What do you think?
Rate this book
The End of Greatness: Why America Can't Have (and Doesn't Want) Another Great President by Miller, Aaron David(October 7, 2014) Hardcover
The Presidency has always been an implausible—some might even say an impossible—job. Part of the problem is that the challenges of the presidency and the expectations Americans have for their presidents have skyrocketed, while the president's capacity and power to deliver on what ails the nations has diminished. Indeed, as citizens we continue to aspire and hope for greatness in our only nationally elected office. The problem of course is that the demand for great presidents has always exceeded the supply. As a result, Americans are adrift in a kind of Presidential Bermuda Triangle suspended between the great presidents we want and the ones we can no longer have.The End of Greatness explores the concept of greatness in the presidency and the ways in which it has become both essential and detrimental to America and the nation's politics. Miller argues that greatness in presidents is a much overrated virtue. Indeed, greatness is too rare to be relevant in our current politics, and driven as it is by nation-encumbering crisis, too dangerous to be desirable.Our preoccupation with greatness in the presidency consistently inflates our expectations, skews the debate over presidential performance, and drives presidents to misjudge their own times and capacity. And our focus on the individual misses the constraints of both the office and the times, distorting how Presidents actually lead. In wanting and expecting our leaders to be great, we have simply made it impossible for them to be good. The End of Greatness takes a journey through presidential history, helping us understand how greatness in the presidency was achieved, why it's gone, and how we can better come to appreciate the presidents we have, rather than being consumed with the ones we want.
Unknown Binding
First published October 7, 2014
13 people are currently reading
527 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews
November 14, 2014
I asked for an advance copy of this book because I’d seen one insightful comment that Miller had written about the Israeli-Palestinian issue that made me think of that discussion in a new way. I don’t recall that statement now, and wish I did. It might remind me of Miller’s strengths. It would be kinder, perhaps, not to review this recent book at all, since the end of greatness is a difficult argument to make, and Miller’s loose and casual style slapped around a couple of ideas but did not convince this reader.
Miller reminds me of someone to his political right, Andrew J. Bacevich. Both these polemicists may be very learned historians but the language they use comes across as flippant. Duties of state are almost never casually undertaken. I don’t see why they should be discussed as though they were. By the time I got to Chapter Eight, entitled “Boxers or Briefs,” I had long ago decided that Miller was not the man I could trust to tell me who was great and who was not.
In a way, I am surprised this book concept got as far as it did, i.e., the advances, the editing,the publishing. Miller’s argument, that we haven’t had a great president since FDR, and have had only three in our history (including Washington and Lincoln), each approximately sixty years apart, may be reasonable. I am not going to argue that, since it makes no difference to his main thrust: Miller suggests that opportunities for heroic action in the presidency are finished because “the devastating calamities of our earlier history have passed” and “now that the country has moved beyond the kind of profoundly nation-threatening and encumbering crises that confronted it in the past…” I suppose the possibility that the world as we know it will be inundated with water does not constitute a major crisis since Congress has not deigned to put it on their agenda.
The writing in Miller’s chapters is diffuse and scattered. He flips through anecdotes in the careers of several presidents to make a point and then circles around again in a later chapter. Nearly every paragraph contains the remains of three Presidencys, though Miller spent several pages trying to decide if Ronald Reagan was a great president. (No, he decided, because of Reagan’s involvement in the Iran Contra scandal.) If I say that Miller approached this book as a loose series of casual blogposts, none of which could stand on their own, I am getting closer to describing the experience of reading it.
Anyway, Miller’s initial premise, that greatness is gone is absurd on its surface, and, I’m afraid, after further examination.
Miller puts it down to a “terrifying complexity and contingency to political life.” Am I reading this? I have always thought that greatness is something that comes with time and hindsight, after events and the political players have passed on, something on the order of “classic” status in literature. Looking for a great leader now is as chimerical as looking for one in the future, as Miller seems to be doing.
The good news is that we all have greatness in us. Opportunities to allow greatness to manifest are all around us. Miller’s book and his arguments are not worth the effort of reading them. Think instead what you can accomplish.
Miller reminds me of someone to his political right, Andrew J. Bacevich. Both these polemicists may be very learned historians but the language they use comes across as flippant. Duties of state are almost never casually undertaken. I don’t see why they should be discussed as though they were. By the time I got to Chapter Eight, entitled “Boxers or Briefs,” I had long ago decided that Miller was not the man I could trust to tell me who was great and who was not.
In a way, I am surprised this book concept got as far as it did, i.e., the advances, the editing,the publishing. Miller’s argument, that we haven’t had a great president since FDR, and have had only three in our history (including Washington and Lincoln), each approximately sixty years apart, may be reasonable. I am not going to argue that, since it makes no difference to his main thrust: Miller suggests that opportunities for heroic action in the presidency are finished because “the devastating calamities of our earlier history have passed” and “now that the country has moved beyond the kind of profoundly nation-threatening and encumbering crises that confronted it in the past…” I suppose the possibility that the world as we know it will be inundated with water does not constitute a major crisis since Congress has not deigned to put it on their agenda.
