What do you think?
Rate this book
The Tanner Lectures on Human Values
The Decline and Fall of the American Republic
Bruce Ackerman shows how the institutional dynamics of the last half-century have transformed the American presidency into a potential platform for political extremism and lawlessness. Watergate, Iran-Contra, and the War on Terror are only symptoms of deeper pathologies. Ackerman points to a series of developments that have previously been treated independently of one another—from the rise of presidential primaries, to the role of pollsters and media gurus, to the centralization of power in White House czars, to the politicization of the military, to the manipulation of constitutional doctrine to justify presidential power-grabs. He shows how these different transformations can interact to generate profound constitutional crises in the twenty-first century—and then proposes a series of reforms that will minimize, if not eliminate, the risks going forward. The book aims to begin a new constitutional debate. Americans should not suppose that Barack Obama’s centrism and constitutionalism will typify the presidencies of the twenty-first century. We should seize the present opportunity to confront deeper institutional pathologies before it is too late.
280 pages, Hardcover
First published October 1, 2010
27 people are currently reading
631 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 - 17 of 17 reviews
July 3, 2017
If you want to know what and how and why will most likely go wrong with the Trump presidency (with bits on how it actually came about), this almost prophetic book from 2010 will probably prove indispensable.
Bruce Ackerman is an expert on the US constitution and he is sounding the alarm. A confluence of institutional, technological, and political developments is very likely to precipitate the downfall of the constitutional regime through a runaway presidency. This shouldn't be a surprise to any student of political science - Juan Linz has long ago pointed out the inherent instability of a presidential democracy and the US seemed long -- too long -- like an exception, but that is nearing an end.
Ackerman's diagnosis is chilling, but it's his list of suggested complex institutional remedies - both underwhelming and downright utopian - that will kill your hope. Because it's 2016. This is a deeply scary book that probably should have been paid attention to when it came out in 2010. It might be too late now. But at least we will know bits & pieces of what went wrong and what could have been done (Provided that a copy survives the nuclear holocaust, ha-ha!).
Bruce Ackerman is an expert on the US constitution and he is sounding the alarm. A confluence of institutional, technological, and political developments is very likely to precipitate the downfall of the constitutional regime through a runaway presidency. This shouldn't be a surprise to any student of political science - Juan Linz has long ago pointed out the inherent instability of a presidential democracy and the US seemed long -- too long -- like an exception, but that is nearing an end.
Ackerman's diagnosis is chilling, but it's his list of suggested complex institutional remedies - both underwhelming and downright utopian - that will kill your hope. Because it's 2016. This is a deeply scary book that probably should have been paid attention to when it came out in 2010. It might be too late now. But at least we will know bits & pieces of what went wrong and what could have been done (Provided that a copy survives the nuclear holocaust, ha-ha!).
September 4, 2024
We Americans find ourselves in a dangerous constitutional moment, but the grand majority of even the brightest minds are failing to see it. This book -- written in 2010 -- warns of a frightening number of possibilities in the realm of executive power abuse. In so many ways Ackerman predicts the Trump phenomena, the media personality rising to power on the backs of soundbites and mendacity. Ackerman predicts the sinful actions that Trump was asking Vice President Pence to take. Luckily Pence -- for all you could criticize him for -- is a true American patriot, a believer in the constitution. What will happen in 2028 if instead J.D. Vance holds that seat?
Through tracking the presidency through the centuries, you see a pattern of constant executive aggrandizement. For example, the White House Counsel, established under FDR as a weak body of a handful of lawyers, is now a hulking behemoth that provides presidents with powerful well-written nearly Supreme Court level legal opinions that nearly always come down on the side of the president. By the time that the Supreme Court would hear a case on said issue, the public pressure has mounted such that it's often in the court's interest for legitimacy to back down from the challenge. That's one example of executive aggrandizement of so many, I'll allow the review reader to become the book reader to see the others.
