Opinions will vary widely on all the presidents, but this work will make those opinions more penetrating and judicious.— James MacGregor Burns

In the first major, in-depth study since World War II, Michael P. Riccards provides a narrative history of the U.S. presidency that is also an invaluable reference. Volume One covers the presidency from its creation to its major crisis in the Civil War and the transitional presidency of McKinley. Volume Two Continues the history up to the presidency of George Bush. In Volume Two, he provides coverage of each administration and extended treatment of the more important presidents. Though there is some biographical material about each chief executive, the focus is on issues, policies, legislative achievements and foreign policy decisions for each administration.

This book is an examination of the manner in which American presidents respond to pandemics and other public health crises. Skidmore argues that presidential performance in dealing with emergencies and pandemics varies, but those who are informed, focused, and confident that government can work are most likely to be successful. As an example, Gerald Ford’s “Swine Flu program” is widely derided as incompetent and politically motivated. Closer examination, however, suggests the contrary, demonstrating the potential of government to act quickly and effectively against public health emergencies, even when facing formidable obstacles. The American government has a mixed record ranging from excellent to unacceptable, even counterproductive, in dealing with emergency threats to life and health. Despite ideological arguments to the contrary, however, governments are important to effective responses, and in the American setting, presidential action is essential.

This work argues that the influence of neoconservatives has been none too small and all too important in the shaping of this monumental doctrine and historic moment in American foreign policy. Through a fascinating account of the central figures in the neoconservative movement and their push for war with Iraq, he reveals the imperial designs that have guided them in their quest for the establishment of a global Pax Americana.

Between the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, the United States was embroiled in competitive inter-state politics. Although it did not directly involve itself in European affairs, the United States did engage regularly in dangerous struggles with other states and with colonial powers with territory on the American periphery. Aside from the War of 1812, the Oregon Crisis, and the Mexican War, other "near misses" included here—disputes of 1807 and 1809 with Britain, with Spain over East Florida in 1811–13, with Mexico in 1853, and disputes with Spain over Cuba in 1853–55 and with Mexico in 1858–1860—have been ignored in the democratic peace literature. Scott A. Silverstone finds these cases particularly useful for testing alternative explanations of constraints on armed conflict, because the United States backed down each time, allowing each crisis to pass short of its full potential for violence.Silverstone builds on a nascent theory of institutional constraints on the use of force presented in the Federalist Papers to explain American attitudes toward participation in conflicts. He argues that the federal character of American democracy that emerged from the founding and the large size of the new American republic provide the keys to understanding its decision-making processes. Divided Union shows how the institutional features of federal union and the diverse social, economic, and security interests within this geographically extended republic created political conditions that impeded the use of force by the United States before the Civil War.

After the Nixon and Ford administrations, liberal Democrats hoped Jimmy Carter's election in 1976 would restore the New Deal agenda in the White House. Instead, during four tumultuous years in office, Carter endorsed many of the fiscal and economic policies later espoused by his Republican successor, Ronald Reagan. But Carter also backed most New Deal social programs and, however reluctantly, pursued a traditional containment foreign policy. In this book more than a dozen eminent scholars provide a balanced overview of key elements of Carter's presidency, examining the significance of his administration within the context of evolving American policy choices after World War II. They seek not only to understand the troubled Carter presidency but also to identify the changes that precipitated and accompanied the demise of the New Deal order. By the time Carter took office many Americans had become disenchanted with big government and welfare spending, and his presidency is viewed in these pages as a transitional administration. As this volume demonstrates, Carter's dilemma emerged from his effort to steer a course between traditional expectations of federal government and new political and economic realities. While most of the contributors agree that his administration may be justly criticized for failing to find that course, they generally conclude that Carter was more successful than his critics acknowledge. These thirteen original essays cover such topics as the economy, trade and industrial policies, welfare reform, energy, environment, civil rights, feminism, and foreign policy. They offer thoughtful assessments of Carter's performance, focusing on policy both as cause and effect of the post-industrial transformation of American society that shadowed his administration. A final essay shows how Carter's public spirited post-presidential career has made him one of America's greatest ex-presidents. Grounded on research conducted at the Carter Library, The Carter Presidency is an incisive reassessment of an isolated Democratic administration from the vantage point of twenty years. It is a milestone in the historical appraisal of that administration, inviting us to take a new look at Jimmy Carter and see what his presidency represented for a dramatically changing America.