The Impossible Presidency: The Rise and Fall of America's Highest Office

by Jeremi Suri

Why have recent presidents failed to bring promised change?

In The Impossible Presidency, celebrated historian Jeremi Suri charts the rise and fall of the American presidency, from the limited role envisaged by the Founding Fathers to its current status as the most powerful job in the world. He argues that the presidency is a victim of its own success-the vastness of the job makes it almost impossible to fulfill the expectations placed upon it. As managers of the world's largest economy and military, contemporary presidents must react to a truly globalized world in a twenty-four-hour news cycle. There is little room left for bold vision.

Suri traces America's disenchantment with our recent presidents to the inevitable mismatch between presidential promises and the structural limitations of the office. A masterful reassessment of presidential history, this book is essential reading for anyone trying to understand America's fraught political climate.

Genres: Politics, History, American History, Nonfiction, Political Science, Presidents, Government

368 pages, Hardcover

First published September 12, 2017

Reviews

[Bryan Craig · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a great read. Suri's writes well as he distills complex situations with ease. It's a book about the office of the presidency and how it has changed, not for the good. I learned quite a bit. One of the best parts is how he incorporated daily schedules to examine time management. Highly recommended.

[A.J. · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a broad perspective of the office of the presidency geared towards more casual readers; while it’s fairly dense, it’s not overly formal or academic. There are flaws in the book for sure (the last chapter feels fairly biased), but it’s a relatively easy read for essentially an academic book, and an interesting perspective on the lives of presidents.

[Bob H · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a survey, an overview of the U.S. Presidency, from its conception at the Continental Congress through the present day. It's an attempt to place the advent of Donald Trump in a context going back to 1789, tracing the trajectory of the office. The author doesn't attempt a full history of all the 44 presidencies before this one, but, rather, punctuates his narrative with the more decisive ones: Washington, who founded and shaped the office; Jackson, the first populist president; Lincoln, the crisis of the Union; TR and FDR, progressives of differing temperaments but who placed the U.S. on the world stage; JFK, another crisis presidency. (Oddly, he hardly mentions Woodrow Wilson). He follows this with a "decline and fall narrative" tracing trouble-prone presidencies, mostly discussing LBJ, Reagan and Clinton, esp. the latter two. The disappointing Obama presidency and the appearance of an "anti-president" (his term) in the form of Trump seems in his telling to be a predictable trajectory.

He doesn't focus on what Trump may mean or do, seems almost to look beyond him to a future re-alignment of the office. It is valuable in discussing the presidency as a reflection of certain key personalities who re-shaped the office and the country at decisive moments; it's not so much the institution, staff or underlying traditions. As such, it's a useful retrospective on the office, and one way of explaining its increasing problems over the last 50 years or so.

[Marilee · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a really good look at the way the office of the presidency has changed over the decades and how a few of the really dynamic presidents found ways to make those changes. The last quarter of the book drifted toward bias, but despite that the book is worth reading. Unfortunately the author doesn't offer any thoughts on what can be done to find a better balance of power in today's presidency.

[Hapzydeco · Rating 3 out of 5]

In The Impossible Presidency, Jeremi Suri profiles ten presidents. While there has been a presidential evolution, Suri feels that the office may be too powerful for one man to handle.

[Vincent Lombardo · Rating 1 out of 5]

I started reading this book a few months ago because I planned to hear Dr. Suri speak at the City Club of Cleveland, but the book bored me, so I gave up. But after hearing Suri speak at the City Club and enjoying him very much, I decided to give the book another try. Unfortunately, I am again abandoning this book. I do not understand Suri's thesis, nor how he arrived at his conclusions. The book is dense and boring. What I understood, I already knew. I would rather spend my time reading something else.

[Phillip · Rating 3 out of 5]

President light quick tour through major steps in evolution of presidency. In last few chapters tone shifts from exposition to advocacy and base preference for progressive liberal values comes through in subtle maybe even unconscious phrasing. Nice light read but a little hollow.

3.0 / 5.0

[Robert Townsend · Rating 5 out of 5]

Professor and historian Jeremi Suri's The Impossible Presidency shines. Neither ornate nor prosaic, his words are well-chosen, his metaphors apt, the construction of the argument convincing (to me, at least). A previous work, Kissinger and the American Century, rests on my desks regularly consulted, the definitive Kissinger. The Impossible Presidency is grander.