He also discusses issues like the fall of mainstream media. He doesn't see the social media rise in full, but a rewrite of this book would include the Twitter/Facebook political news phenomenon as well. He discusses how the military has been politicized, not just in the militarymen being more political themselves, but also the Goldwater-Nichols Act in 1986 allowing the Joint Chief of Staff to sit at the table the National Security Counsel. Ackerman suggests lessening the importance of the JCS so the president wouldn't have a direct line to the military leader. He discusses the rise in extremist candidates thanks to the caucus/primary system, whereby only the party loyalists have a say in which candidate will go to the general, which naturally causes extremism to thrive.
In the end there are some excellent suggestions, I'll describe my favorite one: the Supreme Executive Tribunal. This would be a 9 person body that would provide the definitive legal counsel to the executive branch. Instead of the WHC and OLC (which serve at the behest of the president) the Supreme Executive Tribunal would have senate confirmed long serving (almost) judges in its ranks. If the president was shot down by the Tribunal, it could provide a real backstop to the later Supreme Court decision declining the presidents attempted seizure of power. Or, even better, the president would stop before even getting to the Supreme Court. There are many more suggestions: Deliberation Day, a holiday of town halls before election day whereat the citizenry would discuss and debate the policies laid out by the candidates before election day, or a national fund for media, providing funding (by vote) to outlets providing unbiased and real analysis of news.
This is an EXCELLENT book. Surely not nearly enough people have read this, as not much appears when you search it's name. Well, they're missing out sorely, or more importantly, they're running blindly into these crises as exampled in the book that may occur soon. I have blind faith in the constitution, but I'm quite worried about challenges to it in the near future. God bless you all, and may God protect our troops.
Through tracking the presidency through the centuries, you see a pattern of constant executive aggrandizement. For example, the White House Counsel, established under FDR as a weak body of a handful of lawyers, is now a hulking behemoth that provides presidents with powerful well-written nearly Supreme Court level legal opinions that nearly always come down on the side of the president. By the time that the Supreme Court would hear a case on said issue, the public pressure has mounted such that it's often in the court's interest for legitimacy to back down from the challenge. That's one example of executive aggrandizement of so many, I'll allow the review reader to become the book reader to see the others.
He also discusses issues like the fall of mainstream media. He doesn't see the social media rise in full, but a rewrite of this book would include the Twitter/Facebook political news phenomenon as well. He discusses how the military has been politicized, not just in the militarymen being more political themselves, but also the Goldwater-Nichols Act in 1986 allowing the Joint Chief of Staff to sit at the table the National Security Counsel. Ackerman suggests lessening the importance of the JCS so the president wouldn't have a direct line to the military leader. He discusses the rise in extremist candidates thanks to the caucus/primary system, whereby only the party loyalists have a say in which candidate will go to the general, which naturally causes extremism to thrive.
In the end there are some excellent suggestions, I'll describe my favorite one: the Supreme Executive Tribunal. This would be a 9 person body that would provide the definitive legal counsel to the executive branch. Instead of the WHC and OLC (which serve at the behest of the president) the Supreme Executive Tribunal would have senate confirmed long serving (almost) judges in its ranks. If the president was shot down by the Tribunal, it could provide a real backstop to the later Supreme Court decision declining the presidents attempted seizure of power. Or, even better, the president would stop before even getting to the Supreme Court. There are many more suggestions: Deliberation Day, a holiday of town halls before election day whereat the citizenry would discuss and debate the policies laid out by the candidates before election day, or a national fund for media, providing funding (by vote) to outlets providing unbiased and real analysis of news.
This is an EXCELLENT book. Surely not nearly enough people have read this, as not much appears when you search it's name. Well, they're missing out sorely, or more importantly, they're running blindly into these crises as exampled in the book that may occur soon. I have blind faith in the constitution, but I'm quite worried about challenges to it in the near future. God bless you all, and may God protect our troops.
May 28, 2025
i love bruce ackerman’s writing
May 25, 2023
While "The Decline and Fall of the American Republic" was interesting for the commentary it provided on America's evolution since the founding (and why certain modern factors were (1) not foreseeable when the founders were drafting the constitution and (2) why this gives cause for alarm), I found Bruce Ackerman's arguments a little fatalistic, which undermined his credibility.
