Rating: 
Summary: Bad Presidents Make a Good Book
Review: A problem with books of this type is how to write them well, without being a parisan. If not, Republicans will rank high (or low?) on any book written by a Democrat. Democrats will be ranked high on any book written by a Republican. For the most part, Mr. Miller does his best to be even handed. I like the details about scandals like "teapot dome" which I had heard about, but not understood well. But, I didn't like his format and organization. What is a success? What is a failure? He tries, but he doesn't define these items well. Without a clear definition, the book seems to wander. My biggest complaint, however, was how predictable parts of this book was. Surprise, Mr. Miller thinks Nixon was our worst president. I didn't like Nixon, but there were many presidents who did more harm to our country. Nixon, by the way, was a liberal Republican, and an anti-communist. He surrounded the USSR, with his reapproachment with China. He withdrew the USA from a war that had become unpopular. He saved Isreal from Soviet inspired invasion. The USSR has disolved, Vietnam today, is embracing the free market, and China, while a potential enemy, is no longer, strictly speaking, a communist one. At home, Nixon enacted alot of liberal, yes liberal, reforms. He expanded federal give aways to Indians and increased the minimum wage. Against these "accomplishments", I have a mixed view on them, but they were all succesful parts of the Nixon agenda, we have to view his failures. Especially in light of the Clinton scandals, we have learned that Nixon's involvement in Watergate was different from modern presidents only in degree and means. Nixon illegally used the CIA to interfere with the work of the FBI. Clinton, apparently, hired private detectives to do the same work. Nixon, reportedly, tried to destroy his enemies. Clintons "foes" have had repeated IRS audits, FBI files with personal information have been stolen and never returned and, even today, Clinton workers threaten State Officers with publicity that will make their attacks on Ken Star look like a picnic. Mind me, Nixon was not a saint. But, just this quick review of Clinton's record tells me that Nixon wasn't as bad as many would like to believe. Should Nixon be on this list? Maybe. But he wasn't our worst president, just a recent unpopular one. Mr. Miller took the easy way out, instead of an in depth study of each man. As such, this book was interesting, but predictable and a little bit of a disappointment.
Rating: 
Summary: For those too weak to form their own opinions.
Review: Albeit that any book attempting to rate the worst presidents will have to be subjectively written, one would think that Miller would try to stay only with the facts in order for the reader to arrive at the same conclusions he did. Nevertheless, Miller seems to take liberty with the facts by sprinkling his own shallow opinions with no explanation for basis throughout the book. His criticism of modern-day administrations are drive-by comments with no facts offered to support them. Don't waste your time with this one. Get the facts yourself and demonstrate the cognitive ability to form your own opinion instead of lazily relying on someone else who obviously has his own agenda in mind.
Rating: 
Summary: Good reading.
Review: Although we all have our opinions as to who was good and bad, Miller does put things into perspective and probably has picked the ten worst. This makes Bill Clinton look like a Saint compared to Harding, Buchanan, Grant, and Nixon. Good reading and a must for any history buff. One to be added to any collection of Presidential Books.
Rating: 
Summary: Shallow Work
Review: Considering the depth of Miller's larger works of individual biographies, this book disappoints. Miller skims lightly over each of these "worst" presidential lives, presenting only the facts and opinions which support his premise. Better, more thoughtful analysis is available from many sources. In particular, readers might try Robert Gilbert's "The Mortal Presidency" (Harper Collins, 1992) for more human treatment of Calvin Coolidge's deep depression, and Maxim Armbruster's "The Presidents of the United States" (Horizon, 1960) -- arguably the best collection of essays written on the presidents -- for a more objective view of Andrew Johnson's character qualities.
Rating:
Summary: Shallow Work
Review: Considering the depth of Miller's larger works of individual biographies, this book disappoints. Miller skims lightly over each of these "worst" presidential lives, presenting only the facts and opinions which support his premise. Better, more thoughtful analysis is available from many sources. In particular, readers might try Robert Gilbert's "The Mortal Presidency" (Harper Collins, 1992) for more human treatment of Calvin Coolidge's deep depression, and Maxim Armbruster's "The Presidents of the United States" (Horizon, 1960) -- arguably the best collection of essays written on the presidents -- for a more objective view of Andrew Johnson's character qualities.
