print“Of all historical genres, one of the least respected, at least among academics, is Presidential history. Mixing the unfashionable (with scholars) but generally popular fields of political history and biography, Presidential history is often a vehicle for national celebration and myth-making. Presidential historians often tend to narrate heroic tales of an unfolding national drama that sees the expansion of liberty and justice; words like “courage” and “leadership” abound. Nowhere does the “Great Man” history become greater than in histories of the White House. If patriotism is a kind of American civil religion, then Michael Beschloss, Doris Kearns Goodwin and David McCullough are its high priests.” (Andrew Preston, TLS, December 21 & 28, 2007)
Goodwin is particularly repugnant.
Discuss.
Update (Jan. 15): From political economist Bob Higgs comes the quintessential guide to properly rating presidents:
“Washington, I think, actually does deserve a high rating–not even the historians can be wrong all the time. He established the precedent of stepping down after two terms, which lasted until it clashed with FDR’s insatiable ambition, and he prescribed the sensible foreign policy, later slandered as ‘isolationism,’ that served the nation well for more than a century. Other early presidents who were not entirely reprehensible in office include Jefferson and Jackson, though each committed grave derelictions.
Of the presidents since Cleveland, I rank Coolidge the highest. He sponsored sharp tax cuts and greatly reduced the national debt. As H.L. Mencken wrote, ‘There were no thrills while he reigned, but neither were there any headaches. He had no ideas, and he was not a nuisance’—high praise in view of the execrable performance of other twentieth-century presidents. Taft and Eisenhower were a cut above the rest, but that’s not saying much…”
A guide to the perplexed in “No More Great Presidents.”