Ackerman argued that as a result of the vast expansion of the executive branch and due to societal changes (such as journalistic evolution, the introduction of national opinion polls, and the existence of career politicians) executive power has risen to a level that risks the American constitutional tradition. This I can agree with, especially when comparing the role of journalists in our country's early history (with the weighty responsibility of providing an independent check on information disseminated and policies enacted by the government) with the state of media today (which is largely driven by sound bytes and splashy headlines.) I also think Congressional failure to utilize tools to check the executive branch (such as in the cumbersome, time-consuming impeachment process seen most recently with Donald Trump) illustrate that the U.S. government is not functioning as the founders intended.
Nonetheless, it is needlessly dramatic to bemoan that the U.S. is hopelessly going to hell in a handbasket because society has evolved beyond redemption. Societies change-- the challenge is to ensure that principles prevail which safeguard the free exchange of ideas and which ensure the survival of effective checks and balances within the government. While certainly it would seem that modern society has not zealously advocated for these principles to, there are still influential individuals who fiercely protect these core tenants (such as Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar and many others within the administrative state); regardless, society can certainly defy drifting standards with a concerted effort if it is able to awaken and be cognizant of the dangers of unequal power dynamics within the branches and what information individuals consume.
Ackerman argued that as a result of the vast expansion of the executive branch and due to societal changes (such as journalistic evolution, the introduction of national opinion polls, and the existence of career politicians) executive power has risen to a level that risks the American constitutional tradition. This I can agree with, especially when comparing the role of journalists in our country's early history (with the weighty responsibility of providing an independent check on information disseminated and policies enacted by the government) with the state of media today (which is largely driven by sound bytes and splashy headlines.) I also think Congressional failure to utilize tools to check the executive branch (such as in the cumbersome, time-consuming impeachment process seen most recently with Donald Trump) illustrate that the U.S. government is not functioning as the founders intended.
Nonetheless, it is needlessly dramatic to bemoan that the U.S. is hopelessly going to hell in a handbasket because society has evolved beyond redemption. Societies change-- the challenge is to ensure that principles prevail which safeguard the free exchange of ideas and which ensure the survival of effective checks and balances within the government. While certainly it would seem that modern society has not zealously advocated for these principles to, there are still influential individuals who fiercely protect these core tenants (such as Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar and many others within the administrative state); regardless, society can certainly defy drifting standards with a concerted effort if it is able to awaken and be cognizant of the dangers of unequal power dynamics within the branches and what information individuals consume.
December 14, 2017
In this book Ackerman details the ascendancy of the modern executive. His analysis of the structure of our current system leads him to conclude that we are perilously close to a breakdown of republican democracy in which the Presidency will be able to ignore Congress and function as the sole legislator and executor.
It's written in very simple prose and is readily accessible to political neophytes and yet interesting and compelling for politicos too.
This scenario doesn't seem to far fetched, considering that Executive Orders and now Signing Statements are regularly accorded a great deal of deference by agencies and even courts of law.
Ackerman gives several suggestions for structural reform which he hopes might delay an executive take-over. Among these suggestions is the call for a new national holiday called Deliberation Day in which a couple weeks prior to elections assemblies are convened in communities around the nation to discuss politics; thereby counteracting cultures of unreason that dominate politics due to skewed results in primary elections.
I like Ackerman's recommendations and was convinced that everything he suggested should be implemented.
I think everyone interested in structural reform in the US should give this book a look. It's a quick read and yet very compelling.
It's written in very simple prose and is readily accessible to political neophytes and yet interesting and compelling for politicos too.
This scenario doesn't seem to far fetched, considering that Executive Orders and now Signing Statements are regularly accorded a great deal of deference by agencies and even courts of law.
Ackerman gives several suggestions for structural reform which he hopes might delay an executive take-over. Among these suggestions is the call for a new national holiday called Deliberation Day in which a couple weeks prior to elections assemblies are convened in communities around the nation to discuss politics; thereby counteracting cultures of unreason that dominate politics due to skewed results in primary elections.
