Fit for the Presidency? Winners, Losers, What-Ifs, and Also-Rans

The words to describe this book are not the words usually used in academic reviews—fun, quirky, creative. The book has its merits, but it is neither systematic enough to be useful to historians nor sufficiently committed to one method or a series of methods to merit consideration as a contribution to interdisciplinary history. Like a visitor from another planet, the book most suits its own habitat, far beyond the academic universe.Morris begins with a great idea. Although some might consider today’s presidential campaign the world’s most extensive, expensive, high-stakes, over-the-top beauty contest, it is more like the world’s most important, systematic, albeit highly scrutinized job search—with one of the largest teams of evaluators (India wins that last distinction). Given that vision, it makes sense to assess successful presidents, losers, also-rans, and what-ifs as an executive recruiter would.Morris is, the book jacket reports, “a former political pollster, head of corporate communications, and international entrepreneur.” He might easily pass for an executive recruiter, because the book offers headhunters’ memos on fifteen presidential candidates. Sandwiched between an introduction and a conclusion are briefings—in chronological order—about presidents George Washington, William Henry Harrison, Abraham Lincoln, Herbert Hoover, Ronald Reagan, and Jefferson Davis (although Davis was the president of the wrong country). The briefings also cover major-party nominees who lost—DeWitt Clinton, Samuel J. Tilden, Wendell Willkie, and Barry Goldwater. Some aspirants who failed even to reach that level are also covered—William Randolph Hearst, William Gibbs McAdoo, George Marshall, Henry A. Wallace, and Robert F. Kennedy. Providing the curriculum vitae, as well as interesting, lively assessments, of these candidates, Morris grades them in four categories—accomplishments, intangibles, judgment, and overall. Marks range from outstanding to excellent, fair, and poor (334). Readers will enjoy these freeze-dried, easily digestible, servings of political biography. It is amusing to note how unqualified Lincoln was, meriting only a “fair” in accomplishments, or to read Morris’ dismissive assessment of the long-lamented Robert Kennedy: “Rarely has a career owed so much to nepotism” (292). Ouch.Morris’ heavy reliance on his “intangibles” category, which mainly concerns “personality and character,” makes his method particularly idiosyncratic: “Washington, Lincoln, and Reagan lacked the brilliance of, say, Clinton or Wallace, but by sheer force of personality and human traits they achieved exemplary success” (337). Such are the tidbits that this book yields, and they certainly have their place. They are even convincing at times. But, in the end, why these fifteen candidates were chosen and not any one of another of 150 possibilities remains something of a mystery. This reviewer, while amused and informed, would not be able to replicate the scores that Morris assigned to his candidates, beyond some of the most striking or obvious ones.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.