-
Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
May 13, 2013 | 8 comments
-
Tangles of Pathologies
April 12, 2013 | 35 comments
-
An Enduring Partnership
March 25, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Spies, Traitors, Agents of Influence, and Useful Idiots
January 31, 2013 | 35 comments
-
On Knowing When to Shut Up
December 19, 2012 | 7 comments
Buy the Book
The Schlesinger Syndrome, Updated
Alvin Felzenberg rethinks the presidential rating game.
The Leaders We Deserved (And a Few We Didn’t): Rethinking the
Presidential Rating Game
By Alvin S. Felzenberg
(Basic Books, 486 pages, $19.95)
In this updated and revised version of the original edition, first published before the presidential election of 2008 and therefore not including an analysis of George W. Bush as a leader we did or didn’t deserve, Alvin Felzenberg gives us some 50 additional pages containing “an early assessment” of the Bush presidency.
The inspiration for taking a fresh look at the way we arrive at approved presidential ratings first hit Felzenberg, appropriately enough, on “a cold, dreary December day in 1996. As I sat down to breakfast with The New York Times Magazine, its cover story caught my attention. The article, ‘The Ultimate Approval Rating,’ by Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., contained the results of a survey he conducted, in which he asked leading historians to evaluate U.S. presidents.”
For most of us, no doubt a depressing scene, something out of Sartre — a dreary winter morning, the New York Times, Arthur Schlesinger Jr. — enough to drive ordinary men to the liquor cabinet or back to bed, to await the first football game of the day.
But Mr. Felzenberg is no ordinary man. Among other things, he has taught at the University of Pennsylvania, George Washington University, and Johns Hopkins; earned a doctorate in politics from Princeton; was a fellow at Harvard’s Kennedy School; and served as principal spokesman for the 9/11 Commission, a job that required strength of character and the ability to think clearly and objectively.
Felzenberg has spent significant time in the academy, but isn’t an academician. He has also served as a congressional staffer and government official and is known as a Republican, but not identified with any one wing or faction. Clarity of thought, independence, a strong measure of objectivity — in short, just the qualities needed in someone sufficiently irreverent to question the premises and methodology underlying the Schlesinger syndrome.
In that New York Times Magazine article, Felzenberg notes, “Schlesinger Jr.’s survey replicated and updated those that his father, Arthur M. Schlesinger Sr., conducted in 1948 and 1962.” In those surveys, both Schlesingers asked a selected group of historians — they did the selecting — “to place presidents into one of five categories: great, near great, average, below average, and failure.” No criteria for ratings within these categories were suggested, and the result was — and is — a “presidential rating game” in which winners and losers are determined by bias or unthinking acceptance of the approved conventional wisdom. And since the raters are Schlesinger-approved academics, no conservatives need apply.
Then there’s the matter of a general historical dumbing-down. “The popularization of Schlesinger-style surveys,” writes Felzenberg, “freed journalists, political commentators [he might have mentioned bartenders], museum curators, and students of all ages from having to offer evidence in support of their opinions.” All that was necessary was “to cite the collective assessments of the ‘experts.’” Thus is conventional wisdom transmitted.
Toward the end of that New York Times article, Felzenberg writes, “Schlesinger dropped any and all pretense to objectivity when he presumed to advise the recently re-elected Bill Clinton on how he might raise his grade in subsequent surveys,” by dropping that “New Democrat” persona he’d adopted and returning to that old-time liberal religion. “‘Only boldness and creativity, even at times foiled and frustrated,’ Schlesinger mused, ‘would earn Clinton a place among the immortals.’ ”
If so, Felzenberg notes, whatever else may be said about Clinton’s successor, “George W. Bush’s willingness to wage preventive war, his undertakings to spread democracy in the Middle East, and his readiness to act unilaterally on the international stage were certainly ‘bold and creative,’ even if they were at times ‘foiled and frustrated.’”
Does that qualify Bush for “immortal” status somewhere down the road? Of course not. The jury’s been fixed. As Felzenberg points out, one of Schlesinger’s jurors “wrote a cover story for a popular magazine, declaring Bush the worst president in history. Others seconded this opinion in other forums. Again, it would seem that presidential greatness lies in the ideological eyes of their evaluators.”
