The only man to serve as president and chief justice, who approached every decision in constitutional terms, defending the Founders’ vision against new populist threats to American democracy William Howard Taft never wanted to be president and yearned instead to serve as chief justice of the United States. But despite his ambivalence about politics, the former federal judge found success in the executive branch as governor of the Philippines and secretary of war, and he won a resounding victory in the presidential election of 1908 as Theodore Roosevelt’s handpicked successor. In this provocative assessment, Jeffrey Rosen reveals Taft’s crucial role in shaping how America balances populism against the rule of law. Taft approached each decision as president by asking whether it comported with the Constitution, seeking to put Roosevelt’s activist executive orders on firm legal grounds. But unlike Roosevelt, who thought the president could do anything the Constitution didn’t forbid, Taft insisted he could do only what the Constitution explicitly allowed. This led to a dramatic breach with Roosevelt in the historic election of 1912, which Taft viewed as a crusade to defend the Constitution against the demagogic populism of Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Nine years later, Taft achieved his lifelong dream when President Warren Harding appointed him chief justice, and during his years on the Court he promoted consensus among the justices and transformed the judiciary into a modern, fully equal branch. Though he had chafed in the White House as a judicial president, he thrived as a presidential chief justice.

In a period of American history marked by congressional primacy, presidential passivity, and hostility to governmental action, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson became iconic presidents through activist leadership. Peri Arnold, a leading presidential scholar, goes beyond the biographers to explain what really set Roosevelt apart from his predecessor William McKinley, how Wilson differed from his successor Warren G. Harding, and how we might better understand the forgettable William Howard Taft in between. This is the first comparative study of the three Progressive Era presidents, examining the context in which they served, the evolving institutional role of the presidency, and the personal characteristics of each man. Arnold explains why Roosevelt and Wilson pursued activist roles, how they gained the means for effective leadership in a role that had not previously supported it, and how each of the three negotiated the choppy crosscurrents of changing institutions and politics with entirely different outcomes. Arnold delineates the American political scene at the turn of the twentieth century, one characterized by a weakening of party organizations, the rise of interest groups and print media, and increasing demands for reform. He shows how the Progressive Era presidents marked a transition from the nineteenth century's checks and balances to the twentieth's expansive presidential role, even though demands for executive leadership were at odds with the presidency's means to take independent action. Each of these presidents was uniquely challenged to experiment with the office's new potential for political independence from party and Congress, and Arnold explains how each had to justify their authority for such experimentation. He also shows how their actions were reflected in specific policy case studies: the Northern Trust and naval modernization under Roosevelt, tariff reform and the Pinchot/Ballinger debate over conservation under Taft, and the Federal Reserve and Federal Trade Commission under Wilson. Ultimately, Arnold shows how the period's ferment affected both the presidency and its incumbents and how they in turn affected progressive politics. More important, he helps us better understand two presidents who continue to inspire politicians of differing stripes and relates their leadership styles to the modern development of the presidency.

The American President is an enthralling account of American presidential actions from the assassination of William McKinley in 1901 to Bill Clinton's last night in office in January 2001. William Leuchtenburg, one of the great presidential historians of the century, portrays each of the presidents in a chronicle sparkling with anecdote and wit. Leuchtenburg offers a nuanced assessment of their conduct in office, preoccupations, and temperament. His book presents countless moments of high drama: FDR hurling defiance at the "economic royalists" who exploited the poor; ratcheting tension for JFK as Soviet vessels approach an American naval blockade; a grievously wounded Reagan joking with nurses while fighting for his life. This book charts the enormous growth of presidential power from its lowly state in the late nineteenth century to the imperial presidency of the twentieth. That striking change was manifested both at home in periods of progressive reform and abroad, notably in two world wars, Vietnam, and the war on terror. Leuchtenburg sheds light on presidents battling with contradictory forces. Caught between maintaining their reputation and executing their goals, many practiced deceits that shape their image today. But he also reveals how the country's leaders pulled off magnificent achievements worthy of the nation's pride.

A fascinating new angle on presidential history, assessing the performances of the presidents in their freshman year of the toughest job in the world. Grouped by the issues the new presidents confronted in their first years in office, the book takes readers into the history, thought processes, and results on a case-by-case basis, including how the presidents’ subsequent actions proved that they learned (or didn’t learn) from their mistakes. From George Washington to Barack Obama, The President’s First Year details the challenging first twelve months of all our presidents’ tenures.

Citizenship in a Republic is the title of a speech given by Theodore Roosevelt, former President of the United States, at the Sorbonne in Paris, France, on April 23, 1910. One notable passage from the speech is referred to as "The Man in the Arena": It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better.

Every president has had a unique and complicated relationship with the intelligence community. While some have been coolly distant, even adversarial, others have found their intelligence agencies to be among the most valuable instruments of policy and power. Since John F. Kennedy's presidency, this relationship has been distilled into a personalized daily report: a short summary of what the intelligence apparatus considers the most crucial information for the president to know that day about global threats and opportunities. This top-secret document is known as the President's Daily Brief, or, within national security circles, simply "the Book." Presidents have spent anywhere from a few moments (Richard Nixon) to a healthy part of their day (George W. Bush) consumed by its contents; some (Bill Clinton and George H. W. Bush) consider it far and away the most important document they saw on a regular basis while commander in chief. The details of most PDBs are highly classified, and will remain so for many years. But the process by which the intelligence community develops and presents the Book is a fascinating look into the operation of power at the highest levels. David Priess, a former intelligence officer and daily briefer, has interviewed every living president and vice president as well as more than one hundred others intimately involved with the production and delivery of the president's book of secrets. He offers an unprecedented window into the decision making of every president from Kennedy to Obama, with many character-rich stories revealed here for the first time.