WorldCat Linked Data Explorer

Turtle N-Triple JSON-LD RDF/XML HTML Contact Us Home

http://worldcat.org/entity/work/id/369356114

The leaders we deserved (and a few we didn't) : rethinking the presidential rating game

It's a perennial pastime to rate U.S. presidents on an all-time ranking: Certain presidents were "Great," others were "Near-Great," and so on down to "Failures" and "Unmitigated Disasters." (OK, we made that last category up.) But as Alvin Felzenberg points out, there are many flaws with these rating systems. Despite reams of new historical information, the rankings never seem to change very much. They all favor a certain kind of president-those who tended to increase executive power. That aside, the idea of rating presidential performance on a simple linear scale is absurd. The Leaders We Des.

Open All Close All

type

about

alternateName

http://schema.org/alternateName

  • "Rethinking the presidential rating game"@en
  • "Rethinking the presidential rating game"

contributor

creator

description

http://schema.org/description

  • "It's a perennial pastime to rate U.S. presidents on an all-time ranking: Certain presidents were "Great," others were "Near-Great," and so on down to "Failures" and "Unmitigated Disasters." (OK, we made that last category up.) But as Alvin Felzenberg points out, there are many flaws with these rating systems. Despite reams of new historical information, the rankings never seem to change very much. They all favor a certain kind of president-those who tended to increase executive power. That aside, the idea of rating presidential performance on a simple linear scale is absurd. The Leaders We Des."@en
  • "It's a perennial pastime to rate U.S. presidents on an all-time ranking: Certain presidents were "Great," others were "Near-Great," and so on down to "Failures" and "Unmitigated Disasters." (OK, we made that last category up.) But as Alvin Felzenberg points out, there are many flaws with these rating systems. Despite reams of new historical information, the rankings never seem to change very much. They all favor a certain kind of president-those who tended to increase executive power. That aside, the idea of rating presidential performance on a simple linear scale is absurd. The Leaders We Des."
  • "Assesses each of the United States presidents in terms of character, vision, competence, foreign policy, economic policy, human rights, and legacy, rating each leader in terms of the best and the worst for each category."
  • "Assesses each of the United States presidents in terms of character, vision, competence, foreign policy, economic policy, human rights, and legacy, rating each leader in terms of the best and the worst for each category."@en
  • "It's a perennial pastime to rate U.S. presidents on an all-time ranking: Certain presidents were "Great," others were "Near-Great," and so on down to "Failures" and "Unmitigated Disasters." (OK, we made that last category up.) But as Alvin Felzenberg points out, there are many flaws with these rating systems. Despite reams of new historical information, the rankings never seem to change very much. They all favor a certain kind of president-those who tended to increase executive power. That aside, the idea of rating presidential performance on a simple linear scale is absurd. The Leaders We Deserved (and a Few We Didn't) breaks presidential performance into easily understandable categories-character, vision, competence, foreign policy, economic policy, human rights, and legacy-and assesses, for each category, the best and worst. The result is a surprisingly fresh look at how the various presidents stack up against each other, with some of the "greats" coming off far worse than their supposedly mediocre colleagues."@en

genre

http://schema.org/genre

  • "Biography"@en
  • "Biography"
  • "Case studies"@en
  • "Case studies"
  • "Electronic resource"@en
  • "Electronic books"@en
  • "Electronic books"
  • "History"@en
  • "History"

name

http://schema.org/name

  • "The leaders we deserved (and a few we didn't) : rethinking the presidential rating game"
  • "The leaders we deserved (and a few we didn't) : rethinking the presidential rating game"@en
  • "The leaders we deserved (and a few we didn't) rethinking the presidential rating game"@en
  • "The leaders we deserved (and a few we didn't) rethinking the presidential rating game"
  • "The Leaders We Deserved (And A Few We Didn'T) Rethinking The Presidential Rating Game"@en
  • "The Leaders We Deserved (and a Few We Didn't) Rethinking the Presidential Rating Game"
  • "The Leaders we deserved (and a few we didn't) rethinking the presidential rating game"@en

workExample