been addressed, an even more serious problem inherent in most surveys--their failure to distinguish policy from process in their assessments of presidents--remains."

--Alvin S. Felzenberg, The Leaders We Deserved

Felzenberg’s sprawling work advances the premise that many presidential rankings are produced by historians endemically disposed to put political ideology before their subjects' personal ethics, operational capabilities and actual outcomes achieved. By employing a clearly defined evaluative methodology from Leader’s outset, Felzeberg’s work offers another way. What emerges from the author’s approach is a deeply nuanced portrayal of the presidents covered. You may disagree with Felzenberg's system - and his final rating results - but still leave with an enriched perspective on the complicated nature of both presidential history and the (to-date) men that have held the nation's highest office.

[E · Rating 3 out of 5]

Felzenberg sets out to rate the presidents, but instead of creating one list, he creates six. Many presidents were great in some areas and terrible in others, but that often gets lost in only one list. So he rates the presidents in three "internal" categories (character, vision, and competence) and three "external" categories (economic policy, preserving and extending liberty, and defense/national security/foreign policy). Presidents earn a score between 1 and 5 for each category (and yes, there's a combined final ranking at the end).

This book could have been great, but instead it's just good. For starters, it's inconsistent. Early chapters only address a few good and bad examples of each trait; later ones are more thorough, but still incomplete. Some presidents come up in nearly every chapter (Lincoln, Roosevelt 26, Nixon, Reagan), others not nearly enough (McKinley not at ALL, as the most glaring omission; other lesser-known presidents such as Van Buren, Fillmore, Arthur also not mentioned; Bush 41 gets about a page; I don't think Adams 6 ever showed up either--these are just the examples off the top of my head).

I could quibble with some of his determinations (he's probably too harsh on Nixon and too kind to Roosevelt 26, for example), but the book is wide-ranging and always interesting. But what really got me was the poor editing. Besides obvious mistakes that a third-grade proofreader should have caught (unpaired quotation marks, ha instead of had, hm instead of him, Regimen instead of Regiment, timeswhen without a space, e.g.), there are other errors that a decent editor should have caught (or a professional writer should not have made): mistaking pour for pore; prophesy for prophecy; "flat currency" (whatever that is) for fiat currency; intersession for intercession; persue (which far as I know isn't even a word) for pursue; stand down for stare down; Columbian for Colombian; reign for rein; once placing Ford's presidency in the 1950s; all in all, a slipshod publishing effort.

He also intentionally does not discuss Harrison 9, Garfield, or Bush 43. I understand he couldn't evaluate those presidencies at the time of writing, but he could have at least discussed some of those "internal" characteristics. We could all learn something from Garfield's remarkable life, as well as Bush's evangelical conversion.
Oh, and about that final ranking:
Lincoln scored 5 across the board for a perfect score
Washington in second place
Roosevelt 26 and Reagan tied for third
Eisenhower fifth
Roosevelt 32 sixth
Big five-way tie for seventh: Taylor, Grant, McKinley, Truman, Kennedy
Coolidge twelfth
Harrison 23 thirteenth
. . .
Buchanan last
Pierce and Johnson 17 next-to-last
Nixon just above them
Hoover and Tyler just above him

[Carlos · Rating 3 out of 5]

Felzenberg seeks to add nuance to the discussion of greatness (or lack thereof) of US presidents. He particularly wants to split the common rankings into sections on different aspects such as character, competence, economic policy, etc. In this way he is able to talk about both the surprising positive aspects of presidencies generally regard as bad overall as well as the negative points often ignored when discussing presidencies that are well regarded. Because of the book’s format, the reader will definitely experience of going over the same material over and over, but Felzenberg is mostly good in keeping lengthy discussions of particular presidencies to one or other of the subsections. Nonetheless some sections, such as that on economic policy, did tend to veer towards excess of detail and repetition. While the book overall does manage to add the nuance that Felzenberg desired and he is able to showcase lesser known aspects of presidential history, the book could have certainly benefited from pairing down on some of the repetition. Though probably not a fare for casual reader of history, those more interested will certainly be able to find nuggets of gold in this work.

