JUDY WOODRUFF: Finally tonight, a new book compares how historians view presidents with how voters view them.
It comes from journalist Bob Merry, editor of "The National Interest" magazine. "Where They Stand: The American Presidents in the Eyes of Voters and Historians" identifies the greats, near-greats, acknowledged failures, and those whose legacies have fluctuated.
I spoke with Bob Merry recently.
So, Bob Merry, very early in this book, you say you're not a personal fan of the ups and downs of rating presidents, but you decided to write a book about that. Why?
ROBERT MERRY, author of "Where They Stand: The American Presidents in the Eyes of Voters and Historians": Well, I like the game.
And I think we rate first basemen and shortstops and great singers. And we rate our presidents. It's inevitable, because we have got our history. And the presidency is at the fulcrum of American politics, which means that it's at the fulcrum of American history.
So, the question is, who are these guys and how do they operate and how do we assess them? And how -- which I think is what I bring to this decision -- how did the American people asses them at the time? And that's what I try to get in to, because I think that's what's fascinating.

JUDY WOODRUFF: You also say early on that you found the judgment of historians, of history, largely coincides with the views of voters, the electorate at the time these men held office. Why do you think that is?

ROBERT MERRY: Well, I think it's because the voters are not foolish. And the historians understand that the voters know what they're doing when they make these judgments every four years.
But I think that's why President Obama's statement which he made a year into his presidency that he would rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president doesn't really make sense.
Because if you're shooting for history, you need to go through the American voter in order to get that good judgment from history.
JUDY WOODRUFF: You also say I think toward the end of the book -- you point out you think the president really does want to be elected to a second term. There's no question about that.
ROBERT MERRY: I think we see that every day, don't we?
JUDY WOODRUFF: So, the book really is a walk through history. And we don't have time to go through all the categories, but tell us what the most successful presidents have had in common?
What do we see in them that we haven't seen in the other presidents?
ROBERT MERRY: The presidents that I call the leaders of destiny are the presidents who are consistently ranked highly by the historians, the historian polls, the rating the president game.
Number two, they are two-term presidents succeeded by their own party or partial terms, meaning the electorate liked them at the time.
And, number three, they all set the country upon a new course. They changed the political landscape. And those presidents that I identify are Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, T.R., and FDR.
And I think that Reagan, who is not there in terms of the historical poll, but he's there on the other two criteria, may get there as well eventually.
JUDY WOODRUFF: And at the other end of the spectrum, the presidents who didn't make it, I mean, without going through that whole list, what is it that causes presidents not to make it? What causes them to stumble?
ROBERT MERRY: You know, these presidents are all amazing politicians. You don't become president without being a great politician.
But this is a tough job. And this is going to crush people who don't know how to grab hold of the levers of power and move them in the right direction.
James Buchanan, we will take that as a great example. I consider him to be our worst president.
James Buchanan was elected four years before Lincoln. The country was in crisis. It was in deadlock. And it needed a leader who could break that deadlock. And he proved not only incapable of doing it, but he wasn't even very interested in trying to do it. And therein lay his failure. And he deserves to be down there as a result.
JUDY WOODRUFF: So, is it a matter of -- the eternal question, a matter of the times or the man, or both?
ROBERT MERRY: Well, that's a great question.
You can't be a great -- you can't be a leader of destiny, as I describe it, and change the political landscape simply because you got elected president and willed to do it.
The country has to need that or want that. And not every president is elected in that time.
So, as de Gaulle said, a leader, a great statesman can not really be effective unless he knows the quality of his time. And the quality of your time -- take Eisenhower as a great example. Eisenhower didn't try to dismantle the New Deal. Many of his Republicans in that party wanted him to. But he knew better.
He knew that he still lived in the New Deal era even without Roosevelt. And, therefore, he wasn't going to try to dismantle it or repeal it. And, so, he understood the tempo of his times.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Bob Merry, you and I were just talking about the polarized, politically polarized time that we're living in now.
Is there something about today's hyperpartisanship, do you think, that makes it harder to be a great leader, to be a great president, or has that always been the case in one way or another?
ROBERT MERRY: No, this is a very difficult time to be an effective president, because the country is in deadlock, not just in deadlock over normal issues, but over issues that get to the definition of our nation.
Now, when that happens, as it did in the 1850s, the country is -- becomes very difficult to move.
And it takes a president like a Lincoln or like a Roosevelt or like a Jackson or a Jefferson who can actually do that. And whether we will get that president through this election is really very much an open question, it seems to me.
JUDY WOODRUFF: So, if you're a voter, Bob Merry, and you're reading this book, listening to you right now, you're looking at these two candidates this year, the incumbent, Barack Obama, the challenger, Mitt Romney, what test do you apply to them as you think about who would make a good president to bring us through this difficult time?
ROBERT MERRY: Well, I say in this book that I believe that presidential elections are largely referendums on the incumbent or the incumbent party.
And, therefore, I think the voters are going to ask the question that Ronald Reagan put so succinctly and so brilliantly: Are you better off than you were four years ago?
Or maybe even better, Judy, is the country better off than it was four years ago?
And they will ask that question, as they always do in these referendum elections. And they will come up with their answer.
JUDY WOODRUFF: You know, on that point, Bob, you call for the candidates to campaign with an eye to governing, to think ahead to what it's going to be like if they're elected, if they're serving.
Are they doing that in this election, in this campaign?
ROBERT MERRY: No, I don't think they're doing that.
If you believe, as I do -- and others may not -- that these elections are referendums, then it means that the incumbent needs to run on his record. And the effort to dismantle and destroy the image and the standing of his opponent, that doesn't really make a lot of sense.
And it's harmful actually in terms of how he's going to bring the country together once he's reelected, if he isn't -- if he is reelected.
In the case of the challenger, he needs to -- if you take my thesis, what he says isn't going to make a huge amount of difference, because it's the record of the incumbent that is going to be the answer to the question of who wins.
But if he wins, he's going to have to govern. And that means he's going to have to have a mandate. And he can't have a mandate if he's just giving squishy, soft answers to questions that are facing the country.
That's why I think that the selection of Paul Ryan is probably healthy in regard of sharply delineating the issues.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Because the choice is clearer...
ROBERT MERRY: Correct.
JUDY WOODRUFF: ... is what you're saying.
Bob Merry. The book is "Where They Stand: The American Presidents in the Eyes of Voters and Historians."
Thank you very much for talking with us.
ROBERT MERRY: Thank you, Judy. Enjoyed it much.