I like Ackerman's recommendations and was convinced that everything he suggested should be implemented.
I think everyone interested in structural reform in the US should give this book a look. It's a quick read and yet very compelling.
September 22, 2014
Another characteristically excellent treatment of deep structural issues from Ackerman. I will say only this on the book's substance: It was prescient. Ackerman almost exactly predicted the clash in the executive branch over the legality of the 2011 Libya intervention, and it looks like the same thing is happening with the 2014 Iraq intervention. N.b.: The book isn't pro- or anti-Obama. The argument, roughly, is that there are centralizing structural forces that, over time, are taking power over military and security affairs away from Congress and traditional department officers, e.g., lawyers and sub-cabinet officials at the state, defense, and justice departments, and moving it to the president's personal staff, e.g., the White House Counsel's Office, and that this has had -- and will continue to have -- significant, and in Ackerman's view bad and dangerous, effects on policy. I don't buy everything in the book (e.g., Ackerman casts the White House Counsel as something of a boogeyman, and he both overestimates the real constraints on presidents of yore and the actual power of the president today), but it's quite good. I cannot recommend the book strongly enough.
May 21, 2025
I heard about this book through one of my favorite podcasts; Hardcore History with Dan Carlin.
Bruce Ackerman (the author) is a Republican Constitutionalist writing about the growing dangers of the presidency back in 2013. Obama is currently president, and while Bruce is fair to Obama, his underlying concern is how every president, no matter the party, continually pushes the boundaries of what a president can do, legally or otherwise.
Only Congress can declare war, but suddenly around the 60's presidents are declaring military operations "police actions", and presidents are constantly declaring wars within the US; the war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war on terrorism... constantly keeping the public in a "state of emergency" to use excessive action to achieve their goals.
Although written over a decade ago, the book feels somewhat prophetic. In 2013 Bruce warns that there may come a future president who doesn't care about customs or norms. A president who is could be characterized as highly charismatic, irrational, and brazen.
He even invites you to imagine a president who once elected, feels he can do whatever he wants because that was the will of the people (otherwise he would not be president), who keeps America in a state of emergency in order to strip away the rights of his competition, who has mastered the internet and television with his own propaganda of misinformation, and fills up the courts with lawsuits and illegal executive orders because he's aware of how long those take to filter, while in the meantime continues on their own path of destruction.
Of course it's easy to imagine Donald Trump here, as he literally compares himself to Lincoln, stripping habeas corpus, saying America is in a state of emergency, who has his own press briefings for his favored propagandic news stations, flooding the courts with the most executive orders of any president in the first 100 days ever (ever), and as I read this book, I couldn't help but think there had to be strategists who read this book when it came out and thought, "Oh, I'd never thought of that, let's do that".
But the warning isn't just for Donald Trump. It's for all future presidents. When the next president comes, will the 143 executive orders issued by Donald Trump become the benchmark for the next president to beat? Will America be forever stuck in a state of emergency for the president to use funds and manipulate the stock market at his discretion? As the courts are currently debating an EO that is in direct opposition to 14th amendment, what's to stop a left leaning president from issuing a "War on School Shootings", striking down the 2nd and 4th amendments with EOs in order to stimmy the situation, and searches your home while you're at work and confiscate your guns?
The problem with the modern presidency is nothing sounds unreasonable anymore. Once the doors for the presidency open, they rarely close, because each party salivates at the idea of what they can do in that position once their party is in, making the likelihood that Congress or the Supreme Court reigns him in.
This book was an illuminating and quick read for any poli-sci fans out there who want to touch up on the modern role of the Executive Branch.
Bruce Ackerman (the author) is a Republican Constitutionalist writing about the growing dangers of the presidency back in 2013. Obama is currently president, and while Bruce is fair to Obama, his underlying concern is how every president, no matter the party, continually pushes the boundaries of what a president can do, legally or otherwise.
