|
Editorial Review Product Description
The 1920's challenge the historian and the general reader with the controversial and misunderstood figure of Warren G. Harding, president from 1921 until his death in 1923. Professor Murray re-examines and re-evaluates Harding's nomination, election, and presidency in the light of newly available materials, especially the Harding Papers. He demonstrates that Harding was not a bumbling nonentity as heretofore pictured and that his administration was surprisingly successful in solving its immediate problems. Inheriting domestic and international chaos, the administration engineered an efficient transition from the postwar turmoil of the late Wilson years to a time of prosperity under Collidge. Significantly also, it established the basic outlines of Republican party policy for the rest of the decade.As Professor Murray makes clear, Harding was more than a bystander in these accomplishments; he was a catalytic influence, succeeding where a different personality might have failed. Harding's failure, the author concludes, was not in the nature of his administration but in himself and his friends. His own flaws, coupled with the corrupt activity of such associates as Forbes, Miller, and Fall, tipped the scales in the public's eyes against his administration's achievements. In the process, many persistent myths were created. Now, in this book, the myths are analyzed and, wherever necessary, dispelled. ... Read more Customer Reviews (5) 
Even Handed But Kind of Boring in the middle
You can't blame Murray for this book dragging a little in the middle. Warren Harding's Presidency was a little boring if you aren't into detailed analysis of tariffs, agricultural policy, labor negotiations, etc. That was the meat and potatoes of Warren Harding's presidency and Murray's account is a fair account.
I read this book in my continued pursuit to read a biography of every President. This is definitely the book to read on Harding. It exposes the man's warts but doesn't accuse him in an unwarranted fashion which from my understanding some other Harding biographers have.
This book is not for the faint of heart or the reader looking for a breezy account of a President they don't know a lot about. This book is for the serious historian that wants to get into the nitty gritty of the post-Wilson era. I am a pretty patient reader and even I got a little overwhelmed at times with 40 page chapters about labor negoatiations and the like.
Murray does give the scandal that ultimately brought down the Harding administration its fair share of coverage. He also does a good job detailing Harding's unexpected and untimely death. His description of the scandals is very fair, almost to a fault. I'm not saying he is a Harding fan but there were a few times when I thought he gave Harding the benefit of the doubt in his personal conduct, especially where drinking and womanizing were considered.
I do think his take on the Teapot Dome affair is accurate and jives with other accounts I've read.
This is the book you should read on Harding, but be warned it drags in the middle but if you slog through to the scandals at the end it picks up again and all in all is a very enjoyable read.
Great Read - Excellent Biography
This is an outstanding read on a President that should not be ranked as low as he is among historians (I would have to rank Buchanan, Pierce and Carter and perhaps Clinton)lower than Harding.Unfortunately most of the rating of Warren G. Harding have to do with the writings of historians who were fans of Wilson and the New Deal under Roosevelt.Harding gets low ratings because of one bad cabinet officer and when you compare it to the things that have happened the last 25 years Harding was not all that bad a President.He took office during a recession and labor riots were going on, Wilson had completely ignored domestic problems and the economy partially because he was an invalid and his wife was the acting the President all of which was hid from the Press.Moreover, when you go back and look at the so-called "Teapot Dome Scandal" and study the facts surrounding it, Albert Fall the Senator who was the Secretary of Interior had good motives for doing what he did. He was trying to hide from the Japanese the drilling and storage of oil for our Navy on the west coast and in Pearl Harbor therefore if one thinks about it, it probably would not have been wise to let public bids out for the development of the oil fields. Everyone knew back then that Japan was going to have to dealt with in the future as they were building a huge Navy. Fall's mistake was accepting a position with Sinclair Oil before he left office the same company he allowed as Secretary of the Interior to have the lease and drilling rights in the oil fields. The other things happening around Harding were of little consequence as compared to politics today. The read was great.Murray did a great job uncovering facts and presenting in my view a very fair balance. I think too much emphasis is put on Woodrow Wilson who in my view was an elitist and not realistic.And then you have Roosevelt.Most of the historians who were taught back then learned under men who were in universities during the Wilson years and who became scholars and teachers under Roosevelt.Therefore their writings in my opinion have to be read carefully and when you see them slant things to the favor of Wilson and Roosevelt, you have to remember that it was the American people who voted for Harding and then Coolidge and Hoover.