• 10 comments

• Rumionemore•10 months ago

  • 
    

  One of the most fascinating and authentic segments I've seen on the NewsHour in a long time. Mr. Merry's expertise and scholarship made him a credible source. Liked his comments about Reagan. After this generation of media and historians pass on, he'll receive the respect he deserves. Merry's comments were on target about Romney and Obama. I sensed a comparison of Obama to Buchanan (the "worst president"), who had lacked the ability to deal effectively with gridlock. This translates broadly to a lack of leadership.
  
  • Bobsnsane Rumionemore•10 months ago

    • 
      

    "One of the most fascinating and authentic segments I've seen on the NewsHour" ...
    It was superb!
    But note that I left out "in a long time".
    Almost every week - there's a great segment like this.
    I've come 2 expect it.
    I never miss the show...gonna have 2 put some money where my mouth is...when u guys r on - you r simply the best.
    Thank u.
    
• Mr Mike•10 months ago

  • 
    

  I don't think anyone can argue that the country is certainly better off than it was 4 years ago. Is the country in as good a position as it's ever been? Probably not! But with every crisis in our country, the fix has never been instant. How did Roosevelt get reelected during the depression when unemployment was still over 15%. Mr Merry's assertion that every election is a referendum just may be true, but Americans also know what relative figure to compare to and the right course vs the wrong course.
  
  • Rumionemore Mr Mike•10 months ago

    • 
      

    If you're considering only the country's financial standing, that, at best, is only iffy. Include the reality of a war we sponsored (yeah, we're getting out, sure), our failing institutions,growing poverty, immigration, out-of-wedlock births at 40%,which are related to that poverty, and our diminishing image in the rest of the world. Not only is the U.S.A. not better off than it was four years ago, it's struggling in a way I never thought I would see. If trouble builds character, the U.S. should have more than its share of good old character.
    
  • Robert Cassis Mr Mike•10 months ago

    • 
      

    I'd argue. Personally my finances are in the toilet. I make a full 40% less than the day he was inaugurated, But my expenses have risen at the same time. And everything the president has pushed for has negatively impacted our ability to change our own circumstances. His vision of "forward" is more spending when we are already $50,000 in debt for every man woman and child in the US. And every year we are adding $4000 to that number.
    
  • Bobsnsane Mr Mike•10 months ago

    • 
      

    "I don't think anyone can argue that the country is certainly better off than it was 4 years ago."
    OMG...1.3% growth in the 2nd quarter?
    Recall Obama promised 2 cut the deficit in half &
    he promised that his $1 trillion (that's 12 zeroes) stimulus
    will provide 8.7 million new jobs &
    yield an unemployment rate of 5%...
    sad truth is he accumulated $6 trillion in new debt in 3 years & the unEmployment rate is over 8% 4 43 months,
    with fewer people working than when he took office.
    A mind is a terrible thing 2 waste Mr Mike...
    Do the facts matter?
    Stay involved & remember
    U get the government u deserve.
    
• Rumionemore•10 months ago

  • 
    

  Mr. Merry's interview was compelling because the information discussed was based on hard research and history. I did take note of his remarks about Buchanan ("worst president") and his failure to manage gridlock in the country. Sounds as if our current leader may have the same set of skills possessed by Buchanan.
  
• Demeter_3•10 months ago

  • 
    

  Is the country better off than it was four years ago?
  I agree, Mr. Mike, clearly it is. Four years ago the value of stocks was spiraling down, certain banks were close to failing, the financial system was on the brink of collapse.
  From what I can tell, the Republicans want to go back to the Bush era pipe dream that caused the country trouble four years ago. Why didn't they learn anything from such a harsh lesson?
  
• Horst•10 months ago

  • 
    

  I also believe that the selection of Paul Ryan helps the President. And further more it is preaching to the Choir, instead reaching out across the aisle.
  
• Horst•10 months ago

  • 
    

  I'm inclined to agree with Merry. The selection of Paul Ryan is preaching to the choir, instead of reaching across the aisle.
  
    Copyright © 1996-2013 MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved
  
  ...and I am Sid Harth