“If the supply of great or even consistently top performers in the presidency were equal to the demand, we would not be in the presidential pickle in which we now find ourselves.”
The writing in Miller’s chapters is diffuse and scattered. He flips through anecdotes in the careers of several presidents to make a point and then circles around again in a later chapter. Nearly every paragraph contains the remains of three Presidencys, though Miller spent several pages trying to decide if Ronald Reagan was a great president. (No, he decided, because of Reagan’s involvement in the Iran Contra scandal.) If I say that Miller approached this book as a loose series of casual blogposts, none of which could stand on their own, I am getting closer to describing the experience of reading it.
Anyway, Miller’s initial premise, that greatness is gone is absurd on its surface, and, I’m afraid, after further examination.
“The most sweeping transformation since the fall of the former Soviet Union, the so-called Arab Spring—now into its fourth year—has so far failed to generate a single political leader of consequence, certainly none with the power and capacity to transition from authoritarianism to democratic reform.”May we pause here for a moment to remember the assassinations, the wars, the bombings, etc. that have been taking potential Arab leaders off the playing field? The Israelis have not been similarly decimated, and yet they have not produced a leader. Exactly! Miller exclaims. Greatness is dead!
Miller puts it down to a “terrifying complexity and contingency to political life.” Am I reading this? I have always thought that greatness is something that comes with time and hindsight, after events and the political players have passed on, something on the order of “classic” status in literature. Looking for a great leader now is as chimerical as looking for one in the future, as Miller seems to be doing.
The good news is that we all have greatness in us. Opportunities to allow greatness to manifest are all around us. Miller’s book and his arguments are not worth the effort of reading them. Think instead what you can accomplish.
August 12, 2015
A rambling survey of American presidents – which were great, which had traces of greatness, which were so-so, and which were losers. I guess historians have a parlor game of ranking the presidents, and this book is part of that game.
The author says that there were three great presidents: Washington, Lincoln, and FDR, and it is very unlikely that we will ever have another “great” president. It is the author’s thesis that three C’s are required: crisis, character, and capacity. A president can only be great if he or she has a terrible crisis to overcome, and has the character and capacity (or ability) to overcome the crisis. But there will never be a terrible crisis again.
It was my understanding of the book that the author thinks that because the United States is a mature well-established country, it will never again face a crisis like Washington, Lincoln, or FDR faced. This is complete nonsense.
The author also says that the modern media and the extreme polarization of American politics will prevent a great president from appearing again.
The author says that there were three great presidents: Washington, Lincoln, and FDR, and it is very unlikely that we will ever have another “great” president. It is the author’s thesis that three C’s are required: crisis, character, and capacity. A president can only be great if he or she has a terrible crisis to overcome, and has the character and capacity (or ability) to overcome the crisis. But there will never be a terrible crisis again.
It was my understanding of the book that the author thinks that because the United States is a mature well-established country, it will never again face a crisis like Washington, Lincoln, or FDR faced. This is complete nonsense.
The author also says that the modern media and the extreme polarization of American politics will prevent a great president from appearing again.
April 11, 2025
Interesting concept but really could’ve been a long essay. Also pretty funny that Miller seems to imply that there would be no more great crises for an American president to take on. Oh to live in 2014 and be disappointed by Obama. Better buckle up bozo
January 1, 2015
We argue, endlessly and enthusiastically, about “the greatest” examples of things we care about. Untold hours have been spent, over countless rounds of drinks, debating who was the greatest midfielder, the greatest novelist, the greatest political orator, the greatest character actor, the greatest whatever. We have these arguments because they take us deep into the details of subjects we’re passionate about: Bench or Fisk? Beatles or Stones? Betty or Veronica? They’re fun, in part, because they don’t have a unique, objective solution; there are too many variables, too many ways to weight them, and too much room for intangibles.
Aaron David Miller’s The End of Greatness doesn’t so much engage in the evergreen “greatest American presidents” debate as attempt to bury it. Miller argues, uncontroversially, that that the list of great chief executives begins with George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt. He goes on, however, to contend that the list also ends there: That they are the only three presidents worthy of being called “truly great,” and that changing political and historical realities make it unlikely that there will be a fourth.
Miller develops his argument in careful, step-by-step fashion and bolsters it with great slabs of American Political History 101 detail. The intent of this approach is, I think, to split he difference between “scholarly” and “popular” . . . to make the book rigorous enough to be taken seriously by specialists (to make it more than just another “Top 10 American Presidents” piece), but keep it accessible enough to be read by a wide audience who know the names but not the careers behind them. The effect, unfortunately, is something else entirely. The abundant historical and political background is pitched at a level that fans of Robert Dallek and Doris Kearns Goodwin, or loyal viewers of The American Experience—the core audience for this book—are likely to find tedious. Readers who haven’t thought much about American political history since their 11th-grade U. S. history class, who might welcome the background material, will likely lose patience with the slow-and-deliberate pacing of Miller’s argument (which leaves the impression that this book could have been a long magazine article).