Only Congress can declare war, but suddenly around the 60's presidents are declaring military operations "police actions", and presidents are constantly declaring wars within the US; the war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war on terrorism... constantly keeping the public in a "state of emergency" to use excessive action to achieve their goals.
Although written over a decade ago, the book feels somewhat prophetic. In 2013 Bruce warns that there may come a future president who doesn't care about customs or norms. A president who is could be characterized as highly charismatic, irrational, and brazen.
He even invites you to imagine a president who once elected, feels he can do whatever he wants because that was the will of the people (otherwise he would not be president), who keeps America in a state of emergency in order to strip away the rights of his competition, who has mastered the internet and television with his own propaganda of misinformation, and fills up the courts with lawsuits and illegal executive orders because he's aware of how long those take to filter, while in the meantime continues on their own path of destruction.
Of course it's easy to imagine Donald Trump here, as he literally compares himself to Lincoln, stripping habeas corpus, saying America is in a state of emergency, who has his own press briefings for his favored propagandic news stations, flooding the courts with the most executive orders of any president in the first 100 days ever (ever), and as I read this book, I couldn't help but think there had to be strategists who read this book when it came out and thought, "Oh, I'd never thought of that, let's do that".
But the warning isn't just for Donald Trump. It's for all future presidents. When the next president comes, will the 143 executive orders issued by Donald Trump become the benchmark for the next president to beat? Will America be forever stuck in a state of emergency for the president to use funds and manipulate the stock market at his discretion? As the courts are currently debating an EO that is in direct opposition to 14th amendment, what's to stop a left leaning president from issuing a "War on School Shootings", striking down the 2nd and 4th amendments with EOs in order to stimmy the situation, and searches your home while you're at work and confiscate your guns?
The problem with the modern presidency is nothing sounds unreasonable anymore. Once the doors for the presidency open, they rarely close, because each party salivates at the idea of what they can do in that position once their party is in, making the likelihood that Congress or the Supreme Court reigns him in.
This book was an illuminating and quick read for any poli-sci fans out there who want to touch up on the modern role of the Executive Branch.
December 20, 2018
"Got nothing to criticise the constitution with? Well, be quiet, then."
Bit pessimistic, isn't it?
Bit pessimistic, isn't it?
Read
June 22, 2023Remarkable that this was written in 2010. The only unfortunate part is that it is now (partially) dated as we can more clearly see the real issues. Need a new version, Prof. Ackerman.
April 24, 2025
3.75 I would say
November 20, 2025
Incredibly prescient and insightful book. I wish far fewer of the predictions Ackerman made 15 years ago had come true.
June 17, 2011
A fascinating book in many ways, but Ackerman spends too much time with "what if"s and the future of the presidency, and not nearly enough time looking at what is actually going on in the present. His conclusions are for the most part accurate (in my opinion) but his doomsday scenarios make it easy for detractors to argue against him.
As for his reform proposals: good luck. The Republic has already fallen as far as I can see. None of his proposals stands a chance.
As for his reform proposals: good luck. The Republic has already fallen as far as I can see. None of his proposals stands a chance.
December 18, 2011
I don't know if my tag is appropriate for this title, but I'm sticking with it because it was recommended to me in a series of books.
Well-argued reaction to a growing power/control in the executive branch of government that pulls history, law, tradition, etc. into one. There are plenty of citations and notes (over 1/3 of the book is the appendix!) Nothing that blew my mind, but a smart read.
Well-argued reaction to a growing power/control in the executive branch of government that pulls history, law, tradition, etc. into one. There are plenty of citations and notes (over 1/3 of the book is the appendix!) Nothing that blew my mind, but a smart read.
December 19, 2012
A sobering account of the dangers to our civil liberties posed by ever expanding presidential authority. If we stay on our present course we face a constitutional disaster the next time are are attacked.
April 21, 2015
•
I leave this book hungry for action that will rein in the "new" powers of the presidency…even if it is at the expense of my party's agenda. Read this book if you are concerned about the future of our republic…and most especially if you are not…
•
August 22, 2012
Great book to read during final exams to relax.
June 9, 2013
An important book on the problems in the Executive branch.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews