The American Thinker published my review of Robert Spencer’s latest book, Rating America’s Presidents. Read it all:
Robert Spencer Rates the Presidents
A “great president is one who puts America first,” concludes bestselling author Robert Spencer in his latest book, Rating America’s Presidents: An America-First Look at Who Is Best, Who Is Overrated, and Who was an Absolute Disaster. His review of presidential history offers a provocative, intriguing analysis of what exemplifies policies that maintain American independence at home and abroad.
Spencer proudly follows the limited government traditions of Founding Fathers like Presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. They, Spencer claims, “would largely agree with my evaluations.” While “America first…has been mislabeled, derided, and dismissed as ‘isolationism,’” for him this phrase “only means that in dealing with the world, American presidents will be looking out primarily for the good of Americans.”
Embracing President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s 1961 warning against the “military-Industrial complex,” Spencer usually opposes American military interventions abroad, a message that has the most compelling, fresh evidence. The “George W. Bush/Barack Obama effort to plant democracies in Muslim countries so that they would no longer pose a threat to the U.S. is a foredoomed endeavor,” he soberly analyzes. “Democracy led to the installation of Sharia constitutions and regimes that hated America” in Afghanistan and Iraq, countries that became America’s “two lengthiest and costliest nation-building endeavors.”
Unsurprisingly, for the conservative Spencer the 1981-1989 “presidency of Ronald Reagan stands out brilliantly in American history,” yet Spencer argues that Reagan also went astray in Afghanistan. His administration covertly aided the mujahedeen’s successful insurgency against Soviet invaders in 1979-1989, a victory that hastened the Soviet Union’s demise and the Cold War’s end. He therefore bears “responsibility for the jihad attacks on September 11, 2001, and the general resurgence of the global jihad in the twenty-first century,” argues Spencer, without offering and weighing any realpolitik alternatives.
Astonishing to many, Spencer even asserts that President George H. W. Bush’s conduct of the 1991 Gulf War “was yet another unnecessary foreign intervention.” In an online interview, this author noted the broad American and international consensus against allowing Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to occupy oil-rich Kuwait while threatening the wider region’s vital energy resources. Hussein’s stunning defeat additionally allowed for a containment of Iraq that largely eliminated Hussain’s weapons of mass destruction programs, including a nuclear program on the verge of successful proliferation. Spencer’s response that Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region could have led Kuwait’s liberation will convince few.
By contrast, Spencer offers no dissent to World War II (1939-1945) as a necessary struggle against totalitarian evils in Germany and Japan. Here President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s (FDR) inspiring leadership “is one of the cornerstones of his reputation as one of America’s greatest presidents.” Yet he “made drastic mistakes in his handling of the war,” Spencer notes, such as Roosevelt’s Japanese-American internment, a “needless deprivation of the civil liberties of numerous loyal Americans.” His advocacy for the postwar United Nations (UN) also disappoints Spencer, for the UN has been “steadfastly and consistently anti-American” under widespread Communist and Islamic influence.
Domestically Spencer damns Roosevelt’s iconic New Deal. This bloated mass of government programs and regulations did far more to stimulate historic myths than economic growth. After Roosevelt became president in 1933, the “economy recovered more slowly during the Great Depression than it did from any other economic crisis in the nation’s history,” Spencer notes.
Roosevelt’s Democratic successor, President Lyndon Baines Johnson, fared no better launching in 1964 the War on Poverty. Its welfare programs have since cost over S22 trillion, over three times the cost of all America’s actual wars. Yet American poverty rates, already falling rapidly before LBJ, encompassed 17 percent of Americans in 1965, but had only dropped to 14 percent by 2014.
These presidents would have been unrecognizable to earlier generations of Democrats. The Democratic Party had traditionally contained Jeffersonian defenders of limited government, like President Andrew Jackson (1829-1837). “Remarkably, the Jackson administration remains the only one in American history to payoff the national debt completely,” Spencer admires.
Yet at the 20th-century’s dawn progressive ideology began to influence both Democrats and Republicans like President Theodore Roosevelt, who sometimes exclaimed ‘To hell with the Constitution.” FDR’s distant cousin Teddy “opened the door to the good of the people being invoked as an excuse justifying all manner of abuses of power,” Spencer laments. “Authoritarianism—in Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Communist China, and many other places—would be the bane of the twentieth century; progressivism was a softer version of the same impulse.” Unfortunately, against this challenge Republicans like Eisenhower often “reduced the Republican Party to a faint echo of the Democrats.”
Along with economic liberty, Spencer is equally zealous for civil rights, and therefore notes often overlooked racial equality stands of Republican presidents Chester A. Arthur (1881-1885) and Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929). He lauds the original Republican president, Abraham Lincoln (1861-1865), as a “penetrating and original thinker and something that is even more rare, a remarkable writer.” Among his contemporaries, “Lincoln continued to stress the immorality of slavery, a fact that few others dared to approach.”
Lincoln’s leading general in the Civil War, Ulysses S. Grant, followed the martyred Great Emancipator as a Republican into the presidency in 1869. Not far behind Lincoln, Spencer places Grant, often criticized for corrupt subordinates, “in the top tier among the presidents” for his commitment to full enfranchisement of formerly enslaved blacks in the defeated Confederacy. Had Grant “been able to fully implement and enforce his Reconstruction agenda, he would have gone down in history as one of the nation’s greatest presidents, bridging and healing the racial divide that continues to be a source of strife.”
By deviating from “criteria developed by socialist internationalist historians,” Spencer upends commonplace rankings of well-known (e.g. Woodrow Wilson) and more obscure presidents (e.g. Warren G. Harding). In the longstanding debates over whether defeating Germany was necessary in World War I (1914-1918), Spencer unambiguously concludes that America under Wilson had “no reason to get in” in 1917. Thus “Wilson merits the title of the first internationalist president, who put the interests of the world ahead of the interests of his country” and “his presidency was an unmitigated disaster.”
Postwar America resoundingly elected in 1920 to succeed the Democrat Wilson the Republican Harding, often a mere footnote in America’s presidential pantheon. Yet under Harding’s tax and spending cuts the “twenties began roaring,” Spencer notes. “The country was much better off with the simple and humble Harding in the White House than it was when the renowned intellectual and crusader for civilization Wilson was there.”
Vice President Coolidge succeeded Harding in office after his death in 1923 and won the 1924 election. Like him, Coolidge has had no great presidential histories, but he was a “modest man whose accomplishments as president were anything but modest.” By his last year in office in 1928, for example, only America’s wealthiest two percent paid income taxes.
Spencer’s well-developed analysis leaves no surprises in his concluding chapter on the current President Donald Trump. “Accomplishing so much despite the unparalleled obstacles he faced places Trump in the first rank of American presidents,” Spencer enthuses. Agree or disagree, Spencer makes an original and valuable contribution to America’s presidential history.
Billy Corr says
The original and intended version was “the military-industrial-congressional” complex – but Eisenhower was persuaded not to enrage or insult the Houses of Congress; many members of the two houses represented States in which defense contractors were among the few well-paying employers; Georgia being just one example.
gravenimage says
Good review.
Rod says
I’ve been reminded that Ronald Reagan once spoke out against religious intolerance and racism, as follows –
“I would like to address a few remarks to those groups who still adhere to senseless racism and religious prejudice, to those individuals who persist in such hateful behavior.
If I were speaking to them instead of to you, I would say to them, “You are the ones who are out of step with our society. You are the ones who willfully violate the meaning of the dream that is America.”
Mr Reagan must have been one of those “Muslim apologists”, and would certainly have found obnoxious the poisonous sentiments which so frequently appear on this site.
So, among America’s Great Presidents, it seems poor Mr Reagan must rate well below the Pussy Grabber in Chief.
gravenimage says
The idea that when President Reagan talked about religious prejudice that he was condemning those who stand against Jihad terror is *quite* false.
Sam. says
A quote by Mr. the great Spencer :))))
“great president is one who puts America first,” concludes bestselling author Robert Spencer in his latest book”
SO:), It’s OK to kill millions of Arabs, and it’s OK to destroy their infrastructure as long as it is in America’s financial interest( oil etc. etc. ) which is the first interest in the criminal system called CAPITALISM, is this Mr. Spencer’s preposition?
Rod says
Don’t forget, Sam, that Americans also kill other Americans at horrifying rates. It’s not just Arabs, Vietnamese, Cambodians or Afghans. It’s what they do.
Yet some of them think they’ve reached a level of civilisation close to perfection, and some of them strangely like to accuse other people of being violent.
FYI says
Don’t forget ,Rod that ‘sam’ once told us he was a really big fan of hitler a mass-murderer of Jews and hitler was better person than anybody who posts here at JW{which of course includes you by default}
Someone who praises hitler the mass-murder is in a morally dubious position.
It isn’t a good idea for a virtue-signalling leftie troll to align with a pro-nazi:you lose all that virtue.
Leftie Communists and devoutly islamic muslims have killed millions of people.
Lefties and muslims just never understand Irony or Logical reasoning.
Rod says
“virtue”, FYI? I don’t pretend to any particular virtue. I address the facts as I see them.
One of the facts is that those who have recently killed millions of people look hypocritical when condemning others for killing millions of people.
Even more so when they have the revolting habit of killing each other in such dreadful numbers.