Miller, for all his carefully developed and meticulously bolstered arguments, seems prone to arbitrary judgments. He acknowledges that James Polk achieved, in his one term, all four of the (substantial) goals he had promised to pursue if elected—and then bars him from the ranks of the great because one-term presidents’ accomplishment can’t match those of two-termers. How do we know they can’t? In effect, because Miller declares it so. Why does Lyndon Johnson’s bungling of Vietnam disqualify him from greatness when Franklin Roosevelt’s court-packing scheme and authorization of wartime internment camps for Japanese-American not disqualify him? Why was World War II (which did not directly threaten America) a greater crisis than the Cold War (which, especially with the advent of ballistic missiles, did), and thus more capable of producing a great president? Miller gives reasons, but they are thin and unsatisfying—rhetorical fig leaves to cover the yet another instance of: “because my gut tells me so.”
I don’t begrudge Miller his gut instincts, or his reliance on them to draw fine distinctions and break ties. We all do that, when we argue about greatness—it’s part of the game. What frustrates me about The End of Greatness is its implied claim to be doing something more scholarly and sophisticated. As smart, deeply informed, and passionate as Miller is, I found myself wishing he’d unbent a little, filled a glass, and joined the rest of us in amiable argument.
Aaron David Miller’s The End of Greatness doesn’t so much engage in the evergreen “greatest American presidents” debate as attempt to bury it. Miller argues, uncontroversially, that that the list of great chief executives begins with George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt. He goes on, however, to contend that the list also ends there: That they are the only three presidents worthy of being called “truly great,” and that changing political and historical realities make it unlikely that there will be a fourth.
Miller develops his argument in careful, step-by-step fashion and bolsters it with great slabs of American Political History 101 detail. The intent of this approach is, I think, to split he difference between “scholarly” and “popular” . . . to make the book rigorous enough to be taken seriously by specialists (to make it more than just another “Top 10 American Presidents” piece), but keep it accessible enough to be read by a wide audience who know the names but not the careers behind them. The effect, unfortunately, is something else entirely. The abundant historical and political background is pitched at a level that fans of Robert Dallek and Doris Kearns Goodwin, or loyal viewers of The American Experience—the core audience for this book—are likely to find tedious. Readers who haven’t thought much about American political history since their 11th-grade U. S. history class, who might welcome the background material, will likely lose patience with the slow-and-deliberate pacing of Miller’s argument (which leaves the impression that this book could have been a long magazine article).
Miller, for all his carefully developed and meticulously bolstered arguments, seems prone to arbitrary judgments. He acknowledges that James Polk achieved, in his one term, all four of the (substantial) goals he had promised to pursue if elected—and then bars him from the ranks of the great because one-term presidents’ accomplishment can’t match those of two-termers. How do we know they can’t? In effect, because Miller declares it so. Why does Lyndon Johnson’s bungling of Vietnam disqualify him from greatness when Franklin Roosevelt’s court-packing scheme and authorization of wartime internment camps for Japanese-American not disqualify him? Why was World War II (which did not directly threaten America) a greater crisis than the Cold War (which, especially with the advent of ballistic missiles, did), and thus more capable of producing a great president? Miller gives reasons, but they are thin and unsatisfying—rhetorical fig leaves to cover the yet another instance of: “because my gut tells me so.”
I don’t begrudge Miller his gut instincts, or his reliance on them to draw fine distinctions and break ties. We all do that, when we argue about greatness—it’s part of the game. What frustrates me about The End of Greatness is its implied claim to be doing something more scholarly and sophisticated. As smart, deeply informed, and passionate as Miller is, I found myself wishing he’d unbent a little, filled a glass, and joined the rest of us in amiable argument.
March 24, 2019
First things first: Miller’s title sets him up for failure. It defies even the murkiest conception of common sense to argue that Americans don’t want a great president. I hazard the guess that it’s impossible to define “great president” in a way that would satisfy most readers.
More substantially, The End of Greatness isn’t a worthwhile read for me because, right up front, Miller acknowledges his endorsement of the "Great Man" theory of historical understanding that was championed initially in the 1840s by the Scottish writer Thomas Carlyle. The theory is often cited but it has only quite diminished standing today, as most historians and informed thinkers believe that durable circumstances and the complex dynamics of human interaction have much more impact than "Great Men" on our lives and on history as it unfolds. So, Miller gets started on the wrong foot, and his arguments can’t overcome the narrowness of his analysis.
“Where are the giants of old, the transformers who changed the world and left great legacies?” Where are the leaders who “will author some incomparable, unparalleled, and ennobling achievement at home or on the world stage, an achievement likely to be seen or remembered as great or transformational?” Miller cites rebellions and revolutions as “crucibles for emerging leaders.”
