Confronting The Presidents: No Spin Assessments From Washington To Biden By David R. Locke

I’m a Brit. I have never been so absorbed in such an epic political thriller! This book is so easy to read. It narrates beautifully in such a human way. I am happy to understand far more about the history of the USA told in such honest and uncompromising ways. Absolutely super book. There is far more depth to the history than I have ever seen before. Fantastic book! 5 stars!!!!

Bill O’Reilly’s series of history books are fact-based, no agendas, and in a style that makes learning history enjoyable.

I have just completed reading Bill O’Reilly’s “Confronting the Presidents: No Spin Assessment.” It is an exceptionally well-crafted and impressive book. To fully appreciate its insights, I recommend watching the NewNation special report episode in which Bill O’Reilly discusses his book and outlines his views on the five best and five worst U.S. presidents. This episode serves as a cinematic counterpart to the book. O’Reilly’s evaluation of the presidents is refreshingly candid, and while his approach may be subjective, it is grounded in a punctually and righteous objective belief. When asked if he has a bias against Lyndon Johnson, O’Reilly responded affirmatively, noting that Johnson’s era coincided with his own. I share the sentiments of Leland Vittert; I rank Johnson among my top 25 presidents due to his remarkable skills as a legislative and executive leader. He set a precedent for future leaders on how to effectively advance policy in Congress while managing relationships with congressional members. To be an effective majority whip, one must be assertive yet not Machiavellian, and geniously pragmatic and meticulously transactional embodying a demeanor that is both strategic and benevolent (harmless as a dove).

His Great Society initiative exemplifies his exceptional ability to set a visionary agenda and his presidential aspirations. It is my hope that a Republican will, in the future, endeavor to reinterpret the Great Society with a conservative perspective.

O’Reilly indeed took a strong stance against Johnson, particularly regarding the allegations of corruption related to Vietnam, which are largely speculative. While I concur that Johnson’s handling of the Vietnam War was disastrous, it was driven by noble intentions. Nonetheless, I admire O’Reilly’s intellectual courage in challenging what he perceives as an overly romanticized view of Presidents. I believe the narrative surrounding George Washington Washington romanticized, primarily to uphold the legacy of our first President, especially in the context of the Revolutionary War.

I have never maintained a list of individuals I regard unfavorably; however, I have consistently held a negative view of George Washington. Following the Revolutionary War, his aspirations appeared to lean towards establishing a monarchy, as he seemed disinclined to relinquish his position. Alexander Hamilton’s role was to astutely implement Washington’s agenda, which included dismantling the Articles of Confederation and ensuring compliance among the populace. I contend that Hamilton exerted undue pressure on Congress during Washington’s first term and ultimately manipulated the electorate to secure Washington’s reelection through coercive tactics, never hesitating to employ intimidation. Furthermore, he perpetuated the former colonial practice of taxation without representation, or at least endeavored to do so.

John Adams maintained a position of neutrality, placing his trust in the nascent Republic. Conversely, the faction led by Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe recognized Washington’s intentions. Ultimately, Washington miscalculated with his Whiskey Tax in Western Pennsylvania, as the local rebels refused to comply. In a show of authority, Washington traveled to Pittsburgh to assert his presence, only to be met with a humiliating response in Pittsburgh Pirates fashion, who subjected him to tarring and feathering. While I will refrain from speculating about the involvement of Jefferson’s camp in this incident, it is worth noting that Washington, despite stepping down in disgrace, established a commendable precedent by serving two terms. Interestingly, the audacity of the Pirates was evident in their decision to name the city where Washington faced this indignity ‘Washington.’ I mean Pirates figuratively.

My assessment of the George Washington and Alexander Hamilton administration is one that is confrontational, righteous, and subjective. Hamilton harbored resentment over this perspective and believed he could form an alliance with John Adams. However, Adams maintained a neutral stance, supporting the new Republic alongside figures such as Benjamin Franklin and Justice John Marshall. In stark contrast, Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson remained fierce adversaries until Hamilton’s untimely death. It is indeed unfortunate, as Hamilton was arguably the most brilliant of the founding fathers and would have made an exceptional president.

Wow! Confronting The Ps is a heavyweight assessment. I encountered some profound insights from Bill O’Reilly that truly challenged my thinking. Rather than merely shocking my conscience, it profoundly stimulated my intellect. Bill employs what I refer to as the NEUL grading scale, a unique system used by Northeastern Law School. Attending Northeastern was my aspiration, but I was not accepted, while my sister was, which I suspect she did to highlight my own rejection. Regardless, instead of traditional letter or numerical grades, NEUL students receive narrative evaluations, which categorize their performance as Fail, Honors, or High Honors for exemplary academic achievement.

O’Reilly employs the NEUl framework to assess the effectiveness of presidential leadership, placing particular emphasis on the following criteria: Equal Justice for All, Moral Authority, Crisis Leadership, and Performance within the context of their respective times. The presidents he identifies as having failed primarily lack moral authority, including Franklin Pierce and Andrew Johnson. There appears to be a potential typographical error in the book, as it lists Trump among the bottom five presidents without providing an explanation. However, in a subsequent interview, he presents a revised bottom five: Franklin Pierce, John Tyler, Lyndon Johnson, and James Buchanan. He critiques Lyndon Johnson for his inadequate international relations. In my assessment using NEUL, I have identified only three presidents who have been ineffective as Commander-in-Chief: George Washington, along with O’Reilly’s selections of Andrew Johnson and Joe Biden. Notably, Franklin Pierce and Joe Biden are the only presidents in U.S. history who faced demands from their own parties to resign.

It is my hope that O’Reilly remains sufficiently objective to annually update and refine this remarkable project based on the constructive feedback he receives and the new insights he acquires. This practice is similar to that of C-SPAN, as highlighted by Brian Lamb, who noted that historians have elevated Ronald Reagan’s ranking by one position in each of C-SPAN’s last two surveys, placing him in the top ten for the first time in 2009. His scores have seen the most significant improvement in the areas of crisis leadership and economic management. However, Reagan is ranked 33rd in administrative skills, which is among the lowest rankings for any president in the top ten.

My NEUL criteria place significant emphasis on the following aspects: international relations, administrative capabilities, moral authority, crisis leadership, congressional relations, and the ability to set a vision and agenda. Before engaging with “Confronting the Ps,” my top-ranked individual was Adams, succeeded by Quincy Adams, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and George H.W. Bush.

After my analysis of “Confronting the Ps,” I have revised my top choice to James Monroe, whom I regard as the Abraham Lincoln of the Republic of Liberia. Lincoln now occupies the second position, as I greatly admire his bold vision. In his inaugural address, he notably challenged the South with the phrase, “I dare you.” Jefferson has moved up to the third position, followed by Reagan and Calvin Coolidge.

Excellent work Bill; I pray and look forward to annual updates to this Assessment.