I think if you want to know about the Presidents you need to know about Harding and I have read a lot of biographies and this is in the top 10 as far as presentation, scholarly research and historical context.
Don C.
Towering Work
RobertMurray's re-creation of the Harding era, his assessment of Warren Harding, remains the towering work in this field to this time - it first was published some decades gone by. Murray's book is well-written, his judgments are balanced, his thrust is to re-create an administration in its times. Murray can no longer be counted the last word on Harding of course - new Harding material has come to light through the passing of years - but Murray's work remains The Authority - John Dean gives credit to Murray in his brief, contemporary Harding biography.
Murray laid the groundwork which others are building on - it is interesting that Warren Harding's reputation is being recast.Many students of American history are no longer accepting the longstanding, rote judgment that Warren Harding was a presidential failure. Among many things (Murray reviews this, although he did not have the full overview) Harding emerges as the only U.S. president in the 20th Century to led the nation in disarmament, the only president who reduced the military machines. Harding's close, personal involvement in the disarmament effort is documented and acknowledged. Shortly before his death, Harding resolved that if the United States ever again should go to war - if the United States should judge it necessary to draft young men - then - Harding said - there also must be a draft of capital. It is tickling to find John Kennedy's "ask not what your country can do for you..."has an origin with Warren Harding.
Best book thus far on Harding's administration
Robert K. Murray analyzes the presidency of Warren G. Harding.In this balanced work Murray effectively illustrates that Harding was not the bumbling idiot that he has been made out to be, in fact he was rather intelligient and could have been brilliant if not for his lack of discipline.Murray dispels the myths that Harding was chosen as a candidate in a "smoke filled room" and that he, along with Harry Daughtery, was a member of the "ohio gang".Murray goes into great detail recounting how Harding chose his cabinet, the accomplishments of his administration, his handling of Congress, and his effectiveness as President.Murray discusses the scandals and explores the depth of Harding's knowledge of scandal in his administration.Murray also explores the decline of Harding's reputation and the factors that contributed to this. Overall, Murray views Harding as a man that was more abler than he has been given credit for, but he concedes that Harding had his share of limitations and probably shouldn't have been President. But Murray concludes that the accomplishments of his administration was superior to a great number of other administrations.
I agree with the author's conclusions that Harding accomplished a great deal during his short tenure in office.And would have gone on to become a very good President had he lived.Though I also agree that he probably should not have been president, given the fact that he often spoke of his limitations.The author points out that the very qualities that made Harding so attractive was also the qualities that led to his downfall.Harding was a good, kind, sweet and sincere man-but he was loyal to a fault.Harding (like Jimmy Carter who I also feel should have never been president) was too much of a nice guy and his kindness (and naivete') prevented him from seeing the worse in others.Harding gave his trust to individuals that were unworthy of the trust he placed in them.He exercised poor judgement in his choice of friends, or as one author put it, he was not discriminating enough in his choice of friends or collegues.Had Harding exposed Charles Forbes after demanding his resignation, quite possibly Harding would have atleast been credited for having some integrity, but he blundered in his handling of Forbes.
The Harding Memorial Association also blundered by not making the Harding Papers available.In Murray's estimate, had these materials been available, much of the gossipy lies that have been said and written and about Mr. Harding would have been dispelled.But instead, lies and myths continue to be perpetuated and presented as historical fact.Therefore, it is no wonder Harding is held in such low regard.But Harding is not the evil, crook that he has been painted to be.
Harding would have, in due time, overcome the scandals like many other Presidents before and after him have.But due to his untimely death, he had no opportunity and therefore had no voice.But Harding, deserves to be reexamined, and I applaud the author's effort in presenting such a balanced view.