He can’t escape defining “greatness” and offers: “defined generally as incomparable and unparalleled achievement that is nation- or even world-altering.” A couple pages later he digs the hole deeper when he equates greatness with military, political, economic and “soft” power. Incredibly, Miller declares “Greatness in the presidency may be rare, but it is both real and measurable,” and he temptingly alludes to “traces of greatness” in several contemporary presidents, while arguing “Greatness in the presidency is too rare to be relevant in our modern times.”
Miller makes it official on page 10: Lincoln was one of the great presidents. Lincoln once dismissed another man’s argument by saying “it won’t scour,” as 19th century farmers said that a plow “won’t scour” when it failed to easily let the clods slide off the plowshare.
I think Miller’s thesis won’t scour. He mistakenly asserts that a few great leaders should get much of the credit for history’s “transformations.” He frames his arguments with words that can’t be acceptably, explicitly defined on the grand historical scale that he uses: what is and what isn’t, specifically and unarguably, a “great legacy”? a “transformation”? an “unparalleled achievement”? a “trace of greatness”?
The End of Greatness relies on great big categories and a deceptive positive spin to discuss a little idea, and to make a gratuitous point that really can’t be proved or disproved.
Full disclosure: I didn’t read the whole book. The Introduction stopped me cold.
Read more of my book reviews and poems here:
http://richardsubber.com/
More substantially, The End of Greatness isn’t a worthwhile read for me because, right up front, Miller acknowledges his endorsement of the "Great Man" theory of historical understanding that was championed initially in the 1840s by the Scottish writer Thomas Carlyle. The theory is often cited but it has only quite diminished standing today, as most historians and informed thinkers believe that durable circumstances and the complex dynamics of human interaction have much more impact than "Great Men" on our lives and on history as it unfolds. So, Miller gets started on the wrong foot, and his arguments can’t overcome the narrowness of his analysis.
“Where are the giants of old, the transformers who changed the world and left great legacies?” Where are the leaders who “will author some incomparable, unparalleled, and ennobling achievement at home or on the world stage, an achievement likely to be seen or remembered as great or transformational?” Miller cites rebellions and revolutions as “crucibles for emerging leaders.”
He can’t escape defining “greatness” and offers: “defined generally as incomparable and unparalleled achievement that is nation- or even world-altering.” A couple pages later he digs the hole deeper when he equates greatness with military, political, economic and “soft” power. Incredibly, Miller declares “Greatness in the presidency may be rare, but it is both real and measurable,” and he temptingly alludes to “traces of greatness” in several contemporary presidents, while arguing “Greatness in the presidency is too rare to be relevant in our modern times.”
Miller makes it official on page 10: Lincoln was one of the great presidents. Lincoln once dismissed another man’s argument by saying “it won’t scour,” as 19th century farmers said that a plow “won’t scour” when it failed to easily let the clods slide off the plowshare.
I think Miller’s thesis won’t scour. He mistakenly asserts that a few great leaders should get much of the credit for history’s “transformations.” He frames his arguments with words that can’t be acceptably, explicitly defined on the grand historical scale that he uses: what is and what isn’t, specifically and unarguably, a “great legacy”? a “transformation”? an “unparalleled achievement”? a “trace of greatness”?
The End of Greatness relies on great big categories and a deceptive positive spin to discuss a little idea, and to make a gratuitous point that really can’t be proved or disproved.
Full disclosure: I didn’t read the whole book. The Introduction stopped me cold.
Read more of my book reviews and poems here:
http://richardsubber.com/
October 18, 2014
I was initially skeptical that I was going to enjoy this book but the author drew me in and the arguments he made are quite valid. The book is broken into 3 parts, which I liked: Part 1 defining what a great president is according to the author. Part 2 focuses on the "post FDR era" and why the times narrowed the chances of having another "great" president. Part 3 delves into why we can't and don't want another great president.
The author's definition of greatness in a president is also broken into 3 main elements: 1) must overcome a nation-wrenching challenge, 2) used the crisis to fundamentally alter the way Americans see themselves as a nation and themselves, 3) transcend narrow partisanship. Because of this criteria, he believes it is impossible for someone to have all three in modern times because modern challenges today tend to divide rather than unite. And that a great president isn't relevant. Mr. Miller argues throughout the book that the crisis piece is the most important as without it, there is no sense of urgency and the system isn't shaken up. It allows the president to have "their moment".
The author presents Washington, Lincoln and FDR as the 3 great presidents based on this criteria. What I liked was that Mr. Miller didn't dismiss all the other presidents and he didn't white wash the 3 he chose. Washington, Lincoln and FDR were all indispensable and their legacy and greatness has stood the test of time.
There are 3 common elements between the 3 great presidents (called the 3 Cs). They all had a crisis that threatened the nation for a sustained period of time, they all had a strong character, and capacity. They all had the ability to choose the right advisers, manage congress/press/their party. These were men of balance, discipline, physical courage and self-control. They all were incredibly ambitious and high self-confidence. They knew there was a broader purpose in their careers.
Overall, I would definitely recommend this to anyone who enjoys reading political or history books. It is an enjoyable read, never dull or slow.
