-
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
Rating the Presidents and Their Raters
Robert W. Merry explores American history “through the prism of presidential performance.”
(Page 2 of 3)
To bring it off, Merry writes, Nixon began what was “essentially a retreat, conducted under harrowing military circumstances in the country of war and ominous civic turmoil at home.” And, one might add, a turmoil that was intensified by Nixon’s opponents in both political parties. Those opponents, fiercely anti-Nixon, took every opportunity to try to discredit his attempts to bring the war under control, often undercutting intense diplomatic efforts. This opposition, viewed by Nixon as cynical and unpatriotic, activated a natural instinct to counterattack with equal ferocity, thereby helping bring on the chain of events that would cost him his presidency.
Nevertheless, despite the fierce opposition, Nixon did in fact bring the war to a successful conclusion, albeit later to be negated by Congress, and “broke America’s need to defend that vast [Asian] global perimeter.” Moreover, by “bringing China back into the world, Nixon began a process of bolstering stability throughout Asia—and in the process, diminished the threat of America being pulled into endless wars in the region.”
“This was brilliant foreign policy,” Merry writes. But in the end, “That may be the true tragedy of Richard Nixon—that his greatest achievement contained the seeds of his own destruction and set his place in history for all time.”
Perhaps. But “for all time” may be just a bit excessive, especially when dealing with Richard Nixon, who seems to be kicked around less frequently these days as an appreciation of his substantive achievements grows (especially when compared with our most recent presidents), and those Watergate offenses—and who besides Bob Woodward can remember precisely what they were?—continue to fade into insignificance.
MERRY GOES ON to discuss those presidents he calls “Leaders of Destiny”—Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Franklin Roosevelt—presidents who are “revered by the electorate…. extolled by history; and are notable for changing the country’s political landscape and setting it on a new course.”
Merry believes Ronald Reagan should be included, and one day will be, as witness the book’s dust jacket, which—23 years after this magazine did so—features a Mt. Rushmore that bears his visage. But since one of his criteria is “consistently high rankings by history,” that day is still to come, most likely when the last left-leaning tenured academic is finally relegated to history’s ash heap.
As Merry writes of Reagan:
Ridiculed and dismissed by many upon his election, Reagan proved more adept than his critics anticipated or wished to acknowledge. He restored national confidence, pulled the country out of an economic morass, and unleashed forces that led to the Soviet collapse. His stock is on the rise.
In his final section, Merry discusses the recent presidents. Bill Clinton was “not a great president, but a good one, who presided over robust times and proved adept at comingling his party’s fundamental outlook with the country’s mood. Clinton lacked personal control, which led to a smarmy scandal, and he was unwilling to expend political capital on behalf of bold policymaking.”
George W. Bush failed the war test. In building a rationale for the invasion of Iraq, Bush and his advisers “crafted a war of necessity and a war of success” based on the need to destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and curtail its flirtation with Islamic terrorists. However, Merry writes, “the weapons of mass destruction didn’t exist,” and the connections with terrorists couldn’t be established. The argument of necessity collapsed, and “Bush was diminished in much of public opinion for having crafted a rationale for war that was either disingenuous or carelessly flimsy (I believe the latter).”
Here again, as with LBJ, a reader might wonder just how much responsibility should be assumed by a president’s advisers. Bush seemed to have assembled a first-rate team. Whether they provided first-rate advice is another matter.
With Barack Obama, it’s too early for an assessment. But in late 2011, writes Merry, “President Obama and the country he led seemed to be in a beleaguered state”—with unemployment above 9 percent, economic growth at “negligible levels,” a jittery stock market, and a
looming financial crisis of frightening proportions. All this placed immense pressure on the president, whose job was to lead the country out of these interlocking difficulties. His ability to do so would determine his fate in November 2012. It seemed fair to say the president flubbed his midterm exam and was severely admonished by his instructor. It remained an open question whether he would get passing marks on the finals.
Merry’s assessments of our most recent presidents will be of special interest in this election year, when we might be on the verge of another of those tipping points that sharply alter the nation’s course. But his treatment of earlier presidents is also sharp and insightful.
Woodrow Wilson:
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 (28) | Leave a comment
More Articles by John R. Coyne, Jr.
