Talk Back

[twunny]

This book is a study of United States Presidents.

For a couple of generations, there's been a "Presidential Rating Game" among scholars and lay-people alike. Who is the best president? Is so-and-so better than what's-his face? Why is everybody so hard on Andrew Johnson?

Mr. Felzenberg finds fault in the historic placings. He decides to rate presidents under six criteria: Character; Vision; Competence; Economic Policy; Preserving and Extending Liberty; and Defense, National Security, and Foreign Policy. The first three examine the men as characters, and the second grouping look at sort of their paperwork and legacy.

The Presidents (39 men. William Henry Harrison and James A. Garfield died too early in their presidencies to be accurately judged. And George W. Bush was not examined, as he was still in office as of the writing and his legacy was "too early to tell." [Personally, I think it'd take a whole book to examine his ups and downs. I smell a sequel!] And if you do your math...yes, 39 men. Grover Cleveland was 1 man, with 2 presidencies. The book does not discuss if/how this affected his ratings.) were judged independently, on a scale of 1-5, in each of the above 6 categories. Some men that fared well in one or two categories fell short in others. Only one president got straight 5's. Ooh, ooh, guess!

All right, it was Lincoln. No surprise there. Every single chapter examines him to some degree. And you know, I only had a small idea of how great the man was. The things I learned in this book gave me an even higher opinion of Abraham Lincoln. And gave me some new perspectives on the good things Nixon and Reagan accomplished.

This book made me want to learn more about all the presidents. Except maybe Jackson. Everything I learn about that guy makes me angry, it seems.

This book was very uneven for me. Parts of it were fascinating. Others...pretty much the entire chapter on "Economic Policy"...I found dull. And the author's expertise shined at points, and seemed conspicuously absent at others. And there were typos and some sentences that didn't seem like real sentences. Which I'm guilty of, myself. But still, the guy had an editor, and at times I read a passage 2 or 3 times and then gave up and moved on, hoping it wasn't that important. Which is upsetting in a semi-scholarly book.

All in all, interesting. If you're into this kind of thing and you can stand some errors (not in content, so far as I know) then this is a good book. If it's not already your thing, it is not recommended.

I'll leave you now, with what I found to be a fascinating passage. I removed the name of the president, just for fun. I think you'll get my point.

"Relying on deceit and chicanery, he ordered troops to march south, maneuvered Congress into recognizing that a state of war existed and financing a war he was not certain it wanted. (President's name) fabricated intelligence, withheld vital information from Congress, preempted debate on war policy, and gambled that members of Congress would not cut funds to troops in the field despite many of its members' misgivings about the causes and aims of the war. With these manipulations, (President's name) set a dangerous precedent..."

How about that?
_________________
I am a dirty liar. And I'm lying when I say that.

[Patguy]

[twunny]

James K. Polk indeed!
_________________
I am a dirty liar. And I'm lying when I say that.