[Remo · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you like history involving the Presidents then you will really like this book. It evaluates Presidents against six criteria. I was surprised by some of the ratings, and I enjoyed the write-ups that elaborated on some of the evaluations. (He did not provide exposition on his rationale for all the ratings, which would be completely unmanageable.)

[Tim · Rating 2 out of 5]

A look at rating the presidents in several categories. Provides brief descriptions of his best- and worst-rated in each category. From this, it is a decent summary of some President’s works and accomplishments. It gets a little tiring, though.

[Tim · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a fie-star presidential history, and easily the most well-crafted. The ratings are insightful, the history is enlightening, and the prose is great.

[Ryan · Rating 3 out of 5]

The time I spent reading The Leaders We Deserved was enjoyable and enlightening. The author examines each president in six specific areas (character, vision, competence, etc.) then gives a 1 to 5 rating. The book is primarily divided into a chapter for each of those areas of emphasis, including the numeric ratings along with vignettes on presidents who succeeded or failed in that area.

Any Presidential rating will contain its own biases, and Felzenberg's is no different. A few clear themes emerged from this one:

1. The author's purpose is openly partisan: promote Republicans and demote Democrats. He freely admits that he finds most presidential rankings too liberal, and he intended to shape one that was more "fair and balanced" (the quote was not his, but you might recognize the source). So famous Democrats faves Woodrow Wilson and Andrew Jackson will be humbled while Republicans such as U.S. Grant and William McKinley will be raised up.

2. Reagan for Rushmore. The author spends a large portion of the book promoting Ronald Reagan's accomplishments and excusing any "minor" flaws. A major goal of the book seems to be burnishing Reagan's image for posterity.

3. Reaganomics Rules. A close corollary of them #2 is the author's promotion of supply-side, "voodoo" economics. In all discussions of finance, it is an article of faith for the author that lowering taxes boosts the economy and increases government revenues. So in his estimation, any President who differed from this strategy was woefully misguided (and ranked down accordingly).

4. A Presidency is the not average of its parts. I thought this was really an excellent insight - that each presidency should be fairly examined on both its successes and failures. By seizing on a single flaw or great achievement, many presidents are unfairly vilified (e.g. Harding) or inaccurately cheered (Jefferson) without a thorough examination. The author emphasizes his skepticism for overall rankings by burying his own on an untitled chart on page 378.

5. A strong president is not necessarily a good president. Felzenberg complains that Andrew Jackson is often praised for increasing the power of the executive in America. But the author savages the original Democrat president for what he did with that power, especially his policies toward the Cherokees of the southern US.

The most enlightening section to me was chapter 6, "Preserving and Extending Liberty." The author spent a great deal of time examining the issues of slavery before the Civil War, and extension of full civil rights to blacks in the century plus that has followed it. I left this section with a renewed regard for oft-maligned U.S. Grant, who nearly alone among post-Civil War presidents tried to fulfill the freedoms the war was intended to extend to freed slaves. I also gained a new appreciation for Zachary Taylor, and 160 years later a new regret for his untimely death that gave America Millard Fillmore as president, and indirectly led to the Civil War according to the author.

One editorial complaint is that the charts sometimes didn't match the text of the book, which was somewhat confusing. For example, the text of chapter 1 suggests that Theodore Roosevelt was given a 5 on character, but the chart shows him as a 4. And while the book suggests George W. Bush cannot be evaluated fully to be included in the rankings, he nonetheless sneaks into slot #29 on the overall chart hidden in the back.

Overall I found it a stimulating read, though I disagreed with many of the author's biases. I expect that I will return to it in the future to continue to analyze the leaders we gave ourselves.