It matters little who or what Sam is; if he speaks the truth, it remains the truth.
gravenimage says
I doubt that “Rod” claims any virtues at all.
And note his claim that Sam speaks the truth, given his appalling apologia for Hitler. *Ugh*.
FYI says
@’rod’
You mean the ‘facts’ as YOU choose to see them.
One of the actual facts here is that someone who defines himself as pro-nazi and praises hitler the mass murderer {like sam does}looks hypocritical when condemning others for the killing of people:so does anyone who chooses to ignore that awkward fact.
Like yourself.
And you don’t get that?
“if he speaks the truth,it remains the truth”
Does ‘sam’ speak the truth about …hitler?
Do tell us.
Either..
you agree with ‘sam'{that puts you with the nazis and muslim fanatics}
OR
you disagree with ‘sam'{and you should since you tell us below ‘ I condemn antisemitism’}In fact you MUST disagree with ‘sam’ otherwise it makes you out to be a liar when you say ‘I condemn antisemitism’
Will you condemn ‘sam’ since he praises hitler who was a mass murderer,if you insist that you condemn antisemitism?
Do you see how untenable your position is?Can you cope with the FACTS?
You see ‘rod’ it does matter who ‘sam’ is as you have aligned yourself with him.
Do you see how aligning with such a pro-nazi troll makes you look really ,really bad?
And undermines your comments?No?
The pro-islam nazi troll and the pro-islam leftie troll:bedfellows.
Either you are willfully obtuse ,dishonest or logically challenged if you cannot figure it out.
The fact that you equivocate all the time actually shows you don’t have ANY virtue at all despite all your leftie virtue-signalling.Nor do you get the Irony or the Illogicality of your position.Your bias is so obvious.
James Lincoln says
Sam,
You have a credibility problem.
On Aug 26, 2020 at 3:11 pm you posted:
“… Hitler was a 1000 times better than the best of you, but you and your likes have been spending trillions of money you steel from Europe to publish hateful propaganda against Hitler”
Everything that you post should be seen through those optics.
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2020/08/muslims-enraged-at-kanye-west-for-making-a-mockery-of-islam-by-naming-shoes-after-islamic-angels
gravenimage says
Spot on, FYI and James.
FYI says
@James Lincoln
“It matters little who or what sam is:if he speaks the truth it remains the truth”
‘Rod’ comment above
It matters little who or what ‘sam’ is?
{‘sam’ praises hitler.That does matter}
Is ‘sam’ speaking the truth?
{Obviously not to us.To ‘rod’ it is ‘truth’}
Does it remain the truth even when exposed as a lie?
{Certainly to ‘rod’ it does:that is because It supports his obvious bias}
gravenimage says
Of course, Sam’s claim that defending against Jihad terror means that free trade is warlike is absurd. And of course “Rod” is fine with this fan of Jihad terror and Fascism. Not really a surprise, though…
gravenimage says
And where have Americans killed millions of Arabs? Just claptrap.
Giacomo Latta says
Rod has had over a week to respond to my claim that he is nothing but a neo-Nazi in anti-neo-Nazi clothing.
It would be the easiest thing in the world to condemn anti-semitism; moreover, vitally important at this critical time. A few words would be enough.
Yet, put to the test, Rod could not, would not do it.
Draw your own conclusions. It’s not hard.
He has also had over a week to describe the muslim race to us all.
It would be the easiest thing in the world to describe the muslim race; moreover, vitally important at this critical time. A few words would be enough.
Yet, put to the test, Rod could not, would not do it.
Draw your own conclusions. It’s not hard.
As for your latest drivel, people everywhere kill people everywhere. Why are you so picky? Total drivel from an illiterate lightweight.
gravenimage says
No surprise, Giacomo.
Rod says
Giacomo, I condemn anti-semitism. What a shock that must give you. Why do you ask?
You asked how to identify a Muslim. Well, I have to say it’s not always easy. Having lived and worked with Muslims for some years, and having had Muslims as friends or employees, I found them to be much like anybody else. They’re generally honest, kind and courteous, love their wives/husbands and children, do their work conscientiously, observe the law, often contend patiently with living conditions more trying than they could be. Yes, some go to the mosque on Fridays, and follow religious practices which I don’t believe in. Many others don’t bother. Of course there are some who behave badly, as in any society including mine, and maybe even in yours.
The idea that they carry deep within their hearts the wish to murder me or you, or that they regard non-Muslims as sworn enemies unto death, is idiotic. People who believe such nonsense, and especially those who disseminate it are beneath contempt.
I hope that helps. Sorry if it disappoints. Have you ever had a Muslim friend? Did he murder you?
gravenimage says
In other words, “Rod” considers those who dare stand against Jihad terror “beneath contempt”. Just appalling, but not surprising.
