Presidential Leadership: Rating the Best and the Worst in the White House

by James Taranto (Editor)

Where does your favorite president rank?

Based on a completely new nationwide survey prepared exclusively for this edition of Presidential Leadership, two of America's most prominent institutions, The Wall Street Journal and the Federalist Society, explore just what it is that makes a president great and then rank each from best to worst. Now with updated chapters on Bush and "Leadership in the Midst of Controversy," a wide range of eminent scholars, journalists, and political leaders evaluate the competence of our nation's chief executives, including that of George W. Bush's first complete term in office.

From John McCain on Teddy Roosevelt to Kenneth Starr on Richard Nixon, editors James Taranto and Leonard Leo have collected a series of lively, provocative, and highly readable essays evaluating the terms of each of the forty-three U.S. presidents. Other contributors include Douglas Brinkley on James Polk, Melanie Kirkpatrick on Millard Fillmore, Jay Winik on Abraham Lincoln, and Lynne Cheney on James Madison. Fascinating and often surprising, the book reveals who was voted the most controversial and who was the most over- and underrated from the nationwide survey of liberal and conservative scholars, balanced to reflect the political makeup of the U.S. population as a whole. Presidential Leadership is a pleasure to read and an authoritative reference for every library.

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

320 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2004

Reviews

[Scott L. · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book is so obviously slanted to the political right. Some of the later Presidents, such as Bill Clinton (so obviously hated by the Right) are given very nasty assessments of their Presidency. Others, like Andrew Jackson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, are grudgingly given their due by the authors. I would have enjoyed this book much more had it been written with a more neutral position. It was OK, but I cannot really recommend it.

[Robbie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great for starting aruments amongst presidential nerds!

[Jeff · Rating 4 out of 5]

A collection of historians, political scientists and presidential scholars were enlisted to rate the presidents from Washington to Clinton according to their effectiveness in leadership. The ratings give no surprises at the very top and bottom of the scale, but provide for some interesting discussion between the extremes. The editors were careful to pick scholars equally from the left and right of the political spectrum, which provides a more unbiased ranking than previous books of the same ilk might have given.

Each president is written about in a 4-5 page chapter written by different people. This gives the book a variety of insight, but it also makes it somewhat uneven. Some chapter authors focus on the theme of book, leadership. Others give an overall synopsis of the presidency in question. Still others focus on one main event in a presidency as an example of the overall term. Some presidents who rated high in the survey are given critical reviews, while others who rated low are praised. Harding, for example, while rating near the bottom received a rave review in his chapter.

Given that some chapters are better than others, this book is an overall interesting look at the leadership of American presidents, and should provide for some friendly debate over its conclusions. (written in the early 2000s, Bush 2, Obama and Trump are not included.)

[Julio The Fox · Rating 4 out of 5]

The fun and profit of this book is in reading about the dregs of the American presidency. The chapter on Franklin Pierce quotes the president and the only member of the Pierce Appreciation Society of New Hampshire, a lost cause if ever there was one, who tells the author there are three responses from people when you talk to them about Pierce: Worst president ever, he's underrated and got a bum rap, and "Who is Franklin Pierce?'. Christopher Buckley launches into a full-court-press defense of James Buchanan by sighing that it's probably a good thing he was our only bachelor president; otherwise, there'd be descendants today fobbing off questions about how this lazy sod brought on the Civil War. Millard Fillmore, chiefly remembered for inspiring the "Millie award" celebrating mediocrity in American life, gets kudos for going from poor boy to lawyer to total oblivion. Peggie Noonan, a George H.W. Bush speechwriter whom I otherwise have no use for, takes down John F. Kennedy. He was the perfect president for the Baby Boomers, in the worst possible way, and gifted America with pretty glimmer boy candidates ever since. Sheer delight for the U.S. history buff and gourmets of bad taste!

[Jonathan Desimone · Rating 2 out of 5]

I found the different sections on each President to be disjointed, driven by the individual author's perspective and often more partisan than I would have expected. The ratings were quite similar to the other scholarly work on the office which means surveys of historians and academics with a lot of anecdote surrounding the ratings. The top and bottom are not highly in dispute (certainly top 3-5 and bottom 5). The vast middle is where I hoped this book would shed more light.

[Paul Decker · Rating 4 out of 5]

Rating presidential leadership is a rather subjective undertaking. Nevertheless, the book takes a look at all the presidents and gives a summary of what went well and what did not. Really no surprises on who were the better presidents and who were the worst ones, but if you like presidential history, this will certainly stir your thinking.

[Elizabeth Swindell · Rating 3 out of 5]

6/10: definitely a bias throughout the book; enjoyed getting to read a brief summary of the presidents time in office but wished it was all written by one author instead of multiple; loved the ending chapters and how they summarized the ratings!

[The_J · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ah but who gets to set the standards?

[Tommy Kiedis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Presidential Leadership rates the best and worst of the U.S. Presidents (Washington - George W. Bush). This is no flippant evaluation. Editors James Taranto and Leonard Leo include their ranking methodology and survey participants, seeking to "resolve the conflict between prior rankings of of presidents done mostly by liberal scholars or mostly by conservative scholars, but not by both together." p. 250 Readers will find political assessment, not biographical synopsis. If that sounds boring, it is not. Interesting anecdotes, political milestones, and insightful quotes fill these pages. Lessons abound!