More Articles From Buy the Book
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/06/27/rating-the-presidents-and-thei
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
Brooksifier | 6.27.12 @ 6:40AM
"Merry himself believes “that the two greatest presidents of the twentieth century were Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan"
Hilarity to ensue.
Derek Leaberry| 6.27.12 @ 8:19AM
Harding, perhaps the least intelligent president of the 20th Century, was one of its best. He inherited a deep recession, cut taxes and spending, and the economy revived. He gave birth to the "Roaring Twenties." Harding provided leadership in the global reduction of naval warships. He ended the Palmer raid mentality prevailing in the Wilson Administration. He freed Eugene Debs from prison. America returned to normalcy.
tdiinva| 6.27.12 @ 9:25AM
On what basis do you claim that Harding was the least intelligent President of the 20th Century? Do you have his IQ score to compare with all the others? Is that relative statement such as all Presidents have had an IQ above 130 except for Harding who had a 120 score? Of all the Presidents who have IQ scores available -- basicly the WWII serving Presidents -- Kennedy was lowest at 120 and Nixon was the Highest at 180. Even 120 is not low. It is one standard deviation above the mean.
IQ above a certain level become an ego thing. Richard Feynman, perhaps the greatest particle physicist of his generation, had an IQ of 127. That is slightly less than the much denigraded George W. Bush.
Derek Leaberry| 6.27.12 @ 10:32AM
Knowing something about the 20th Century presidents, I would certainly place Teddy Roosevelt(writer), William Howard Taft(law), Woodrow Wilson(intellectual), Herbert Hoover(engineer), Dwight Eisenhower(war engineer,writer), Richard Nixon(law), Jimmy Carter(engineer), Ronald Reagan(economist, writer) and Bill Clinton(law) above Harding. There might be an argument that William McKinley, Calvin Coolidge, Harry Truman, Jack Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Gerald Ford, and George HW Bush were closer to Harding's level. However, Harding was a journalist and certainly no Mencken. So I place him belong the other presidents in intellect.
Occam's Tool| 6.27.12 @ 10:51AM
Yes, but Wilson and Carter were profoundly ignorant men, bordering on evil. The Best Presidents were foxes, not hedgehogs.
The Brightest President was not Jefferson, but Lincoln.
AllAmericanAmerican| 6.27.12 @ 11:55AM
OT I respectfully suggest you read some of Thomas DiLorenzo's books on Lincoln---you may change your tune on him.
Derek Leaberry| 6.27.12 @ 1:16PM
Wilson, Clinton and Johnson were evil and unwise. Carter was more along the lines of foolish.
Lincoln was highly intelligent, if evil. Certainly top ten in intelligence. But he was not as intelligent as Jefferson.
David T| 6.27.12 @ 2:30PM
Lincoln didn't have the well-rounded education and wide-ranging intellectual interests of Jefferson, but he certainly matched Jefferson in raw IQ points. Lincoln was a thinker par excellence and a prose master. And, pace DiLorenzo, he wasn't evil--Nixonian, maybe, but not evil.
Dai Alanye | 6.27.12 @ 10:54AM
A superficial evaluation at best. Further, in calling Carter an engineer he takes Jimmuh at his own evaluation. Carter was not a "nuclear engineer" nor did he have an engineering degree.
Derek Leaberry| 6.27.12 @ 1:19PM
Carter did graduate the Naval Academy with its emphasis on hard sciences. He didn't graduate on a diet of Women''s Studies courses and Black Studies.
Occam's Tool| 6.27.12 @ 2:19PM
I believe Hyman's term for carter was that there are "engineers who design things and engineers who drive choo-choos. Carter was the later."
Derek Leaberry| 6.27.12 @ 3:28PM
Well, he was able to run a peanut farm adequately.
Carter's father was a southern gentleman, the leading man in his county. I wonder why Carter ended up so badly. And think about Carter's feminist-socialist daughter, Amy. Earl Carter would have been disappointed.
Occam's Tool| 6.27.12 @ 10:49AM
Lazy genius is no genius at all. Feyman's IQ was mismeasured. Look at "5 easy and not so easy pieces."
Jack in Wi| 6.27.12 @ 9:39PM
Derek: I totally agree about Warren Harding. But my favorite President was William Henry Harrison. He did the least damage of any President.
AllAmericanAmerican| 6.27.12 @ 9:48AM
“The progenitor of Franklin Roosevelt is not Jackson; it is Henry Clay."