As for his supposedly condemning antisemitism, note that he has *never* condemned Muslims threatening or murdering Jews here. *Very* telling.
FYI says
@’rod’
You condemn antisemitism but yet you align yourself with a pro-hiter troll!
It is islam{their god ‘allah’,the sunnah of their ‘prophet’, their koran} and jihadism that make muslims behave badly.
ALL muslims do not subscribe to Jihadism.The fact that there are ex-muslims who are now Christians and who post here at JW from time to time shows that there are perfectly good people in the islamic world.
It is their religious cult that is evil.
As for being friends with muslims remember the koran tells muslims NOT to be friends with infidels,so they cannot reciprocate can they?
“Oh ye who believe!Take not the Jews and Christians for friends.They are friends to one another.He among you who taketh them for friends is one of THEM”
koran 5:51
So a muslim who befriends an infidel is one of THEM{=an infidel}
Do you have any muslim friends ‘rod’?
Go ask them about koran 5:51 or koran 98:6 where you as an infidel are defined as being amongst the ‘WORST OF CREATED BEINGS”
Your cognitive dissonance and sheer hypocrisy is breathtaking:if you have any muslim friends
according to the koran,they are infidels.Ask your muslim friends how many infidels friends they have but remember that if they admit to that, the koran condemns them as infidels.
It is the koran that teaches such antisocial nonsense.
Giacomo Latta says
Hitler’s number one cheerleader condemns anti-semitism? It’s not a shock since obviously you either have no coherent view on the world or you just spit out random drivel in the hope of getting a reaction from regular visitors to this site. I guess that gives you some street cred at Antifa.
I asked how to identify the muslim race not a muslim. Like I said, I want to be as racist as you say I am. Still silence on your part.
”Generally” muslims follow the dictates of their imam or mufti. ”The idea that they carry deep within their hearts the wish to murder me or you, or that they regard non-Muslims as sworn enemies unto death, is idiotic.” You are in desperate need of a hate manual, the koran. Rod needs too run right down to the nearest Islamic Cultural Centre and ask for a copy of the Qur’an, Lite version. The salesman will give you a hard stare for about 15 seconds. Don’t let that bother you. It is just a secret sign to indicate you have been welcomed into the fold.
Please, genius, guide us in our hour of need. Just who is terrorizing us? Dare to name the ‘’unnameable.’’
ME Infidel says
I especially agree with Spencer’s assessment of President Trump. However, his rating of “0” for Obama as disastrous for America was way too high.
Rod says
Thomas Friedman thinks Trump is “dishonest, dangerous, mean-spirited, divisive and corrupt”. From what I’ve seen, that’s 100% accurate. I’ve watched him lying, many times.
Friedman is a respected author and journalist, thrice Pulitzer Prize winner.
Whereas, Mr Spencer ……………? Well, he hates Muslims. Anything else?
Giacomo Latta says
A Thomas Friedman fan Rod is? I suspect as much as Thomas Friedman was a fan of the Iraq War and supported Bush Jr. Um, didn’t Americans kill some Iraqis in that war? Haven’t you repeatedly whined about Americans killing non-Americans worldwide? Whose side are you on Antifaman?
You may wish to ask Mr. Spencer about his opinion on that huge waste of time and money in trying to democratize Iraq
Does Mr. Spencer hate muslims? I don’t speak for him but if someone thinks the contents of some hate manual allows him to slit my throat at his leisure then you can be sure that my hate for him is equal to his hate for me. In the meantime I do not hate anyone that does not hate me. You cannot say that about any muslim.
Rod says
The Iraq war was to democratize Iraq? With thousands of tonnes of high explosives? Is that how it’s done? As in Vietnam? So when George famously announced that the “mission” was “accomplished”, we knew that the democratisation was complete.
Wasn’t it really about the hunt for WMDs, when you were all scared witless by Saddam’s nuclear missiles and nerve gas? Or are you confused?
Giacomo, if Friedman (or Sam), says something pertinent, I pass it on for your edification. No, I’m not a fan, and you are jumping to conclusions again. More confusion.
Hate again. So it seems that “Love one another” is also open to reinterpretation, just as we learned last week that “Thou shalt not kill” can be read as “unlesst thou hast a good excuse.” Christianity is a puzzle. No wonder you get befuddled.
gravenimage says
Thomas Friedman is, among other things, still largely clueless about the threat of Islam.
Remember his “Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention”? That didn’t hold up, especially when it came to the Muslim world.
And the idea that standing against the horrors of Jihad terror is ‘hatred of Muslims’–something the appalling “Rod” has said many times–is just sickening calumny.