The author's definition of greatness in a president is also broken into 3 main elements: 1) must overcome a nation-wrenching challenge, 2) used the crisis to fundamentally alter the way Americans see themselves as a nation and themselves, 3) transcend narrow partisanship. Because of this criteria, he believes it is impossible for someone to have all three in modern times because modern challenges today tend to divide rather than unite. And that a great president isn't relevant. Mr. Miller argues throughout the book that the crisis piece is the most important as without it, there is no sense of urgency and the system isn't shaken up. It allows the president to have "their moment".
The author presents Washington, Lincoln and FDR as the 3 great presidents based on this criteria. What I liked was that Mr. Miller didn't dismiss all the other presidents and he didn't white wash the 3 he chose. Washington, Lincoln and FDR were all indispensable and their legacy and greatness has stood the test of time.
There are 3 common elements between the 3 great presidents (called the 3 Cs). They all had a crisis that threatened the nation for a sustained period of time, they all had a strong character, and capacity. They all had the ability to choose the right advisers, manage congress/press/their party. These were men of balance, discipline, physical courage and self-control. They all were incredibly ambitious and high self-confidence. They knew there was a broader purpose in their careers.
Overall, I would definitely recommend this to anyone who enjoys reading political or history books. It is an enjoyable read, never dull or slow.
March 21, 2016
This book is a mix of history, political theory and analysis. It's really very interesting. I loved the discussion on what made The Greats great and different insights into different presidents. And I felt like I was enlightened by his theories on why Greatness in the presidency might not happen again. But there was LOTS of repetition. I kept thinking "didn't he say this already??" It would have been a better book if it had been 150 instead of 250 pages long. Still glad I read it.
May 9, 2017
This is quite a good book, but the more you know about the American presidency, the less essential it is. It is a fabulous textbook for undergraduates, because it is well written and presumes almost no knowledge of American presidential history. It is a tad on the repetitive side, but again, that works great for a textbook. The essential theme is that we cannot expect to have another Washington, Lincoln, or FDR again any time soon, or perhaps ever, because our modern media environment, political polarization, and lack of existential crises preclude it, and we must therefore stop expecting such great presidents--we need to cherish and look for very good presidents, instead. I have several qualms with this idea, most importantly that in fact, the longer term, somewhat less existential crises we are in provide a great opportunity for innovative leadership that could transform the Constitution and the system again. Another large part of the book goes to proving why those 3 presidents were the only truly great presidents, and then identifies the next closest few. Finally, there is an interesting section that is rather harsh on Barack Obama. I agree he shouldn't be in the first rank of presidents, but Miller clearly thinks he's in the average grouping, and I do not. But his arguments are worth reading. Overall, the book does a good job of citing the best presidential scholars (and one of my articles, too, so....) and integrating scholarship into his arguments, which is often not the case with practitioner books.
March 20, 2021
Miller makes a convincing argument for how unarguably great presidents, which he restricts to Washington, Lincoln and FDR, forged their legacies in crises that endangered the nation. He then makes the corollary that it is only in such calamities that presidents can arise to such greatness. Since the US now occupies a position such that crises endangering the country are becoming rarer the possibility of having another great president are thus less frequent. Miller also breaks down the combination of factors, outside of crises, that lead to our great presidents: character and capacity. He then examines all the presidents since FDR and highlights the shortcomings that kept them from greatness. Lastly, he examines the role of the media and political polarization in further reducing the likelihood of a great president and closes the book by highlighting the good fortune of not needing great presidents.
April 15, 2018
An interesting take on the difficulties of getting a great President in the modern era. Under the eye of modern media, everything is known and there is no mystery. Every small step, look, foible is discussed in great detail. Though presidents of a different era had to work under a watchful eye, today's efforts get us men that are not necessarily great or have difficulty rising to the occasion. Even the looks of our presidents are getting to the point that the bald or bearded men of old, such as the Eisenhower's or Grant's, or the "crippled" such as the Roosevelt's, or the awkward, such as the Lincoln's, might not have a chance in today's age.
July 23, 2017
2.5/5
This had some good information in it. I appreciated the idea that we have to tone down our expectations for the presidency - what we expect of them is just not possible, and that's ok, they can still make change for the better, not everything has to be earth-shattering and all at once. But, it was also quite repetitive - I could have gotten the same information in about 80 pages. Plus, I read it for school, so it's obviously not something I would read for fun of my own accord.
This had some good information in it. I appreciated the idea that we have to tone down our expectations for the presidency - what we expect of them is just not possible, and that's ok, they can still make change for the better, not everything has to be earth-shattering and all at once. But, it was also quite repetitive - I could have gotten the same information in about 80 pages. Plus, I read it for school, so it's obviously not something I would read for fun of my own accord.
January 29, 2018
I liked this book a lot. Miller made cogent arguments for what we need a President to accomplish has changed and why. I thought his categorization of Presidents into Great and near great was interesting and very useful. I am glad I read this as it has given me a deeper appreciation into how and why the Presidency has changed over the last 200 years. However, this book is for American history buffs and is a little academic. I enjoyed t but it may be too technical for all readers.