The Impossible President thesis is that current responsibilities and expectations of the office of the President of the United States are beyond the capabilities of any human being to manage. Failure and disappointment, for the man and the fan, is inevitable.

The book should be bulk purchased as required reading to newly arrived congressional and military staff in Washington, D.C. Skip the veterans (more than one month in town). They are too busy to think.

Full disclosure: I audited two of Professor Suri's University of Wisconsin history classes several years ago and consider him one of the five finest teachers I have encountered in some sixty-five years of student-hood. He is unafraid to be challenged. Substitute 'hypothesis' for 'theory', and he would endorse physicist Richard Feynman's statement that "It does not matter how beautiful your theory is, it does not matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."  He's a good boy (He's thirty years my junior).

In Washington, D.C., busyness, like malaria, infects all, though not everyone dies. The infected, however, are grievously worn. Perhaps, the constant traffic jams on the beltline and I-94 both north and south induce brain fever, once a peculiarity of the Dostoevskian novel. I served in D.C. 1982-89. Officers who had served in the 1960s and 70s described how ambulances 2-3 times a week hauled sedentary lieutenant colonels out of the Pentagon to the morgue. In the Washington, D.C. I knew, one cultivated (simulated, if necessary) busyness to be competitive for promotion. Hysteria ruled. One could not avoid, but could (try to) dissipate the tension.   We jogged to stay alive. (Busy, busy, n'est-ce pas?)

I had thought that at least the president had time to think.

Not so. Professor Suri inserts President Lyndon B. Johnson's March 11, 1965[i] daily diary (pp.213-218) into his book. Four pages, his day scheduled morning to night, in fifteen minute increments. It made my blood run cold. This was how one lived there (By way of contrast, on the day after Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt's daily diary contained two items).

Jeremi Suri has in fact written two books, which I name Book I (Chapters 1-7) and Book II (chapters 8-9).

Book I of The Impossible Presidency is structured like a military (Air Force, at least) staff study. See (USAF Pen & Quill. Chapter 17), Generals Marshall and Eisenhower would have been familiar (and had young Jeremi on the promotion fast track; though The Impossible Presidency would have been returned to be reduced to two pages (plus attachments)).

In Book  II, Jeremi Suri becomes a commentator on current events––the Reagan-Clinton-Obama-Trump presidencies––where the "facts" are incomplete, the documents secret, conclusions tentative, where speculations abound and events have yet to play out. History has yet to unwinds!

Were The Impossible Presidency as staff study, it would perhaps display thus:

Statement of the Problem: The responsibilities and expectations of the office of the President of the United States is beyond the capabilities of any human being (much less the dysfunctionals willing to campaign most of their adult lives for the office).

Background: Book I traces how particular presidents––Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, Theodor Roosevelt, F.D. Roosevelt––were change agents, growing both the responsibilities and expectations of the office. The thesis is simple, the evidence is apt,, the conclusion clear. Historical facts are facts (more or less), events have played out (The North won the Civil War; the United States won WWII, the Soviet Union is no more), these presidents, history has judged, were more often right than wrong.

Proposed Action: Alas, we who have written bunches of staff studies understand it is a tool which like the war plan[ii] is supposed to manage the future. Book I, more fact than speculation, transitions to Book II, more speculation than fact.

The historian turned analyst is of necessity bedeviled by that which bedevils the run-of the-mill intelligence analyst: States guard their secrets; States lie; Cunning devils from Sun Tszu to Kahneman & Tversky understand how men reason, and manufacture false facts to deceive them. I would read with anticipation Professor Suri's The Impossible Presidency Revisited to be published in twenty years.  Many of the hypotheses in Chapters 8-9 will require a revisit.  For example:

On page 285, Professor Suri posits the hypothesis that "Russian President Vladimir Putin went a step beyond where Soviet leaders had feared to tread, intervening directly in an American election to support a candidate (Donald Trump) strangely susceptible to the Russian Leader's influence. Marrying Traditional KGB tactics to cyber-warfare and social media savvy, Putin helped to create a Manchurian Candidate bent on weakening American power from within."

Strong statement, indeed, which I dispute.  I hypothesize that Russian active measures are merely (devilish though they may be) traditional; the extraordinary, even hysterical, US response is exceptional.

Further full disclosure.   From 1982-1989, I was the Air Force Intelligence Service Special Studies Division executive officer. My division broke enemy, primarily Soviet, deceptions. I have at hand books, papers and memory from a half-lifetime studying, countering, explaining Soviet and Russian denial, deception, and disinformation. There is a great deal of material. The Soviet Union through its duration funded an extensive organizational and intellectual array to know, manipulate and control the political process in countries za granitsy, 'beyond the border.' In our facilities at the Central Intelligence Agency's National Photo Interpretation Center our team studied, disentangled and reported Soviet current and historical denial, deception and disinformation measures.