TO COMPENSATE FOR SUCH FAILINGS, and perhaps to restore some measure of balance, “to distinguish policy from process” and to see presidents whole rather than in part or caricature, Felzenberg has designed his own rating system, ranking presidents on three criteria — character, vision, and competence; and their handling of three policy areas — economic policy, the protection and expansion of liberty, national defense and foreign policy. “Taken together,” writes Felzenberg, “these six components provide readers with a thorough and consistent standard against which to measure presidential performance.”
They also result in “some surprise verdicts.” Andrew Jackson for instance, a special favorite of the Schlesingers, was a president of great consequence. But his economic policies plunged the country into a major depression, and his treatment of American Indians was unconscionable. Felzenberg drops Jackson to 27th place, two slots above George W. Bush’s preliminary resting place, and just behind Warren G. Harding.
Ulysses Grant, however, who has long received an undeserved bad press among academic historians moves up to 7th place, tied with John F. Kennedy. “Mistakes and all,” writes Felzenberg, “the old soldier had done his duty. He deserves better in the pages of history.” Dwight D. Eisenhower, whose great sin among the Schlesingerites was to have drubbed Adlai Stevenson, the favorite of the liberal establishment, moves to 5th place, one ahead of FDR. And Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan tie for 3rd place, behind Lincoln and Washington, in that order.
Conservatives and Republicans will find many of these revisions overdue and welcome. But there are those (Ben Stein and this reviewer, to name two) who believe Richard Nixon deserves better than 35th place, especially in the category of vision. Although Felzenberg seems not overly impressed with the results of Nixon’s visit to China in 1972, it in fact threw the Soviets so badly off balance they were never able to recover. As a direct result of Nixon’s visit and the new relationship with China, there was a distinct and lasting shift in the global balance of power — as Margaret MacMillan has pointed out, a rare example of a statesmanlike vision successfully shaping reality.
About the Author
John R. Coyne, Jr. a former White House speech-writer, is co-author with Linda Bridges of Strictly Right: William F. Buckley Jr. and the American Conservative Movement (Wiley).
Letter to the Editor View all comments (15) | Leave a comment
More Articles by John R. Coyne, Jr.
More Articles From Buy the Book
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/10/20/the-schlesinger-syndrome-updat
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Petronius| 10.20.10 @ 9:50AM
So much for papering the house on opening night.
There was a cartoon on the editorial page of the now defunct St. Louis Globe Democrat called The Small Society. 3 toddlers in a playpen trying to comprehend their world from the ground up through discourse, one points this question to the other two, "Do adults really think?" The one in the center responds, "No silly, they just repeat what they hear." To our great misfortune, so mote it be.
The Schlesingers juxtaposed presidential decisions against their predispositions and beliefs though the conduct of their subjects was likewise.
In the end the same trumps reason, so the tykes were right.
I have only 1 standard by which I judge all in government. Does a person act in office according to the Constitutional Oath given upon entry?
Alan Brooks| 10.20.10 @ 9:14PM
"Does that qualify Bush for 'immortal' status somewhere down the road? Of course not. The jury’s been fixed."
Bush wasn't nearly the worst; however if he was so good then why is the GOP always gushing about Reagan and not Dubya?
KSmith| 10.27.10 @ 1:37PM
Well said. That should put Lincoln and FDR lower in everybody's lists. Both did irreversible damage to the Constitution.
Dai Alanye | 10.20.10 @ 11:14AM
These ratings are always subjective, so while Felzenberg's are far better than the execrable Schlesingers' they still reflect the biases of the author. (As do mine, of course.)
Teddy Roosevelt, because of his dynamism, is always over-rated, while Harding is excessively condemned. The low placing of Nixon is ridiculous, and grading Dubya poorly for Katrina both elevates a secondary problem (after terrorism) to higher status than it deserves, and tacitly gives passes to the true villains of the fiasco---the mayor of New Orleans, the governor of Louisiana, and the Army Corps of Engineers whose ill-designed barrier led directly to the flooding of the city.