October 15, 2017
Interesting discussion of Presidential Qualities
He made his real points in the first 7 chapters. Could have shortened the book. Still a good over view.
He made his real points in the first 7 chapters. Could have shortened the book. Still a good over view.
April 21, 2015
While Americans revere former Presidents who they consider to have been great, they seek to elect their successors in the same mold then are upset that those they elect don’t measure up. In THE END OF GREATNESS, Aaron David Miller tells why the chances of another George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, or Franklin Delano Roosevelt occupying The White House are practically nil. His writing style is clear and easy to understand. He forms his arguments carefully and with precision.
We have a lot of great artists, athletes, entertainers, scientists, and entrepreneurs. We boast that we have among the most Nobel Prize winners. But the approval level of Congress is at a record low. Now, according to Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann, the Senate has “ideologues and charlatans.” There were an abundance of great leaders among the county’s Founding Fathers when the population was 4 million adults There are now more than 300 million. Where are the great leaders? We look for our heroes among entertainers and celebrities.
There are many factors contributing to this situation. We look for leaders to solve all problems quickly but are wary of the power that would facilitate that. In Aaron David Miller’s opinion, “[E]ffective leaders intuit what the times make possible and the, if truly skillful, exploit and enlarge that opportunity and help change the politics that sustain it.” Today, no country has a great, transformative leader. In addition, today’s events and crises do not encourage the their development.
In order to be great, a President needs three things: Three Cs: crisis that severely threatens US for a sustained period; character; unique public and private aspects that drive effective leadership, capacity (to choose the right advisors). Without crisis, little sense of urgency or opportunity. Consensus-driven moves slowly, awkwardly, and much of the time not at all.
The world and country has changed and so have we....Greatness is too risky and dangerous to be desirable...The search raises our expectations and theirs, skews their performance, and leads to an impossible standard that can only frustrate and disappoint.
More recent Presidents had more responsibilities and faced more public expectations. The public feels more entitled and expects more. Unrealistic campaign promises feeds that but backfire when they are not kept. “Our modern day challenges...tend to divide rather than unite us.” In addition, we tend to vote for personalities rather than issues. In a recent Presidential contest, people said they voted for one candidate because he was the type of person they could see sitting down and sharing some beers. A number of years ago, a candidate was rejected by the voters because he was too intellectual.
Since the end of the Cold War, domestic matters top the agenda where there is less latitude to maneuver. Political parties lost influence over nominations and campaigns. Media and money more important. It is no longer possible to be private and withhold information from Congress. The Greats knew how to work the system and give ideas time to develop. Today we want answers immediately, even if they are not accurate or fully developed, and then complain about them.
“Media gets excited too and often, with little knowledge of history, decides to confer unmerited titles and impossible roles upon new presidents who are only too ready to receive them.” Reduced expectations (e/.g. George W. Bush) often work to the president’s advantage.
For President Obama, the job was too big and expectations too high. Convinced he was living in historic times, he raised expectations further by seeking to transform both American politics, and policies without fully understanding that neither the times nor the political environment would support dramatic change. Lead to disappointment because he failed to live up to the expectations of both his supporters and himself.
Great presidents see where the currents of the times are flowing, and then, within certain parameters, they work to determine if they can possibly redirect those currents when a crisis or an exceptional moment affords them the opportunity
“In 1934, the government was us” Theodore Marmor and Jerry Mashow. “We had shared circumstances, shared risks, and shared obligations. Today the government is the other....stands between us and the realization of our individual ambitions.”
I received a copy of this wonderful book from LibraryThing Early Reviewers.
We have a lot of great artists, athletes, entertainers, scientists, and entrepreneurs. We boast that we have among the most Nobel Prize winners. But the approval level of Congress is at a record low. Now, according to Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann, the Senate has “ideologues and charlatans.” There were an abundance of great leaders among the county’s Founding Fathers when the population was 4 million adults There are now more than 300 million. Where are the great leaders? We look for our heroes among entertainers and celebrities.
There are many factors contributing to this situation. We look for leaders to solve all problems quickly but are wary of the power that would facilitate that. In Aaron David Miller’s opinion, “[E]ffective leaders intuit what the times make possible and the, if truly skillful, exploit and enlarge that opportunity and help change the politics that sustain it.” Today, no country has a great, transformative leader. In addition, today’s events and crises do not encourage the their development.
In order to be great, a President needs three things: Three Cs: crisis that severely threatens US for a sustained period; character; unique public and private aspects that drive effective leadership, capacity (to choose the right advisors). Without crisis, little sense of urgency or opportunity. Consensus-driven moves slowly, awkwardly, and much of the time not at all.
The world and country has changed and so have we....Greatness is too risky and dangerous to be desirable...The search raises our expectations and theirs, skews their performance, and leads to an impossible standard that can only frustrate and disappoint.
