Do presidents matter for America's economic performance? We tend to stereotype the Gilded Age presidents of the late nineteenth century as weak. We also assume that the American people were intellectually misguided about the economy and the government's role in it during this era. And we generally dismiss the Gilded Age macro-economy as boring--little interesting or important happened. Instead, the micro-economics of the business world was where the action was located. More broadly, many economists and political scientists believe that individual presidents do not matter much, even in the twenty-first century. Institutional constraints and historical circumstance dictate success or failure; the White House is just along for the ride. In Presidential Leadership in Feeble Times, Mark Zachary Taylor shows that all of this is mistaken. Taylor tells the story of three decades of Gilded Age economic upheaval with a focus on presidential leadership--why did some presidents crash and burn, while others prospered? It turns out that neither education nor experience mattered much. Nor did brains, personal ethics, or party affiliation. Instead, differences in presidential vision and leadership style had dramatic consequences. And even in this unlikely period, presidents powerfully affected national economic performance and their success came from surprising sources, with important lessons for us today.

"Renowned scholar Stephen Skowronek's insights have fundamentally altered our understanding of the American presidency. His seminal works have identified broad historical patterns in American politics and explained the dynamics at work behind them. His "political time" thesis has been particularly influential, revealing how presidents reckon with the work of their predecessors, situate their power within recent political events, and assert their authority to change things. In this new book, Skowronek revisits his political time thesis and focuses on how it helps us make sense of the presidencies of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. The essays--some of which predate his book The Politics Presidents Make, some of which followed it, and one of which is wholly original to this volume--make his arguments about the politics of leadership generally accessible while also drawing them forward and highlighting new issues for our times. Skowronek explains the typical political problems that presidents confront in political time, as well as the likely effects of their working through them. This allows him to draw out parallels in the politics of leadership between Andrew Jackson and Franklin Roosevelt and between James Polk and John Kennedy--and to develop a new and revealing perspective on the leadership of George W. Bush. All along the way, Skowronek considers contemporary innovations in the American political system that bear on the leadership patterns he draws from the more distant past. The impact of the 24-hour news cycle, of a more disciplined and homogeneous Republican party, of conservative advocacy of the "unitary theory" of the executive, and of progressivedisillusionment with the presidency--all come under fresh scrutiny. A provocative review of presidential history, Skowronek's book brims with fresh insights and opens a window on the institution of the executive office and the workings of the American political system as a whole. Intellectually satisfying for scholars, it also provides an accessible volume for students and general readers interested in the American presidency." -- Publisher.

In 2011 Barack Obama invited ten distinguished biographers to the White House to ask them one question: which past American president should I emulate? This was not the first time Obama asked scholars this, but the answer he received would differ as presidential legacies waxed and waned. In 2008 Obama chose Lincoln; in 2009, Reagan; and in 2010, Theodore Roosevelt. Perspectives on Presidential Leadership is an examination of presidential legacy, and in particular an analysis of the first ever UK ranking of American presidents which took place in 2011. In thirteen chapters, thirteen individual presidential administrations are assessed. Some presidents have been considered a success, others a failure; both types are featured in these thirteen case studies in a measured attempt to understand how the perception of presidential leadership evolves, shifts, and contorts across three centuries of American politics. The case studies also derive from the expertise of the collected British, Irish and Canadian authors, all of whom are leading scholars in their fields, and many of which took part in the 2011 survey. At a time when understanding presidential legacy is in high demand, this book offers a unique international perspective. Through extended commentary and inter-disciplinary study of the UK perspective it provides groundbreaking research.

The nature of the presidency is an issue that has been debated since the drafting of the United States Constitution. The Federalists felt a strong executive was the backbone and prime mover of a strong government. On the other side, the Anti-Federalists felt the presidency represented monarchical tendencies and could potentially subvert republican government. How does executive leadership fit in with a limited government with enumerated powers? Does the Constitution require a containment of executive power, even during times of crisis, or do times of crisis warrant an abandonment of a strict legalistic reading of the document?

The American public hungers for a heroic leader. From John F. Kennedy to George W. Bush, every American president has left office either under a cloud or as a failed leader. Michael A. Genovese argues that presidents are set up for failure; it is not specific presidents but the presidency itself that is the problem. The presidency was designed to prevent tyranny through a system of separation of powers that inhibits presidents from exercising sufficient power to meet the demands and expectations that developed over time. Each new president dreams of success, only to be crushed by the paralytic weight of vetoes and roadblocks. As they fail to meet expectations, Americans turn on them, making their already precarious position much worse. Given the perilous nature of the office, Genovese examines the skills required to achieve success and the roles of power and persuasion. He also examines how globalization and the rapid pace of change contribute to the decline of presidential power. This accessible synthesis of scholarship is geared toward an audience that is hungry to unravel the dilemmas of presidential leadership. Students of the presidency will find it insightful; general readers will find it illuminating.

This brief, thought-provoking text evaluates the performance of recent presidents from Johnson to Bush, finding that, overall, each has failed to live up to public expectations. Written by one of the top presidency scholars today, The Presidential Dilemma reflects on the idea that as our country's problems grow, our politicians seem to shrink. Arguing that American presidents of the last 40 years have largely failed to meet the needs, expectations, and responsibilities placed upon them, the book discusses how presidents might better maximize their opportunities for leadership and suggests a distinctive theory of presidential politics: presidents, facing a system of multiple veto points, seek to maximize power and influence.The third edition of Genovese's stimulating book is thoroughly updated to reflect presidential development in recent years, and a new introduction brings his arguments current. As he demonstrates, the emergence of democracy as a new social and political paradigm undermined traditional authority and legitimacy. Subjects no longer automatically follow; now citizens must be persuaded. They may give to a leader their authority and power, or not. As Genovese notes, in a world of mass consumerism, those wishing to lead have precious little to offer by way of inducement.Genovese's goal is to examine the reasons why the performance of recent presidents has been underwhelming, discuss how they might maximize their opportunities for leadership, and ask a key question: Can presidents be both powerful and accountable? The book follows a clear format and tries to show why America's officeholders have so rarely been leaders and how presidents can become leaders instead of mere officeholders.