I further hypothesize that current Russian Federation deception doctrine, strategy and technique is not much changed  from Soviet deception doctrine, strategy and technique (save for such fluff as means of transmission; twitter, Facebook, YouTube,..).

American interest in Soviet active measures waxes and wanes. We have repeatedly learned, documented and forgotten that the Soviet Union had in the past participated, openly or secretly, and mightily in American political and defense debates. Some activity had impact; others have blown back, However, doctrinally-based deception remains an at-ready tool of Soviet and Russian Federation foreign policy. Whether Soviet or Russian Federation active measures waxed or waned, American public consciousness of Russian active measures waxed, waned, then disappeared down the memory hole.

I highlight two of many:

 Venona Project:  Soviet activities documented under the rubric The Venona Project reverberates still through American public discourse.  Before, during and after WWII, the Soviet Union seeded hundreds of agents and agents of influence throughout the US Government. US intelligence post-WWII broke the NKVD agent code system, called The Venona Project[iii], uncovering 349 named Americans working for the Soviets with Soviet NKVD personnel referencing several hundred more unnamed agents.  The Venona revelations may be known only to specialists, but all Americans know Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy, to whom the results of the Venona  code breaking seem to have been leaked.

Soviet participation in US defense debate (1959-1982): Through the use of a formal deception program directed from the highest Soviet echelons, the Soviet State participated mightily, if covertly, in the US defense debate in the period 1959 to the mid-1980s. The Soviet leadership sought to guide the US defense debate in directions conducive to Soviet security. For twenty of those thirty years, the Soviet strategic deception program enjoyed success.   But by the mid- 1970s, at the very pinnacle of its achievements, the deception plan unraveled. With President Reagan's inauguration in 1980, enough of this program had been uncovered to call into question U.S. assumptions and put at disadvantage those who argued a benign interpretation of Soviet military objectives. When President Reagan submitted his first Defense budget, which called for a significant increase in defense appropriations, opposition was muted. Soviet adventurism in Ethiopia, Angola and Afghanistan was responsible in part, but to a significant extent, Soviet strategic arms deceptions, recently uncovered, called into question the very validity of US intelligence estimates. The worst now seemed possible.   The Soviet Union may have had neither intention nor desire to initiate war with the United States; however their widespread use of deception undercut that assiduously cultivated perception.

Professor Suri departs the firm(er) ground of the classical historian onto the quaking bog of the intelligence analyst. He is willing to posit hypotheses that will eventually judged courageous, or hubris.

[iv] In contrast to President Obama’s agonizing over whether to call out Mr. Putin in the run-up to the 2016 vote, the US Department of State in the 1980s routinely published compendiums of Russian “active measures.”   US Intelligence continues to follow Russian Federation active measures (if you have two hours, CSPAN presentation here. Routine Russian meddling in US internal politics occasionally occasions hysteria.

[v]___Not safe. Ask George WH Bush about the 'slam dunk' Iraq WMD assessment. I applaud this young (er) historian.

_________________

[i] Operation Market Time, the U.S. Navy complement to the aerial bombing in Operation Rolling Thunder, began off of the coast of North and South Vietnam.

[ii] No plan survives (first) contact with the enemy. Helmuth von Moltke the Elder; In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable. Dwight D. Eisenhower; and so on
[iii] For a good layman discussion of Venona's implications and ramifications, See click here Spartacus Educational.

[iv] Article first published as "Deception and Irony: Soviet Arms and Arms Control," Open Source Intelligence, Spring/Summer 1993 (Volume 14, Number 2&3

[v] Several years ago, recently retired, I gave a lecture at a local synagogue describing the 1973 Egyptian-Syrian deception plan, which permitted the Arab armies to attack Israel without warning, the Yom Kippur war. The lecturer (me), the audience, and the Egyptian-Syrian deception operation were all quite sophisticated. "Hubris!" the accusation my audience hurled at Golda Meier and Moshe Dayan. "Lighten up," I responded. "Anwar Sadat understood what the Israeli leadership wanted to hear, and provided 'facts' to support their (false) conclusions"  My audience wouldn't hear of it. "Third temple," a old gentleman muttered. I am Gentile. I afterwards had to look the implication of the reference up.