Further, when assessing Dubya's competence one must, I hold, take into consideration the superior quality of some of his appointments, especially Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and John Ashcroft. Tom Ridge, Colin Powell and Norman Mineta, on the other hand, left much to be desired, but the first trio set a very high standard.
I might add that any rating scheme is questionable that fails to give FDR a zero in economic policy.
Alan Brooks| 10.20.10 @ 10:50PM
"Tom Ridge, Colin Powell and Norman Mineta, on the other hand, left much to be desired, but the first trio set a very high standard."
Talk about damning with faint praise. The second set left much to be desired [they were mediocrities] but the first set was fine.
Redstateboy| 10.20.10 @ 12:01PM
what gives these Liber-ul Eggheads any right or credibility to rate our Presidents? I can find fault in the 8 years of Dubbya but on the whole, I think he was a great President. Personally, I earned more under Dubbya than at any other time of my life. He dealt fairly with other countries.. try to get that feeble UN to Act. Gave the ball to England, France & Germany to deal with Iran, handled that touchy situation with China and our P-3 Orion well.. I just wish he would've moved to secure our Border more and fought to reform SS more than he did.
Hank Rearden| 10.20.10 @ 12:27PM
Leading liberals have tended, in American history, to be "socially prominent." Thus, being "socially correct" has been as important as being "politically correct." During the 100 years after the Civil War it was not "socially correct" to worry overmuch about the state of being of, as they were then called, the negroes. A figure like Ulysees Grant, who was implacable in his defense of civil rights, was seen as "a monkey" (in the words of the day) and as not really socially acceptable. Thus, although he wrote one of the literary triumphs of the 19th century, purchased the first national park (Yellowstone) and restored the value of the currency by putting American back on the gold standard, he is regarded a fool by bien pensant opinion. He used the Army to destroy the KKK in its first incarnation (the KKK that we know was basically a recrudescence begun in the 19-teens). The reason that posse comitatus was passed in 1878, after Grant was safely out of office was so that no president could use the Army that way again. The other president to concern himself overmuch with the plight of the negro during the 100 years of Jim Crow was Warren Harding, who introduced anti-lynching legislation that was filibustered by the Democrat Party.
RCV| 10.20.10 @ 12:45PM
No President has been more underrated and mistreated by history than Grant. He has been maligned because of the crooked deal of his successor that allowed Southern segregationists to take back control of the South and suppress the liberties of Black Americans for another 100 years.
fundamentalist| 10.20.10 @ 1:10PM
Feltzenberg’s rankings are a step in the right direction, but overly complicated. The only thing a president should be rated on is how well he protected the Constitution. In that regard, all deserve an 'F' except for Washington, Grover Cleveland and maybe a couple others.
Puprle Lips| 10.20.10 @ 3:01PM
What about Chester Arthur and Harrison?
cuban pete| 10.20.10 @ 3:42PM
I believe the sole criterion for judging presidential greatness should be winning the Noble Peace Prize.
cuban pete| 10.20.10 @ 3:45PM
I mean the Nobel Peace Prize.
Just kidding.
Joe D.| 10.20.10 @ 4:31PM
To list FDR as a success is dead wrong as well. He was terrible for both Liberty and the economy. And as far as national security, I think up until the attach on Pearl Harbor he was bad as well including protectionism, no military build up, etc. He and his generals made a number of mistakes governing the war as well.
Chuck| 10.20.10 @ 7:37PM
JFK scores points for taking on the Central Bank in 1963. Through an executive order, the Treasury began to print debt free US Treasury notes in lieu of debt ridden Federal Reserve notes. The amount printed based on the value of silver in U.S. vaults. 1963 was the starting point for massive government spending and Kennedy had the foresight to curb debt accumulation. Unfortunately his death ended the experiment and all US Treasury notes were taken out of circulation.
tdiinva| 10.21.10 @ 2:09PM
Everybody seems to have a soft spot for JFK. There is no way that he is in the top half of Presidents. He was inept in foreign policy, His character was worse then Clinton's. his economic policies were successful to an extent but other then his tax cuts he did nothing else. Then there is Vietnam culminating in coup and diem assassination that destabilized the country.
The Civil Rights act and the Apollo program were more LBJ's in initiatives then Kennedy's