Harding Seen for the First Time
The Harding Era brought to the reader, for the first time, an accurate and fair account of the Warren G. Harding Presidency.Harding had been (and in some respects still is) the most maltreated president in our nation's history.His reputation plummeted soon after his untimely death in office, and misconceptions and lies soon became accepted as fact rather than fiction.Murray's work shows some interesting aspects of Harding's two and a half years in office:
· The myth of a smoke filled room does disservice to Harding, who through effective campaigning and a natural congeniality, was able to secure the 1920 nomination, and it does a disservice to the supposed power brokers, some of whom continued to vote against Harding until the end.Uncertain times and two bull-headed front-runners more than party bosses pulling the strings of a puppet Harding made a dark-horse Harding nomination possible.
· Harding was able to bring governmental spending under control by creating, under the executive branch, the office of the budget.As well, he championed and was able to accomplish the Washington Naval Conference, which set the stage for military size and ability following post World War One. His policies have been shown to be wanting, but in his day were seen as viable to an isolationist nation.
· The Teapot Dome scandal, which has historically been the Achilles heal of the Harding administration, is seen in the light of historical research:it was only in the papers for a brief time and Harding, by transferring control of governmental oil reserves from one cabinet secretary to another was simply following what was thought to be the good advice of his cabinet.He was not involved in the scandal nor could he really be faulted for what was for him an uncomplicated administrative transfer.
· The Harding era ended a recession and set the stage for republican dominance throughout the 1920s.It is shown that both Coolidge and Hoover built on this base.And, no matter how the slogan came about, "Normalcy" became the catchword of the era.Few presidents have been able to define an era as the Harding campaign did.
· Both presidents Coolidge and Hoover have hindered Harding's reputation.Both had served in the Harding cabinet and either could have spoken up for their deceased colleague to counter some of the hearsay that was accepted as fact.Yet Harding was by then a political albatross, and they both stayed silent.
Murray also clearly shows the weakness of Harding as a man and president.
· His sexual prowess was less accepted, even to a roaring 1920s, than it might have been later on.Although verified accounts of his exploits are less than the rumors and stories surrounding him, (Murray shows the idea of sex in the oval office closet to be basically another lie turned into fact), Harding was no moral beacon.As the 20th century closed in the United States Harding was remembered as a 1920s Bill Clinton.Harding could have only blamed himself for this.
· Personally he governed by consensus, weakness, and some executive planning.The speeches during his Western and Alaskan tour seem to show a man growing into the office and wanting to exercise more presidential authority.I personally think that had Harding lived he would have weathered the scandals, won re-election, and been remembered better.Yet, his death and his many hidden papers, for many years presumed destroyed, allowed the various Harding myths to emerge.By being a largely ineffective leader of questionable moral character, Harding is to be blamed for a good portion of this as his weak administration and legacy could not counter-act public perception.Most notably in his mistakes was choosing the notorious Albert Fall to be in his cabinet.Fall more that anyone helped destroy Harding's reputation.
· It is clear that Harding neither made the times, nor did the times make Harding.Brought to office by a country tired of war and wanting to be left alone without a League of Nations or similar entanglement(and helped by a number of first time voting women who found a handsome Harding elect able), he brought with him an undistinguished political record and the nostalgia of and for a small town America.Thankfully most political contests have brought forth a higher caliber winner than did the 1920 election.
Murray concludes by stating that Harding probably should not have been president.But that he was president.This second part alone merits Murray's excellent book.Years ago, when beginning a rather short-lived career as a high school history teacher, I visited the Harding Home and grave in Marion, Ohio.The tour of the home was a bit comical and somewhat less than professional, as a rather obese guide meandered us around the house, at times blowing his nose and checking his handkerchief for contents. The Harding grave was closed to the public, but I got in and saw his grave covered by garden hoses and a soda bottle.The tour was a metaphor for the Harding years.It was not enough to strive to be America's "Best Loved President".The administration needed more and could not provide it, and has strived since then to gain respect. Some Harding aficionados have suggested that Harding should not be considered America's worst president, but should be elevated to the row of bottom tier presidents (based on whatever scale is used in rating presidents). Overall this is not saying much, but it does say something.Reading Robert K. Murray's The Harding Era might just convince the reader that this bump up to the bottom is justified.
... Read more |
