MARC Record from marc_columbia

LEADER: 03113cam a2200397 a 4500
001 6763765
005 20221122050407.0
008 080208t20082008nyu b 001 0deng
010 $a 2008005058
019 $a176894761
020 $a9780465002917 (alk. paper)
020 $a0465002919 (alk. paper)
024 $a40015561220
035 $a(OCoLC)ocn192050025
035 $a(OCoLC)192050025$z(OCoLC)176894761
035 $a(NNC)6763765
035 $a6763765
040 $aDLC$cDLC$dYDXCP$dBAKER$dBTCTA$dUKM$dC#P$dOrLoB-B
043 $an-us---
050 00 $aE176.1$b.F43 2008
082 00 $a973.09/9$222
100 1 $aFelzenberg, Alvin S.$0http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n77000574
245 14 $aThe leaders we deserved (and a few we didn't) :$brethinking the presidential rating game /$cAlvin S. Felzenberg.
260 $aNew York :$bBasic Books,$c[2008], ©2008.
300 $axi, 442 pages ;$c25 cm
336 $atext$btxt$2rdacontent
337 $aunmediated$bn$2rdamedia
504 $aIncludes bibliographical references (p. 385-422) and index.
505 00 $g1.$tThe Rating Game -- $g2.$tCharacter -- $g3.$tVision -- $g4.$tCompetence -- $g5.$tEconomic Policy -- $g6.$tPreserving and Extending Liberty -- $g7.$tDefense, National Security, and Foreign Policy -- $g8.$tWhat Does It All Mean? -- $tThe Presidential Scorecard -- $tEconomic Data Sources.
520 1 $a"Rating the presidents is a perennial pastime in America: historians and pundits have periodically ranked our leaders along a scale ranging from "Great," and "Near-Great," down to "Failure." But as Alvin S. Felzenberg points out, these ratings have many problems. Despite reams of new historical information,the rankings never seem to change very much: for instance, the same six leaders, Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, Wilson, and the two Roosevelts, always emerge on top. There's a strong bias toward a certain kind of president - those who tended to increase executive power - unless, of course, a president used that power in ways the evaluators didn't approve of. In any case, the idea of rating performance in such a complex job on a simple linear scale is slightly absurd." "The Leaders we Deserved (and a Few we Didn't) offers a more reliable way of assessing presidential performance. It ranks presidents against several criteria - character, vision, competence, foreign policy, economic policy; human rights, and legacy. The result is a surprisingly fresh look at how the presidents stack up against each other, with some of the standard "greats" coming off far worse in some ways than their supposedly mediocre colleagues."--BOOK JACKET.
650 0 $aPresidents$zUnited States$vBiography.$0http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85106470
650 0 $aPresidents$zUnited States$xHistory.$0http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh2008109603
650 0 $aPresidents$xRating of$zUnited States.
650 0 $aPolitical leadership$zUnited States$vCase studies.$0http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh2010107090
651 0 $aUnited States$xPolitics and government$vCase studies.
852 00 $bglx$hE176.1$i.F43 2008