The books needs to be updated to account for Presidents Obama, Trump, and soon, Biden. Even without the most contemporary presidential analysis, Bill Bennett's forward is spot on:

Our students and our country need to relearn why we once celebrated leaders such as these--as well as their predecessors and successors. In his farewell address, President Reagan warned the American people--and the world--of a whirlwind we would reap by not studying history . . . . "If we forget what we did, we won't know who we are. I'm warning of an eradication of the American memory that could result, ultimately, in an erosion of the American spirit." p. 3

Here are a few notes and quote:

On transition>: Of all the presidents who have followed giants into the office, only Harry S. Truman managed to escape his predecessor's shadow. And even Truman did it mostly in retrospect. Page 49

On transition: Despite the extent of his studies of politics and history, Adams was not a strong president or political leader. Following Washington was challenging enough, but Adams's presidency was overwhelmed by intense partisan rivalry. Vice President Jefferson was the acknowledged head of the opposition party, and Adams unwisely decided to retain Washington’s cabinet, whose highest loyalty was to Alexander Hamilton, a rival for the leadership of the Federalist. Where Washington could dominate a Jefferson and a Hamilton in his cabinet, Adams lacked the political skills to control lesser partisans. p. 23

On leadership and teams: Harding was not afraid to give prominent positions to men who might outshine him. 142

Quote: Benton‘s epitaph of John Quincy Adams: "Where could death have found him, but at the post of duty?" p. 43

Quote (government): "The strongest of all government is that which is most free." William Henry Harrison p. 53

And by the way, Washington is first; Buchanan last.

[Stacy · Rating 3 out of 5]

The two editors for this book are James Taranto of The Wall Street Journal and Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society. I say this so that you understand the editors and the conductors of the survey are from a strictly conservative viewpoint. This was not as much of an issue the first half of the book as the Presidents had all been dead a number of years. Once in the 20th century the reviews of each President became decidedly pointed. Many could not resist unflattering comments about Bill Clinton even while writing about another President. It was distracting and diminished my belief that the writers could put petty party politics aside and write without bitterness. And many spent a paragraph or more editorializing about their own views. Not everyone did this, but enough to notice and irritate me.

Which leads to my next big problem with the book. There was absolutely no consistancy in these write ups. Some wrote in great detail about how a President died in office and another wouldn’t even mention the assassination at all. And Peggy Noonan’s piece on John F Kennedy was just strange and did not fit in with book at all.

there's a little more on my blog http://stacybuckeye.wordpress.com/200...

[Daniel Ragsdale · Rating 4 out of 5]

A collection of good basic summaries of philosophies, contributions,and most interestingly, shortcomings of our first 43 presidents.

The ratings are especially intriguing - Pierce and Buchanan had a rough go of it. I find it amazing how life experiences, intellectual capacity, and knowledge of domestic and/or international affairs before taking office are frequently not very good predictors of a successful presidency. What is not surprisingly is that leaders of character have often flourished while in office. Also notable is that it appears that most successful presidents seem to be likable chaps - the surely codgers (sp?) who appear to find little joy in life are often poor performers. Admittedly, these somewhat naive observations are not likely to be embraced by presidential scholars, but, nonetheless, they work for me!

[Peter · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good introduction to presidential leadership. The editors, from the Wall Street Journal and the Federalist Society, provide a means through ranking and judging our presidents. The editors discuss who was involved in helping to determine the ranking and the methodology used. Each president is analyzed by a different author in short compact essays. The book ends with different historians analyzing presidential leadership in times of war, economics, and their relation with the Supreme Court.

If you are interested in our nations history and the presidency this book provides a good overview of our nation's leaders; the greats, middlings, and the not so greats, to be polite.

[MaryEllen Elizabeth Hart · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really appreciated the style of "Presidential Leadership, Rating the Best and the Worst in the White House" (Edited by Taranto, WSJ, & Leo TFS) as a balanced factual historic compilation of USA Presidential meritorious accomplishments combined with a thoughtful summaries written by a different author for each president. This book lists many rankings of the presidents by different sources. I really appreciated the focus of "Presidential Leadership" upon recognizing acievements and not trying to categorize our USA presidents in any grouping that would bias a classification of merit in a negative way, as Merry's book did.

[Alex · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Wall Street Journal and Federalist Society in Oct. 2000 conducted a survey of historians, political scientists, and law professors to rate each American President on a scale of 1-5. This book presents the results of that ranking and collects brief essays on each President from prominent individuals such as Peggy Noonan, John McCain, and Glenn Reynolds. It is interesting to see how the men are viewed today, though the essays are sometimes at odds with the rankings.

[Robert Clay · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book provides a rating of all the presidents based upon a survey from esteemed historians, lawyers, and political scientists, accompanied by short essays over each president and aspects of leadership. It's a Wall Street Journal book, so some of the essays are noticeably conservative, but it is still a good basic reference book.

[Ryan Splenda · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting effort to rank some of America's greatest and worst presidents. There are sufficient arguments for both sides that are presented by the various authors. Nevertheless, it is impossible to rank ANYTING withouut disagreement.

[Joshua Perry · Rating 4 out of 5]

Worthwhile introduction to the men who have led our country. Many great leaders. Some inexplicably bad ones. Written from a relatively conservative viewpoint (although the rankings are more liberal: FDR is rated at #3). Useful and concise.

[Jonathan]

None

[Steven Raszewski · Rating 3 out of 5]

Informative.