When we discuss presidential history, we often ascribe the highest status to those leaders who “accomplished” the most. They led us during wartime or depression, enacted new policies or expanded American influence. They left a signature upon the office, as well as the nation. But what if we’ve been measuring presidential “success” all wrong? What if some of those “accomplishments” were never in the presidential job description in the first place?
Historian Brion McClanahan flips our understanding of what makes a great president in his new book 9 Presidents Who Screwed Up America (and four who tried to save her). McClanahan starts his analysis from a pretty crazy perspective—get this: the presidency should follow the rules of the Constitution. Therefore, many of the leaders in our nation’s history, in order to “accomplish” things, acted outside of their legal authority. McClanahan ultimately offers the unique thesis that maybe we should be many judging presidents inversely from previously considered assessments: those who did the most may be our some of our worst, and those who did the least may be some of our best.
The strongest aspect of this book is its commitment to a principled stance. Readers may not like his particular position, but at least he is consistent. And that consistency makes him quite fair to all political parties—he doesn’t pick sides. The Constitution is the only side he cares about. Therefore, presidents of all stripes are criticized, and in the final chapters, presidents from both sides of the aisle are praised and held up as hopeful models for future governing.
What readers will notice in many chapters is how similar the motives are for executive power. Though the Constitution clearly states that the president is not a legislator, time and again throughout our history certain leaders have claimed an ambiguity of the legal language or a privilege behind the elected office to propose actions beyond their intended authority. And the same ideas continue to reappear. See if you can guess who said the following:
“Our minimum wages are far too low....Some of our natural resources are still being wasted....Proper medical care is so expensive that it is out of reach of the great majority of our citizens....Our schools, in many localities, are utterly inadequate....Our democratic ideals are often thwarted by prejudice and intolerance.”
Barack Obama? Hillary Clinton? Elizabeth Warren? Bernie Sanders? Were these arguments part of the most recent election cycle? Nope. This quote is from the 1949 State of the Union address by President Truman. This reminds us that no matter how much money is spent on these initiatives, and no matter how much people talk about plans for improvement, it will never be enough. These arguments will be with us forever. And none of them are part of presidential responsibility according to the Constitution.
In contrast to the urge for overreach of so many of our leaders, McClanahan offers some differing views by those who more closely adhered to Constitutional law. Regarding how the government spends exorbitant amounts of money, one president said, “The public Treasury, which should only exist as a conduit conveying the people’s tribute to its legitimate objects of expenditure, becomes a hoarding place for money needlessly withdrawn from trade and the people’s use, thus crippling our national energies, suspending our country’s development, preventing investment in productive enterprise, threatening financial disturbance, and inviting schemes of public plunder.” Did some crazy, Tea Party, anti-government, right wing extremist say this? Actually, it was Democrat Grover Cleveland in 1887.
Republican Calvin Coolidge, in discussing the role of government in people’s personal lives, said in 1923, “There is no method by which we can either be relieved of the results of our own folly or be guaranteed a successful life. There is an inescapable personal responsibility for the development of character, of industry, of thrift, and of self-control. These do not come from the Government, but from the people themselves.” Coolidge was following the Constitution, which guarantees people’s right and obligation to take care of their own lives and not rely on government for everything. What a weird idea, right?
Readers may be surprised to find some of their most beloved icons on the “screwed up America” list, and I won’t tell you who they are, but that is exactly what we need in our study of history. We must not place people on pedestals without closely examining their character and adherence to both moral and legal standards, specifically those founded in perhaps the world’s most important document, the U.S. Constitution. Whether they have been Democrats or Republicans, presidents from all perspectives have had positive and negative influences on the development of our nation. And McClanahan fairly critiques all of them. If you are looking for a new way—and, yet, a comfortably traditional way— of understanding the role of executive office, give this book (and our Constitution) a try.
Historian Brion McClanahan flips our understanding of what makes a great president in his new book 9 Presidents Who Screwed Up America (and four who tried to save her). McClanahan starts his analysis from a pretty crazy perspective—get this: the presidency should follow the rules of the Constitution. Therefore, many of the leaders in our nation’s history, in order to “accomplish” things, acted outside of their legal authority. McClanahan ultimately offers the unique thesis that maybe we should be many judging presidents inversely from previously considered assessments: those who did the most may be our some of our worst, and those who did the least may be some of our best.
The strongest aspect of this book is its commitment to a principled stance. Readers may not like his particular position, but at least he is consistent. And that consistency makes him quite fair to all political parties—he doesn’t pick sides. The Constitution is the only side he cares about. Therefore, presidents of all stripes are criticized, and in the final chapters, presidents from both sides of the aisle are praised and held up as hopeful models for future governing.
What readers will notice in many chapters is how similar the motives are for executive power. Though the Constitution clearly states that the president is not a legislator, time and again throughout our history certain leaders have claimed an ambiguity of the legal language or a privilege behind the elected office to propose actions beyond their intended authority. And the same ideas continue to reappear. See if you can guess who said the following:
“Our minimum wages are far too low....Some of our natural resources are still being wasted....Proper medical care is so expensive that it is out of reach of the great majority of our citizens....Our schools, in many localities, are utterly inadequate....Our democratic ideals are often thwarted by prejudice and intolerance.”
Barack Obama? Hillary Clinton? Elizabeth Warren? Bernie Sanders? Were these arguments part of the most recent election cycle? Nope. This quote is from the 1949 State of the Union address by President Truman. This reminds us that no matter how much money is spent on these initiatives, and no matter how much people talk about plans for improvement, it will never be enough. These arguments will be with us forever. And none of them are part of presidential responsibility according to the Constitution.
In contrast to the urge for overreach of so many of our leaders, McClanahan offers some differing views by those who more closely adhered to Constitutional law. Regarding how the government spends exorbitant amounts of money, one president said, “The public Treasury, which should only exist as a conduit conveying the people’s tribute to its legitimate objects of expenditure, becomes a hoarding place for money needlessly withdrawn from trade and the people’s use, thus crippling our national energies, suspending our country’s development, preventing investment in productive enterprise, threatening financial disturbance, and inviting schemes of public plunder.” Did some crazy, Tea Party, anti-government, right wing extremist say this? Actually, it was Democrat Grover Cleveland in 1887.
Republican Calvin Coolidge, in discussing the role of government in people’s personal lives, said in 1923, “There is no method by which we can either be relieved of the results of our own folly or be guaranteed a successful life. There is an inescapable personal responsibility for the development of character, of industry, of thrift, and of self-control. These do not come from the Government, but from the people themselves.” Coolidge was following the Constitution, which guarantees people’s right and obligation to take care of their own lives and not rely on government for everything. What a weird idea, right?
Readers may be surprised to find some of their most beloved icons on the “screwed up America” list, and I won’t tell you who they are, but that is exactly what we need in our study of history. We must not place people on pedestals without closely examining their character and adherence to both moral and legal standards, specifically those founded in perhaps the world’s most important document, the U.S. Constitution. Whether they have been Democrats or Republicans, presidents from all perspectives have had positive and negative influences on the development of our nation. And McClanahan fairly critiques all of them. If you are looking for a new way—and, yet, a comfortably traditional way— of understanding the role of executive office, give this book (and our Constitution) a try.