[John · Rating 5 out of 5]

Across the past years even decades I have found myself held hostage and even in virtual durance vile by the Presidential Ranking Surveys conducted by Arthur Schlesinger Sr. and then Arthur Schlesinger Jr. The Schlesinger's set out 6 categories for ratings: great, near great, high average, low average, below average and failure with no criteria provided for the selection process in any category. Felzenberg, however, invigorates the process with 6 enlightened categories of his own: character, vision, competence, economic policy, the protection and expansion of liberty and defense and foreign policy. Taken as a whole these provide historians or anyone else for that matter with a working standard against which to measure a chief executives performance.

This book really struck a chord with me and my review could be quite lengthy but I will confine myself to just 2 glaring examples perpetuated for many years by the "Schlesinger Syndrome" and for which Felzenberg provides resolution.

In 1962 A.S. Sr. rated Eisenhower in 22nd place, one below Chester A. Arthur. A main reason being that Ike trounced Sr's pet Adlai Stevenson in the 1952 and 1956 Presidential Elections by landslide victories. Essentially the polls taken since 1962 do not rank Ike lower than 12th. More objective reviews consistently rank him in the top 10. For instance: 9th in the Chicago Tribune Poll in 1982, 8th in the Wall Street Journal in 2005, 6th by the Times poll in 2008, 8th by CSpan in 2009. Even Schlesinger Jr in 1996 recognizing the folly of his father rated him 10th!!! Felzenberg here ranks Eisenhower in 5th place.

Alas, the apple does not fall far from the tree........
In 1996 A. S. Jr. rated Ronald Reagan in 25th place, one ahead of Chester A. Arthur -- do we see a fixation on Arthur here? Now consider Time Magazine’s front cover of Feb 7, 2011 showing Reagan and Obama apparently commiserating with big smiles -- although they never actually met. The cover reads "Why Obama loves (picture of a red heart) Reagan and what he's learned from him." A 6 page spread inside by Michael Scherer and Michael Dufffy begins "The Role Model. Barack Obama realized long ago that Ronald Reagan was a transformational President who reshaped the nation and its own politics. Now Obama is fashioning his own presidency to follow the Gipper's playbook." Are we to understand then that perhaps Time Magazine had it wrong and meant to opine that Chester Allen Arthur was Obama's role model and Obama was really striving to "Be like Chester" and courting a 26th place Presidential Ranking or seriously yearning for Reagan's 25th place rating? What is going on here? Well -- a beginning Reagan would use -- Felzeberg ranks Reagan at number 3 tied with Teddy Roosevelt and the President obviously recognizes Reagan's true greatness and is yearning to emulate the Gipper and surely the original Rough Rider in the hope of reaching a more lofty position for himself one day.

In the final analysis, Felzenberg's method stimulates a proper balance of separating politics from process and enables us to finally disregard the Schlesinger ratings as misguided, false and pure poppycock.

[Stuart · Rating 4 out of 5]

As an alternative to Schlesinger's survey of historians rating US Presidents, Alvin Felzenberg proposes rating them by 6 standards: Character, Vision, Competence, Economic Policy, Preserving & Extending Liberty, and Defense, National Security & Foreign Policy. Each of his chapters he tells the story of some key presidential successes and failures on each of these points then gives them a score 1 through 5. He then averages up the score and ranks them. Since I've been reading presidential biographies and I'm a sucker for lists I played along.

Spoiler alert: here are his final rankings! (Note: those with the same rankings are ties and that GW Bush was omitted because his 2nd term wasn't finished by this writing and WH Harrison and JA Garfield were omitted because they died after only a couple months in office):

1 Lincoln, 2 Washington, 3 T. Roosevelt, 3 Reagan

5 Eisenhower, 6 FDR

7 Z. Taylor, 7 Grant, 7 McKinley, 7 Truman, 7 Kennedy, 12 Coolidge, 13 B. Harrison

14 J. Adams, 14 Jefferson, 14 Monroe, 14 J. Q. Adams, 14 Wilson, 14 GHW Bush, 20 Polk, 20 Ford

22 Taft, 22 Clinton

24 Arthur, 24 Cleveland, 26 Harding, 27 Jackson, 27 LBJ

29 Madison, 29 Hayes, 29 Carter, 32 Van Buren, 32 Fillmore

34 Tyler, 34 Hoover, 34 Nixon, 37 Pierce, 37 A. Johnson, 39 Buchanan

It's hard to determine the author's bias, except that Reagan rates very high, higher than I would rate him given that I don't agree with Reagan's Economic or Foreign Policies. Other than that I'd say Felzenberg seems to be very objective and lays out good arguments for why for example Madison's presidency was disastrous or why Jackson is overrated, that his economic stances led to the worst depression until the Great one and that his actions on human rights are abominable. I also agree with him that presidents like Grant and Eisenhower deserve more credit.

