My twentieth book, which will be out this August from Bombardier Books, is something completely different. It’s called Rating America’s Presidents: An America-First Look at Who Is Best, Who Is Overrated, and Who Was An Absolute Disaster. It is just what the title says, an evaluation and rating of the records of each President, but from an America-first standpoint, rather than from the perspective of the socialist internationalist historians who usually produce such records.
When you grade the U.S. Presidents on the basis of who was best for America, these emerge as the ten best (in chronological order):
George Washington
Andrew Jackson
John Tyler
Abraham Lincoln
Ulysses S. Grant
Chester A. Arthur
Warren G. Harding
Calvin Coolidge
Ronald Reagan
Donald Trump
And here are the ten who were worst for America, again in chronological order:
Franklin Pierce
James Buchanan
Woodrow Wilson
Herbert Hoover
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Lyndon B. Johnson
Jimmy Carter
Bill Clinton
George W. Bush
Barack Obama
You’ll notice some oddities here — some people considered the best Presidents are ranked among the worst, and vice versa. Establishment historians will be shaking their heads and saying “No, that’s all wrong.” That’s the whole point of the book. It’s an attempt to take history back from the anti-American Left, and to reset our evaluation of our own nation’s history, on the basis of the principle upon which it should have always been based: were they good for America?
Happy Presidents Day. Preorder Rating America’s Presidents here.
Arthur McGowan says
Agree that Harding, Coolidge, Reagan, and Trump are among the best. Nixon’s “opening to China” was the worst act of treason in world history.
Aaron Rants says
Reagan’s amnesty flipped California blue and will flip Texas blue by 2032 at the latest, ending the chance for any non-lefty to ever become POTUS thereafter.
Piggy says
Well that ought to set the cat among the lefty pigeons lol
Peter says
And here I thought Andrew Johnson was the worst president…..
eduardo odraude says
Andrew Johnson or Andrew Jackson? Spencer lists Jackson, not Johnson.
Jim says
In my view, FDR and Obama were the two worst presidents in American history.
Here’s some of the damage that FDR caused:
* The creation of the Soviet empire
* Stalin getting nukes
* China going communist
* WWII lasted years longer than it needed to, if our goal was to defeat Hitler
* Thousands of American POWs disappearing into Stalin’s gulags
* The Great Depression (FDR caused the Depression to be far worse than it was when he took office)
* The creation of the Deep State
Obama once said that he wanted to finish the job that FDR started. There has never been a truer statement from a Democrat.
Rarely says
To complete your list:
FDR was also responsible for the Black Death and the French Revolution. Your list is equally inaccurate. At least 5 of the 7 are total falsehoods and the other two are most likely wrong.
Might as well blame him for 9/11.
Mike says
Well not an ounce of fact there. You just might be a Democrat, sir.
TimC says
Are you nuts? Read _American Betrayal_.
Rarely says
It is hardly the definitive history on FDR’s presidency.
Peter35 says
“Hardly the definitive history of FDR’s presidency”. No? It’s a damned good try, and shows FDR and his ‘man friday’ as the traitors they were.
Rarely says
It’s easy in 2020 to see the result of WWII as a foregone conclusion. Sometimes one has to make a deal with the devil.
michaelray says
Really? Which 5? How so? You have added exactly nothing to the debate.
Loren Rosson says
I’m looking forward to Robert’s book. I share his objection to the establishment rankings, which tend to favor presidents who were not only big-government globalists, but also charismatics and goal-oriented “managers”. People who want inspiring speakers, or leaders who succeed in their goals (regardless of whether those goals are good or bad) basically want a high-school class president instead of a real president. Ever since FDR especially, historians have favored presidents on the basis of their charisma/popularity, and their big-government fiscal liberalism, and that’s a big problem.
Thus, I agree with many of Robert’s reversals of the establishment. John Tyler and Warren Harding are usually judged among the worst presidents; Robert rightly calls them best. Wilson and FDR are usually praised, when they should be shredded — as I’m sure Robert does with a brutal razor.
I would dispute a few of his placements, for example Jimmy Carter, who I think gets a bum rap from all sides, including the Dems. Carter was actually a fiscal conservative who had no use for the New Deal coalition; he promoted individuals taking personal responsibility, opposed special interest groups feeding at the government trough, advocated for reducing the deficit, and argued for greater local responsibility. He believed that welfare eroded the family and the work ethic. Best of all, he appointed Paul Volcker to the Federal Reserve, whose tight-money policies led to prosperity in the Reagan years. However, Carter had some admittedly disastrous foreign policies (Camp David, Afghanistan, and Iran), and so I can only prop him up so high. But I think he was far better than Dems like Wilson, FDR, Johnson, and Obama.