[Eloy Henrique · Rating 5 out of 5]

Awesome book! I enjoyed reading this book and learned a lot about the evolution of the role of the president in the US. I hope Suri makes an updated version in a couple of years to add more information.

[Kyle Hurysz · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not a bad book, but probably a bit too long. I had trouble maintaining interest.

[Fiona · Rating 2 out of 5]

A truly disappointing book.
Suri has an interesting thesis: that the modern presidency requires so much that being a great president has become impossible. He has a solid approach to proving the thesis: tracing the expanding role of the president through the presidencies of some of the US’s “great” president and then comparing to some modern presidents who have not lived up to that sort of potential.
He fails, however, to write a book that reads like a work of scholarship. At best, he engages in some truly cringeworthy myth-making. The chapter on Washington, for example, features a host of claims about Washington’s beliefs, desires, and feelings without citations, like the idea that Washington encouraged Madison and Hamilton to see themselves as “superior intellects” compared to himself (page 29). At worst, he edges into dog-whistle areas. His chapter exploring the links between Bill Clinton and Barack Obama explains that both men grew up without their fathers but feels the need to clarify that Obama’s fatherless-ness was “like so many other black teenagers in postwar America” (page 261). He ends the book with an epilogue that presents such lackluster solutions as suggesting Americans try to be less partisan, but no roadmap of how to get there.
The most worthwhile parts of this book can be gleaned from a book review.

[Laura · Rating 3 out of 5]

Lots of good information in there if you are interested in the forces that shape the American presidency. So much in the way our government works is NOT in the Constitution, and various presidents have expanded "presidential powers" just by what they've done in the office. For example, Lincoln was the first president to create a draft. He felt he had to do it, in order to fight the civil war, and the public agreed with him enough that it went along. But prior to that, the draft didn't exist, if I understood the author correctly.

His main thesis seems to be that the presidency has become too complex for any one person to handle.

[Ietrio · Rating 1 out of 5]

The rise, as the wages of the staff rose. The fall as, well, Suri has no idea. The only concern, like with the Jews in the Bible, there seem to be a lack of despots on the United States throne, worthy to wear the crown. Or something.

[Jane · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm a fan of Jeremi Suri, the author of this book. He is one of my preferred professors on One Day University, (http://www.onedayu.com). This book was enlightening but a little discouraging, because it shows a real problem that doesn't have an easy fix.....namely, the presidency has become too big for its britches! And it is almost impossible for any mortal to fill them!

The author focused on the presidencies of George Washington, (a fatherly figure for a young nation), Andrew Jackson (a populist who appealed to the masses, in many ways similar to Trump), Abraham Lincoln (a strong moral leader at a time of great division), Theodore Roosevelt (ambitious and successful in many of his goals), and Franklin D. Roosevelt (whom I suspect the author admired the most).

Since the presidency of FDR, the author claims that the office of the president has became too complex, with the addition of many additional responsibilities and outside influences heaped upon the daily schedule of the chief executive. The federal bureaucracy has ballooned, with many new agencies making the executive branch much more cumbersome and unmanageable. Then the influence of the media (especially social media) have turned the presidency into an office increasingly vulnerable to attack and obstruction. He blames these factors on the ineffectiveness of Presidents Clinton and Obama in trying to reach many of the ambitious goals they had proposed.

Because of many factors that hamper our current presidency, the author proposes some sweeping changes to the way this office works. This includes the possible adoption of a system employed in some European nations that splits executive responsibilities between a president and a prime minister, with the division of duties into domestic and foreign affairs.

Here is the author's observation about the appeal of Trump: "Millions of voters....chose a brash personality who rejected the entire history of the office, to blow it all up. Trump was the president as destroyer." He added, "When the most talented figures failed, the 'real man' took over. Most voters obviously did not see an alternative. The impossible presidency produced a truly impossible president."

[Liz Norell · Rating 4 out of 5]

To be honest, I really got SO MUCH out of this book ... but it happened soooo sloooooowly. This is not a fast read. The writing is dense and, as my brother might say, Suri has big 'thought chunks.' Not a critique -- but I can't give this five stars because I personally don't enjoy spending quite this much time in someone else's mind. (No offense, Mr. Suri; I genuinely did learn a lot from you!)

The overarching thesis of the book is that the modern presidency is, as the title suggests, impossible in scope; as Suri writes on page 289, "By the start of the twenty-first century, the inhuman demands of the office made it impossible to succeed as president."