So here is my less-scientific ranking:

Greatest presidents - FDR, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Washington

2nd tier great presidents - Grant, Truman

Decent, fairly successful presidents - Eisenhower, J. Adams, Jefferson, Monroe, Clinton, Taft, Kennedy, Ford

Simultaneously one of the worst and greatest of presidents: LBJ, Wilson

Successful presidents who I don't particularly like: Reagan, McKinley, Jackson, Polk

Forgettable, unremarkable: Coolidge, GHW Bush, Arthur, Cleveland

Could have beens: Z. Taylor (could have restricted slavery had he lived)

Underrated: B. Harrison (until I read this book I hadn't realized he had tried to protect freedman's rights)

Unsuccessful presidents but great ex-presidents: JQ Adams, Carter

Ineffectual or failed presidencies: Madison, Hayes, Van Buren, Tyler, Harding

Worst presidents of all time: GW Bush, Hoover, Nixon, Pierce, A. Johnson, Buchanan, Fillmore

[David Miller · Rating 3 out of 5]

Felzenberg plays the "Presidential Ratings Game" with an admirably level head, bringing exactly the kind of analysis we need when evaluating the performances of American Presidents. I wish the results were a lot better than they ended up being (though I confess the political implications of some of his conclusions were a factor in my disappointment), but throughout the book he stands on solid ground. It's futile to attempt to evaluate Presidents on a one-dimensional "great" to "terrible" scale, given their obviously differing strengths and weaknesses. A more thorough examination of several criteria gives us a better idea of which Presidents have been most successful.

Unfortunately, to really do that study justice would simply require more pages than we're presented with. I learned a fair amount of history, but the kind of comparison he's after really calls for a longer, denser text. This is the history major in me speaking now, as I understand a nine-hundred page tome wouldn't be as accessible as this should by all rights be. But it might serve to add more nuance to the presentation. Felzenberg's rankings of the Presidents are largely credible, though he tends to give too much credit to some of those who merely played lip service to civil rights even as he rightly holds others to task for not doing as much as they might have.

And then there's Reagan. Felzenberg has fewer negative things to say about Reagan than just about any one except Washington and Lincoln. He boldly proclaims him the greatest economic President of the last third of the 20th century; never mind the Savings and Loan crisis born of a climate of unregulated and wholesale fraud, or the fact that Reagan's prosperity benefited the very rich at a hugely disproportionate level. I don't want to descend to the level of Reagan bashing, but ranking him in the top quarter, let alone the top four, has to be some sort of a scandal.

Puzzling attempts to balance Reagan's reputation against the animosity of liberal historians aside, the analysis of most other Presidents is very informative and useful; the story of Andrew Johnson is a case in point of how the prejudices of the interpreters can blind us to the historical morality of a leader's actions, and make the craven actions of a bigot out to be a stance of courage. Lessons like that are the kind we really ought to hear about our leaders, and they make this book a worthwhile read.

(Note: this review is for the hardcover edition, which Goodreads does not have listed for some reason, not the audiobook).