More recent Presidents had more responsibilities and faced more public expectations. The public feels more entitled and expects more. Unrealistic campaign promises feeds that but backfire when they are not kept. “Our modern day challenges...tend to divide rather than unite us.” In addition, we tend to vote for personalities rather than issues. In a recent Presidential contest, people said they voted for one candidate because he was the type of person they could see sitting down and sharing some beers. A number of years ago, a candidate was rejected by the voters because he was too intellectual.
Since the end of the Cold War, domestic matters top the agenda where there is less latitude to maneuver. Political parties lost influence over nominations and campaigns. Media and money more important. It is no longer possible to be private and withhold information from Congress. The Greats knew how to work the system and give ideas time to develop. Today we want answers immediately, even if they are not accurate or fully developed, and then complain about them.
“Media gets excited too and often, with little knowledge of history, decides to confer unmerited titles and impossible roles upon new presidents who are only too ready to receive them.” Reduced expectations (e/.g. George W. Bush) often work to the president’s advantage.
For President Obama, the job was too big and expectations too high. Convinced he was living in historic times, he raised expectations further by seeking to transform both American politics, and policies without fully understanding that neither the times nor the political environment would support dramatic change. Lead to disappointment because he failed to live up to the expectations of both his supporters and himself.
Great presidents see where the currents of the times are flowing, and then, within certain parameters, they work to determine if they can possibly redirect those currents when a crisis or an exceptional moment affords them the opportunity
“In 1934, the government was us” Theodore Marmor and Jerry Mashow. “We had shared circumstances, shared risks, and shared obligations. Today the government is the other....stands between us and the realization of our individual ambitions.”
I received a copy of this wonderful book from LibraryThing Early Reviewers.
March 26, 2015
What makes a US president great?
How can we evaluate our presidents, past and potential?
This very readable book answers this questions in a reasonably objective way.
Examples are plentiful; concepts are clear; and he uses topic sentences, thank goodness.
Notes while reading:
Part I Greatness Revealed
- Washington, Lincoln, FDR
- 3 C's of greatness: crisis, character, capacity
- Crisis: most important; must be nation-encumbering to change national character, values, institutions.
- Character: ambition, physical courage, discipline and self-control, balance, self-confident.
- Capacity:
-- "Great presidents read their times correctly"
-- "Intuit [sic] what might be possible"
-- "meet the crisis"
-- "and transform the nation"
- Needed:
-- political knowledge
-- understand the public mood
-- ability to shape public's needs and opinions
-- They redefine the situation.
- "Close but no Cigar" presidents:
-- Jefferson
-- Jackson
-- Wilson
-- Teddy Roosevelt
-- Achieved great ends but had no crisis for super-achievement
Part II Greatness Gone
- Our political system is much more "complex, constrained, and combustible" now.
- Power is more fragmented now.
- Expanded role of government in our lives, since New Deal and WW2.
-- A belief that gov. is responsible for economy.
-- Gov. has moral obligation to provide an economic and social safety net.
- Impact of globalization.
- FDR set a very high bar.
- In-government crisis vs. a crisis that involves the whole population.
- 6 D crisis: "debt, deficit, dysfunctional politics, dependence on hydrocarbons, deteriorating infrastructure, and declining educational standards".
- Unproductive polarization implies fewer opportunities for coalition building.
- All of the above limit how 'great' a president can be.
- Media can help get the message out, but can also reveal the trivial and mundane.
Part III What's So Great about Being Great, Anyway?
Aspects of greatness:
- contingency. depends on many other factors.
- Unknowns. what will be needed or required?
- Timing. comparisons with prev or next.
- The times.
- Over time.
Great presidents need dangerous times.
Is that what you want?
How can we evaluate our presidents, past and potential?
This very readable book answers this questions in a reasonably objective way.
Examples are plentiful; concepts are clear; and he uses topic sentences, thank goodness.
Notes while reading:
Part I Greatness Revealed
- Washington, Lincoln, FDR
- 3 C's of greatness: crisis, character, capacity
- Crisis: most important; must be nation-encumbering to change national character, values, institutions.
- Character: ambition, physical courage, discipline and self-control, balance, self-confident.
- Capacity:
-- "Great presidents read their times correctly"
-- "Intuit [sic] what might be possible"
-- "meet the crisis"
-- "and transform the nation"
- Needed:
-- political knowledge
-- understand the public mood
-- ability to shape public's needs and opinions
-- They redefine the situation.
- "Close but no Cigar" presidents:
-- Jefferson
-- Jackson
-- Wilson
-- Teddy Roosevelt
-- Achieved great ends but had no crisis for super-achievement
Part II Greatness Gone
- Our political system is much more "complex, constrained, and combustible" now.
- Power is more fragmented now.
- Expanded role of government in our lives, since New Deal and WW2.
-- A belief that gov. is responsible for economy.
-- Gov. has moral obligation to provide an economic and social safety net.
- Impact of globalization.
- FDR set a very high bar.
- In-government crisis vs. a crisis that involves the whole population.