By tracing through the presidencies that most contributed to expanding the scope of the office (Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, and TR/FDR), Suri lays out the increasing burden on the executives. By the time we make it to Kennedy, there simply is no time for strategic thinking or action; the presidency has become entirely reactionary. About LBJ, Suri writes, "The fear of failure, evident from Johnson's first discussions of Vietnam, made it impossible to succeed, or at least move on." What a fantastic life lesson right there -- the fear of failure makes success impossible.

The epilogue suggests reforms that might rein this in, including a reimagining of a solitary executive (perhaps dividing domestic and foreign affairs, as does France, or dividing governing and head-of-state duties, as does Germany); I was left curious why the VP couldn't be a part of a reimagining ... one that wouldn't require an impossibly difficult constitutional amendment process, say?

History buffs and those curious about the failure of modern presidents to achieve what we hope (and what they promise) will find MUCH to appreciate in this book ... even those who (like me) would quibble with Suri's offhanded dismissal of Ed Snowden as a member of a group of "spies with valuable American secrets" who are harbored by Putin. Sigh. Still, the book is well worth a read.

[Prentice Sargeant · Rating 3 out of 5]

Jeremy Suri does a "deep" dive into presidential history, focusing on how the older model presidents (Washington through FDR) expanded the power of the presidency, but not to the degree to make it an office with too many expectations and, therefore, an impossible job to do well. The first half of the book focuses on Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, and the two Roosevelts- all worthy subjects for significance of presidential authority. I think some of the focus here is a little off, at least about Lincoln- calling him a "poet" is, I suppose, accurate; but language is certainly not the only major aspect that Lincoln imbued into the presidency, as the Civil War was the first real extension of presidential authority in war-making, something Suri only loosely discusses.

The second half focuses on Kennedy, Johnson, Reagan, Clinton, and Obama. The discussions on Kennedy/Johnson worked well- but if you really want to focus on a presidency collapsing under the weight of expectation, why not include Richard Nixon at all? This was a sticking point for me- Nixon could have been considered a great president, had it not been for his own self-aggrandizement and power-hungry nature and to me, at least part of that was the expectation that the president has the ability to fix all global problems. So avoiding Nixon, but including Clinton, felt like an odd choice. It was also odd to combine Clinton and Obama into the same chapters- the focus on Clinton's "blackness" was also somewhat off-putting. It made sense in the 1990's, when Toni Morrison originally made that statement, but I don't think it applies quite the same way twenty years later. The similarities between the two men are there, including in their successes and failures, but I would argue that Clinton had far more bipartisan success in moderate reforms than did Obama, who was obstructed in Congress pretty much from start to finish.

It was a nice read, as all presidential histories are- but the argument was not entirely convincing.

[Andrew Sternisha · Rating 4 out of 5]

Suri argues that the power and prestige of the presidency rose through the FDR administration and then began a rapid decline through the current day. His argument is convincing and shows that presidents through FDR had enough time in their day to be able to think about complex matters and solve problems. However, the increased responsibilities of the executive led to presidents becoming reactive due to the enormous demands placed upon them after FDR left office, which ultimately made them ineffective leaders despite being well intentioned and talented men. Indeed, the prestige of choosing talented politicians and military leaders declined so much, Suri argues, that most Americans became jaded to the point where they looked for an anti-president (Trump). Suri concludes that an anti-president in office is not an effective long term solution. Rather, Suri suggests that splitting the executive into two positions , one handling domestic affairs and the other handling international affairs would be useful and create more time for the president to think on complex matters and be a problem solver rather than reactive, which is certainly an idea that Americans should consider.

A book of this nature necessarily leaves out most presidents, which can create a skewed view of the office. However, Suri does a fine job in limiting his subject matter to a handful of presidents to use as case studies. I highly recommend this book to anyone seeking to learn more about the evolution of the presidency.

[Rebecca Jackson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Mind-boggling. The author traces the development of the presidency from George Washington to Donald Trump, highlighting presidents who significantly changed the role of the executive in chief. I feel like it was a fairly balanced treatment. I would’ve liked to hear more of his analysis of the antidote to the problem. His suggestion that a dual presidency, where one individual handles foreign affairs and the other individual handles domestic fairs is intriguing and I would like to understand more about that plan. Really interesting.