Rating:
Summary: If you like weaklings, this is the book for you
Review: First of all I would like to say that it was an interesting, and occasionally very funny book on the ten most inept chief executives we've ever had. But that doesn't excuse the fact that 9 out of the 10 are for the most part hapless losers, which makes for slow reading. Most fall within easily seen categories: those who had really corrupt presidencies because of their con-men "friends", those who were brought into the white house by big-business interests and not expected to do anything, those who never took on controversial issues & so were liked by everybody(at least at first, their indecision invariably didn't get them re-elected), and finally in a category all his own, Richard Nixon. I've always enjoyed reading the "worst of" lists, but these guys are almost as bland and uninteresting to read as when they were alive. Go rent it from the library, or get it at a used bookstore.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent Synopsis of some very bad Presidents
Review: I repeat my review of below so it will be linked with my newly created ID on Amazon: These 10 Chief Executives are well-picked. Mr. Miller, an eminent historian and author, brings his extraordinary talents to bear in this nice little tome. Although brief, this book will gives more than enough information to whet the appetite of the most avid history buff. If you think things are bad with the current administration, a look back at Teapot dome, Watergate, the near impeachment of Johnson, and all the other shortcomings and scandals documented here will certainly leave you asking the question "Have things really changed?". The appendix on Jefferson and Kennedy were especially refreshing Another great contribution by Mr. Miller.
Rating:
Summary: A breezy review of some of our less noteworthy presidents
Review: If you're interested in some of the more obscure figures in presidenital history, then this book is for you. The chapter dealing with Warren G. Hardign made me laugh out loud.
Rating:
Summary: Nonpartisan Hit Piece
Review: In an age of ultra-partisan hit pieces, this thoughtful and factual account is refreshing. You may not agree with Nathan Miller's choices of the ten worst presidents, but I believe you will find this a very readable and intelligent critique of ten different men who have attempted to lead the country. Though I remain one of those who felt last year's whole impeachment sideshow was a waste of precious tax dollars, I have to admit that I had to agree with much of what Miller has to say about Clinton's character. (Our current president is not on the list, though Miller has reserved the right to include him in future editions.) He also makes excellent cases against presidents who have been revered, such as Andrew Johnson who faced impeachment in 1868 for his undermining of Reconstruction. Calvin Coolidge is pilloried for refusing to forgive the debts of our Great War allies and, indirectly, contributing to the rise of Adolf Hitler. Some of the choices are predictable (such as Richard Nixon), but others like Jimmy Carter may (or may not) surprise you. Miller doesn't pick on people for party or ideology: he seeks instead to define for each man what exactly it was that made him so bad for the country. Those who are picking our nation's leaders this year should review this book before selecting from the candidates.
Rating:
Summary: America's Worst: A Useful Object Lesson
Review: Miller has given us a valuable history lesson whose readership should include every candidate or potential candidate for the presidency. Although Bill Clinton is not considered for this book, will he become a "Starr (sic) Spangled Man?" This chapter is yet to be written. In any event, the portraits of our White House schemers, wusses, and do-nothings are well sketched out, although I would have preferred more depth on the great "worst" -- U.S. Grant and Richard Nixon. The analysis seems a bit thin on these men, both of whom had such rich and and extraordinary pre-presidential careers. The chapter on overrated presidents, Thomas Jefferson and JFK was on the mark, althogh here, too, deeper analysis would have been welcome. I would quarrel with MIller on one major point. In his table of contents, he lists the 10 worst presidents in order from poor to horrid. If one regards the actual harm a president did to the country, I would rank order the final four as follows: Harding, Pierce, Nixon, and Buchanan. Buchanan was the very worst because he did not even attempt to halt the drift to the bloodiest period in American history. Nixon was bad enough, but his resignation prevented him from doing more harm; give him credit at least for not prolonging the agony and departing the scene voluntarily. For us history buffs, Miller should now try a new arcane theme. How about America's best Secretaries of Commerce?
|