[Urey Patrick]

There is a periodic and popular ranking of US Presidents that gets updated and publicized every now and then. It really is nothing more than a subjective popularity contest rather than a serious assessments in that there are no a-priori criteria used to assess the Presidents - instead, those historians invited to participate are asked to rank Presidents by whatever criteria they devise, and no explanation of rankings is made. It is a popularity poll with no attempt at objective or qualitative analysis. In addition to over-emphasizing 20th Century Presidents it obscures and stereo-types much about so many of the more "unpopular" Presidents. Felzenberg has attempted something else - he has defined six criteria that he then uses to assess US Presidents and rank them: Character, Vision, Competence, Economic Policy,Preserving & Extending Liberty, and last Defense, National Security & Foreign Policy. The result is an incisive and eminently readable book that offers detailed evaluations of all US Presidents according to his carefully defined criteria. There are some surprises - not everybody will agree with his results, but I think everybody will find it stimulating and will come away far better informed than before.

[Amy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very interesting -- I learned a lot about the presidents I knew nothing about and more about the presidents I thought I knew well.

Felzenberg evaluated our former leaders in 6 different categories: character; vision; competence; economic policy (timely for today's standards); preserving & extending liberty; and defense, national security & foreign policy. We had one president who scored fives (highest score) across the board, but you'll have to read the book to find out who scored best and who scored not so well in each of these categories.

An analysis is provided of some of the best and worst in each category and there is a table at the very end that ranks the presidents in order by score and shows what score each president received in each category.

The last chapter in the book provides the reader with some questions that should be asked when selecting a president and an explanation of each question.

[Bill · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is I am sure a controversial book in some quarters. The author starts by demonstrating the limitations of the usual method of historical rating of presidents by historians and the obvious bias (usually liberal) that goes in to that process. While no system can be completely divorced of bias, the author attempts to bring some structure to the process. He rates the presidents in six specific categories: character; vision; competence; economic policy; preserving and extending liberty; nation defense, national security and foreign policy. The results of the analysis that depart most from conventional wisdom are the downgrading of Andrew Jackson and the upgrading of U.S. Grant. This is a must read for anyone interested in presidential history.

[Diane · Rating 3 out of 5]

The author rates the Presidents in 6 different categories: Character, Vision, Competence, Promoting the US economy, Foreign Policy and National Security, and Promoting Civil Liberties. I thought the book interesting but but couldn't agree with Reagan being put in the top category, rating the same as Teddy Roosevelt. Eisenhower wss rated 5th. The author says opinions of Presidents change the further from their presidencies, and I agree with him on Eisenhower being a much better president than he has been given credit for. The book was a wonderful history lesson, providing enlighting details about the presidents which changed my understanding of the past. It's a good book.

[Michael Wilson · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've always been a fanatic about Presidential rankings. However, very seldom have the ratings come with criteria used in the rankings. Felzenberger developed clear and concise categories. They are rated on character, vision, competence, economic policy, preserving and extending liberty, and defense , national security and foreign policy. It is a fascinating read and helped me change a view point on quite a few of the presidents. We disagree on some such as FDR, however, Fezenberg presents a compelling reason for all of his rankings.

[David Mackey · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fascinating consideration of American presidents and what characteristics we should desire in our nation's leaders. Also a fascinating tour through cultural history as one necessarily steps through history with each president.

There is so much to be learned from these sort of sweeping volumes, especially in the way they highlight the greater and lesser sins of each generation.

[Brian · Rating 3 out of 5]

"Rating" the presidents in various areas, with mini-bios of most of the more influential (good and bad) presidents. Definitely had a bit of a "Republican" slant (and oh how the author love love LOVES Reagan) but I did enjoy it and learned a lot. You'd have to a pretty big history nerd to get into it (luckily, I am...)

[William · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you are well read regarding our presidents there is not a whole lot new here. However that really does not take away from the fun and enjoyment I had reading this fast moving book which takes a look at some of the high and low points of many of our past presidents.

[Ben · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book made presidential history come alive for me. I can't wait to read more about some of the great and disastrous men that have led this country.

[Dennis Goshorn · Rating 5 out of 5]

What a terrific book! The author makes a fair assessment of our presidents and there are some surprises in his rankings! Lead me to read a book on Warren G. Harding.

[Zach Lorber · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting and though provoking summer read....even if the family thinks its nuts for a fun summer read.

[Gary Geiger · Rating 3 out of 5]

A Ted Williams Republican ranks the presidents.