Here’s a helpful review from Amazon:


In The Impossible Presidency, celebrated historian Jeremi Suri charts the rise and fall of the American presidency, from the limited role envisaged by the Founding Fathers to its current status as the most powerful job in the world. He argues that the presidency is a victim of its own success-the vastness of the job makes it almost impossible to fulfill the expectations placed upon it. As managers of the world's largest economy and military, contemporary presidents must react to a truly globalized world in a twenty-four-hour news cycle. There is little room left for bold vision.

Suri traces America's disenchantment with our recent presidents to the inevitable mismatch between presidential promises and the structural limitations of the office. A masterful reassessment of presidential history, this book is essential reading for anyone trying to understand America's fraught political climate

[Nicholas Lecchi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Were the rating system more flexible I'd have given it a strong 3 stars rather than a 4 but it is what it is. Though I can't hold Suri's decision to zero in on a handful of president's against him given that the scope of this type of project would challenge even the ablest scholar, the book does suffer from one historical elision too many, to say nothing of some occasionally clunky prose.

Having said this, Suri's main argument about the impossibility of any commander in chief to fulfill his or her agenda due to the herculean responsibility and power vested in the executive branch is a persuasive one, and the author's point about how modern presidents have no time to reflect or think is particularly compelling. All in, the book is nothing earth-shattering and does indeed default on a great man theory of history which seems to take the justness of American liberalism as a given, but it's nonetheless worth a read.

[Sam Garcia · Rating 4 out of 5]

Jeremi Suri is a master of using history to enlighten an audience on the important issues of today. This book is an exploration of the office of the President of the United States from its inception to the present. He identifies key moments in the history of the office by writing about the men that have defined and transformed the role, and how their presidencies have molded the current version of the office. Through the narratives of former presidents and their struggles of living up to the expectations of the office set forth by precedence, domestic issues, and global pressures, Dr. Suri leads us through the evolution of the scope of the office of the president. This is a great read for anyone who is interested in governance, the history of the U.S., or cares about the future of our democracy. Excellent book.

[Jarred Goodall · Rating 5 out of 5]

Dr. Suri serves as a brilliant historian and magnificent professor. Let's add functioning as an outstanding author to his list of talents. He provides ample evidence to his thesis, about the rise and fall of the men who held the most powerful office in the world, in terms of said powers stretching over time, but hindering their accomplishments because of the expected increase in functions for the man/woman holding this office. I loved this book, and I look forward to reading more of Dr. Suri's works.

[Bill · Rating 5 out of 5]

The author opened up a whole new topic explaining what historically was and how different presidents expanded the role and function of the office. It was interesting who and in what way key past presidents influenced the office. This is especially true give our current President. It might be worthwhile if someone gave this book to all members of Congress to help them consider what future roles and responsibilities our next President should have for our country to prosper.

[Maria Gabriela · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very well written, especially in these moments. After the 2016 election much is questioned about the efficiency of the office of the presidency. Suri write s a compelling compilation about America's most notorious presidents and the times they had to govern, their visions, constraints, success, and failures. It questions the future of the presidency as we know it today and what needs to be changed or adapted for today's world.

[Keith Landry · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting study of the history of the presidency in the U.S. The author uses Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, Roosevelts, Johnson, Carter and Obama to discuss how the times and the man worked together to change the role of the presidency. The author believes that the role of the presidency has evolved to be so complex that it is impossible to be managed by one individual. His closing chapter discusses the creation of a Prime Minister role and a sharing of duties between the two.

[Ryan Panzer · Rating 5 out of 5]

A novel, unique, and insightful analysis of the great changes that have formed the American presidency! A book that reads like fiction, Prof. Suri's writing is equal parts history and policy analysis, with an occasional well-aimed jab or two! I hope that other historians will follow Suri's lead and write similar analyses of Congress and the Supreme Court.

[Amy Alford · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a very interesting history of the office of the presidency. It takes you from George Washington to Donald Trump. The office and expectations have changed immensely and it helped me to realize that the job of President can’t be done by one person anymore. Since 1960, all of our presidents have just been running on a hamster wheel.

[Dan Hyer · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's a good survey of selected US presidents and how they exercised and expanded their power, but I think in the end the author author does not succeed in convincingly arguing his thesis.

That aside I enjoyed the book.

[Mimi · Rating 4 out of 5]

well worth reading, excellently written, lots of good food for thought about the nature of the presidency and it's changing role since Washington and what will happen after Trump.

[Brad · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating book from a notable presidential and political author.

[Vickie · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good read and very informative. I could rate only 3stars due to the liberal bias the author had for some of the later presidents