Aside from a few points of dispute, I’m encouraged by Robert’s approach to evaluating the presidents. This is the kind of book we need to see more of. That is, we need more evaluations of our chief executives based on their actual policies, and how they made America better — or as I prefer, how they promoted the causes of peace, prosperity, and liberty. Not on the basis of their charisma, or government activism, or management style.
No Muzzies Here says
The book should be really interesting. Obama was by far the worst.
FYI says
Most certainly the WORST :And didn’t Obama get that totally undeserved Nobel Prize for peace in 2009 for,Quote “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between people”,a conveniently nebulous accolade that could pretty much be given to anybody.
What “extraordinary efforts” ?And I could give say, my postman, an award for his work in “cooperation between people”.
Jim says
You offer no explanations of your statements; all you can do is belittle what I say. Here are my explanations:
FDR allowed verified Soviet agent Harry Hopkins to basically run his administration. Harry Hopkins proceeded to ship tons and tons of military and other aid to the Soviets under the Lend Lease program. Part of what the Soviets acquired via Lend Lease was nuclear material and technology; this was discovered by Major George Racey Jordan, who worked at the base where the material was being shipped out from. Soviet agents staffed OWI and the State Dept, where they sabotaged our ally Chang Kai Chek and helped the communists. Stalin pushed hard for a “second front”, that is, the abandonment of our Italian campaign in favor of re-invading Europe from England. FDR went along with this foolish decision, which benefitted only Stalin by extending the war a couple of years and by allowing Stalin to grab eastern Europe as part of the Soviet empire. At the end of WW II, American (and allied) POWs which had been held by the Germans east of Germany came under Soviet control. Stalin kept thousands of them as hostages, never to be seen again; and FDR refused to fight him on this.
FDR’s economic policies made it very difficult, if not impossible, for companies to create jobs, leading to huge amounts of unemployment, starvation, and death.
Ray Jarman says
Jim, Historians like Cornelius Ryan and others have pointed out that Patton and other American military leaders wanted to enter from the Balkans where there were allies willing to fight but Harry Hopkins convinced FDR who forced Eisenhower to have our forces slaughtered in Italian landings. Patton agreed with the McArthur motif which meant that the German forces in Italy would have been completely isolated. Another side note is that Hopkins prevented the State Department and FBI from apprising FDR of the Soviet mole, Alger Hiss, in the 1936 time frame. Whittaker Chambers had apprised the FBI about the Hiss case as he had been Hiss’ handler (see “Witness” by Whittaker Chambers).
Tom Cheria says
I am glad to see George BUSH in there.
After 9-11, American people would have given anything he asks like Muslim Immigration Ban, instead he doubled down on immigration and said “Islam is Peace”.
He was a WORSE President than Obama.
eduardo odraude says
Yes, that “Islam is peace” line was a blunder of Trade Center-like proportions.
Ray Jarman says
I contend that if Congress wished to provide a day commemorating Martin Luther King Jr., it should have enacted the day and not removing the two most influential presidents by name. It puts the likes of the peanut brain and Washington on the same list which is totally unacceptable. Even regarding the list, my favorite president, James K. Polk is missing and without him, Texas may not have become a state and the British may have claimed Washington State in addition. I agree with Mr. Spencer’s statement that the list should list the most influential in the pursuit of what is good for America, not some internationalist’s fantasy and Carter was the epitome of ineptitude that has caused not only subsequent problems for all administrations since but has caused great harm to a portion of the world. His assistance in the obliteration of the Reza Shah’s government should have been enough to have his name listed at the top of the list of worst president’s ever.
David Grisez says
How a person or persons rates who were the Best Presidents of the United States and who were the Worst Presidents of the United States depends heavily on their personal opinions and what type of criteria is used for determining who was best and who was worst. It sure appears that Robert Spencer did use the criteria of who were good for the United States. Included in this criteria are those who helped defend the United States against its enemies and those who helped promote the economic well being of the United States. It can be noted that some of the worst Presidents, such as Franklin D. Roosevelt, were very popular.
James Lincoln says
David Grisez says,
“It can be noted that some of the worst Presidents, such as Franklin D. Roosevelt, were very popular.”
Very good point, David.
Definitely not a always a good correlation between a president’s actual value to America – and their popularity.
E T says
Jimmy Carter
FDR
Obama
Wilson
My Mother told me if you have nothing good to say about someone, say nothing at all.
eduardo odraude says
I believe your comment is an example of apophasis.
E T says
I have always thought P E Trudeau was by far the worst Canadian PM then along came Justine.