Really? Might want to check your history there fella. The progenitor of Tyrant Abe was Henry Clay. They were contemporaries in the Whig Party and Clay was Lincoln's political mentor.
Any presidential rating that does not list Lincoln somewhere at, near, or below the bottom is to be ignored. We would not be where we are today, with a federal leviathan government, were it not for Lincoln.
Dai Alanye | 6.27.12 @ 10:57AM
True, in a sense. Without Lincoln we'd be divided into several little nations, quarreling continually with one another. The US would resemble the Balkans.
AllAmericanAmerican| 6.27.12 @ 11:50AM
I highly doubt that. The South was very open to compensated emancipation and the CSA made countless overtures to Lincoln---all refused. In fact, the four "upper" Southern States--VA, TN, NC, & AR--only left the union AFTER Sumter, when Lincoln demanded they provide him with troops to invade the CSA.
Every other Western nation that practiced slavery was able to abolish it without bloodshed and war.
Not only that but technological advancements were making slavery less profitable anyway. Lincoln wanted high tariffs to help fund "internal improvements," IOW launder tax money to his railroad masters. Along the way he consolidated power in the executive branch and effectively neutered the notion of State sovereignty. Obammy is just finishing what Lincoln started.
AllAmericanAmerican| 6.27.12 @ 11:52AM
Guess I shoulda asked as opposed to constantly quarreling with random nations around the globe?
Me, I'd rather live in a "Balkanized" North America where one nation respected the original founding documents of the USA and maximized individual freedom than in the United Nanny State Nation we have now.
Occam's Tool| 6.27.12 @ 10:47AM
I have been to James K Polk's home and museum and The Hermitage.
Seeing the conditions Jackson's slaves lived in is disheartening. Realizing that Jackson was the only great man in his family is disheartening, as well.
Polk's home and museum, unlike Clinton's "half-chub in Little Rock," is modest, as suits the man, although his achievements were anything but. The best of the Near-Great Presidents, in my opinion, and one whose perfection obscured his talents (getting everything done in one term and then discreetly dying months after leaving office is an admirable pattern).
Dai Alanye | 6.27.12 @ 10:59AM
The way Jackson treated Indian nations, even including those allied with the US, is worse than disheartening.
Occam's Tool| 6.27.12 @ 2:20PM
Dai: no comment on the "half-chub in Little Rock?" Both my wife and I noted the phallic resemblance at the same time.
J.C.Eaton| 6.27.12 @ 2:50PM
I always enjoy the the discussions surrounding this topic: they're an exercise in mental onanism But fun, nonetheless. Mr. Merry's book on Polk is very good indeed.And Mr. Polk probably deserves a lot of admiration because he announced at the outset that he intended to be a one-term President. He was true to his word and accomplished virtually everything he set out to do. I tend to agree with AAA that Mr. Lincoln was overrated....sorry to those of you that revere theman but he did get 600,000 of his countrymen killed and his legacy has been burnished by martyrdom. In my highly skewered opinion, the best of the bunch was, is, and always will be: the First: His Excellency. Best,
RJ| 6.27.12 @ 6:55PM
I agree with you that George Washington deserves to be first in our hearts, but I think that Lincoln deserves to be in second place. He outlawed slavery which the Founders could not. He created a delicate political coalition to win the Civil War, as well as prevent European empires from taking advantage of our conflict. Secretary of War Stanton deserves full credit for the administration of the war. Lincoln deserves full political credit for finally resolving the issue of slavery and keeping the country together; both of which are major accomplishments. I have often wondered how Andrew Jackson, who put down the Nullification Crisis, would have done if he served during Lincoln's term. My guess is that he might have done better in the conduct of the war, but, as a slave owner, I don't think he would not have done as well in ending slavery. I can't see him promoting the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment.
AllAmericanAmerican| 6.27.12 @ 7:57PM
What is so great about keeping a union together when some of the members do not want to remain a part of it??? I don't get it.
Recently we heard the phrase "too big to fail" as an excuse to bail out large banks and GM. A few conservatives made the argument that these companies NEEDED to fail and the market would correct itself if only a big nanny state gubmint would stay out of it.
IMO, secession was the same thing 150 years ago. It was our Constitutional Republic "auto-correcting" itself when a tyrant (Lincoln) tried to overstep his executive authority. Left alone, in time slavery WOULD have ended as it did in EVERY OTHER Western nation which practiced it, all without the 600,000+ dead JC mentioned. Secession was and IS a check on the all-encompassing Federal Govt encroaching on State Sovereignty.
Read Scalia's dissenting opinion. Read DiLorenzo. Read Thomas Woods' "Nullification." Read Bastiat.
Instead you have people who claim to be small govt, States' Rights, maximum freedom-type folks LAUDING Lincoln, the man who literally destroyed States Rights, the man who used the US Army to kill civilians in NEW YORK CITY, the man who "freed" slaves (well only the ones in CSA control---the ones in Southern territories under Union control remained slaves). The man who literally until his dying day tried to repatriat blacks back to Africa, to Central America, to South America, anywhere he could send them.
AllAmericanAmerican| 6.27.12 @ 7:58PM
(Cont)
Sure, Lincoln didn't want slavery in the Western territories---IN ORDER TO KEEP THEM LILY WHITE!!!
Lincoln was a tyrant who trampled, sh*t on, p*ssed upon, chewed up and vomited out the US Constitution, he is the reason every other petty dictator wannabe like Wilson and FDR and LBJ did the same, and Obama is simply finishing what Lincoln started.
If you love you some Lincoln, it is intellectually dishonest to bash Obama for Obamacare and immigration and stimulus, etc. At least he isn't arresting State legislatures (yet) or using he Army to arrest John Roberts (yet).
RJ| 6.27.12 @ 10:33PM
We are going to disagree on Lincoln. You are right that he was influenced by Henry Clay and supported Clay's "American System" so I would not call him an advocate of small government. However, I don't see him as being another Obama or Franklin Roosevelt. (I have read many of Scalia's writings and Bastiat is the best of best. Neither one of them would fashion a defense for slavery.)
Two points regarding your note: It is implied that secession was in response to Lincoln overstepping his executive authority, but most of the states left the Union before Lincoln was inaugurated. The dispute rested on the seceding states' demand to extend slavery beyond their borders.
Second, you say that slavery would have died out as it did in other societies. In my readings of contemporary writings from the American Revolution era through the Civil War, I am always struck that slavery was less vigorously "justified" by the Founders' generation than by the generation of the 1830s through the 1860s. Some Southern Slave-owners were involved in disrupting foreign governments in Cuba and Central America in their efforts to extend their interests in slavery. The Dred Scott decision allowed them to take slavery into US territories which wished to be free of it and there was a legitimate fear that the Courts would extend this principle to the free states. Perhaps the South would have abandoned slavery at some point, but there is no evidence that they were turning in that direction.
AllAmericanAmerican| 6.28.12 @ 11:19AM
We're not disagreeing on Lincoln---you are refusing to accept reality. I too was once a believer in the "Lincoln Myth" taught in schools. Then when Obammy re-enacted Lincoln's journey to DC for his inauguration I looked into why the most liberal, commie, Marxist Senator in the US Senate would be so hip to good ol' "honest' Abe, the founder of the Republican Party.
Read some history, real history, not the nonsense taught in schools. Hell, read Lincoln's own words. You might be surprised.
RJ| 6.27.12 @ 6:42PM
There is much to be critical of regarding G.W. Bush's Presidency, but there has been some convenient rewriting of the facts regarding the reasons for going to war against Saddam Hussein. It was certainly not limited to weapons of mass destruction. I offer the following words from Donald Rumsfeld's book, "Known and Unknown":
"Intelligence evidence about WMD had a way of taking pride of place in the litany of reasons for going to war. In fact, that should have been only one of the many reasons. There was a long list of other charges against Saddam Hussein’s regime – its support for terrorism, its attacks on American pilots in the no-fly zones, its violation of the United Nations Security Council resolutions, its history of aggression, and its crimes against its people. … Obviously the focus on WMD to the exclusion of almost all else was a public relations error that cost the administration dearly. (435) On October 2002, Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq. This often overlooked but significant congressional action reflected a strong, broad, and bipartisan view that Saddam Hussein’s regime would need to be toppled by force to protect the United States and international peace and security. Rather than focusing solely on WMD programs, the legislation listed twenty-three separate indictments against the regime." (pages 435-436)