- 6 D crisis: "debt, deficit, dysfunctional politics, dependence on hydrocarbons, deteriorating infrastructure, and declining educational standards".
- Unproductive polarization implies fewer opportunities for coalition building.
- All of the above limit how 'great' a president can be.
- Media can help get the message out, but can also reveal the trivial and mundane.
Part III What's So Great about Being Great, Anyway?
Aspects of greatness:
- contingency. depends on many other factors.
- Unknowns. what will be needed or required?
- Timing. comparisons with prev or next.
- The times.
- Over time.
Great presidents need dangerous times.
Is that what you want?
January 4, 2018
Though some of the ideas were very interesting, the writing needed much tighter editing. Same thoughts presented again and again. Better if condensed and had been written as an long form essay. I value Miller's thoughts on foreign policy and midEast, so this book was disappointing.
3 measures of great presidents: character, crisis, and capacity (getting things done). Capacity includes transformative actions.
His choice (and many others) for greatest [indespensables]: Washington, Lincoln and FDR.
Miller suggests go with 'greatness with a small g'; that we read more presidential history, think transaction not transformational, and think good not great.
Modern day changes including personalization of the presidency, constant news cycle and punditry, and detachment from history tend to shrink the office.
3 measures of great presidents: character, crisis, and capacity (getting things done). Capacity includes transformative actions.
His choice (and many others) for greatest [indespensables]: Washington, Lincoln and FDR.
Miller suggests go with 'greatness with a small g'; that we read more presidential history, think transaction not transformational, and think good not great.
Modern day changes including personalization of the presidency, constant news cycle and punditry, and detachment from history tend to shrink the office.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 29, 2015
A short but interesting look at Greatness in the US Presidency. He states his reasons for considering who were the great presidents - Washington, Lincoln, and FDR and why America shouldn't look for future 'great' ones. Each of the three faced consequential threats to the country and were able to construct solutions along with vision that not only got the country through the crisis but put in place policies to guide it onto the future.
He argues that the lack of a major crisis is not something that we should rue but accept as each crisis could leave the country much worse off in the hands of a leader not as capable as the Great ones! Doesn't our present dysfunctional federal government cause all of us to be dismayed at our leaders and fret about the future of our country.
He argues that the lack of a major crisis is not something that we should rue but accept as each crisis could leave the country much worse off in the hands of a leader not as capable as the Great ones! Doesn't our present dysfunctional federal government cause all of us to be dismayed at our leaders and fret about the future of our country.
January 2, 2015
Not profound, but very valuable
If you sat down to discuss the subject of what makes a president great and why we haven't seen such greatness in recent memory, you would likely raise many of the same points as Miller. But you wouldn't raise them as completely, as clearly, and as interesting as he does. The book is not profound, but it is immensely valuable especially given its brevity.
I recommend this book to those who are disillusioned with the presidency and our politics. It puts much in perspective and offers a sensible way to evaluate our national leadership going forward while delivering a handful of fascinating nuggets of presidential history.
If you sat down to discuss the subject of what makes a president great and why we haven't seen such greatness in recent memory, you would likely raise many of the same points as Miller. But you wouldn't raise them as completely, as clearly, and as interesting as he does. The book is not profound, but it is immensely valuable especially given its brevity.
I recommend this book to those who are disillusioned with the presidency and our politics. It puts much in perspective and offers a sensible way to evaluate our national leadership going forward while delivering a handful of fascinating nuggets of presidential history.
November 7, 2014
I have been a fan of Aaron David Miller's writing for a while and I thought this was a nice change of pace for him, considering he is forced to always talk about the problems in the Middle East, given his background. The way that he constructs the argument is fascinating and is worth considering when we think about why we cannot have another great president. Definitely worth the read.
November 12, 2014
This book helps answer the nostalgic question, "Why isn't our country great like it used to be" and also "Why doesn't the President do something?" Miller states the US has had three great presidents, Washington, Lincoln and FDR. He discusses the conditions that make it impossible for that kind of greatness to appear again.
January 4, 2015
Very good book and Mr. Miller makes a great point (of you've read the book you'll get that the word Great here is a ironic). The point here being that to be a great President you need huge events...and do we want that just for the sake of having a "Great" leader. Anyway, a very interesting and well thought out book.
January 14, 2015
Good book with interesting perspective of our Presidents' historical significance. Based on Miller's criteria for greatness, I believe he got in right in naming Washington, Lincoln & FDR as our only truly great presidents.
November 19, 2016
Solid read but not a favorite
I liked the book and had good insight into what makes great vs good vs average presidents, however, it felt like it dragged on in the last third of the book, repeating the same themes.
I liked the book and had good insight into what makes great vs good vs average presidents, however, it felt like it dragged on in the last third of the book, repeating the same themes.
October 31, 2014
Detailed notes to follow.
interesting, well-researched, readable, indirectly optimistic,
interesting, well-researched, readable, indirectly optimistic,
June 14, 2015
Not that exciting of a book, so not that exciting of a rating.
February 2, 2016
Good book and I learned some things
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews