Eisenhower is generally regarded as a do-nothing President, one whose only legacy to the country is his face on the discontinued silver dollar and who only left for the presidency a putting green on the White House grounds. Surrounded as he was by two younger and more idealistic men in the history books, Ambrose clearly sees something of value in his eight years in office, and after reading this book, I somewhat agree.
However, just to do an Eisenhower biography focusing on the Presidency would be insufficient: as a general, he masterminded Operation Overlord and led the final assault on Germany, in the process defeating German genius Erwin Rommel. The first half or so of the book details his military successes and failures, his relationships with Generals Marshall and MacArthur, and how his remarkable victory came about. However, few deny that Ike was a great military leader. His presidency, on the other hand, is a quite contentious matter to this day, and Ambrose defends his record. He doesn't obfuscate facts, though: Eisenhower declined to take leadership on the single most important issue of his term in office: civil rights. The book makes it very clear that Ike's sympathies were with the southerners in the integration battles, and although his response to the Warren Court's decision to end segregation was far from Jackson's famous one ("John Marshall has made his ruling, now let him enforce it"), he didn't enforce Warren's sweeping proclamation with much vigor. In fact, for several years, he didn't enforce it at all. It took outright defiance for him to act, which he ultimately did. The book claims that Eisenhower's nomination of Earl Warren as Chief Justice was something that he always approved of, even if he had differences with the great Chief, which would be a real revelation if true, since he famously referred to Warren as "the biggest damned-fool mistake I ever made." In spite of Ike's reticence to rigorously enforce desegregation, he did appoint Warren and William Brennan to the Court, both of whom would at least help his legacy on this issue. Eisenhower's presidency was extremely secretive, perhaps just as much as Nixon's (and the current Bush's), but he took the constitutionally murky step of using executive privilege to try to shut down, indirectly, the McCarthyist fear machine. Ambrose also rightly admonishes Ike for failing to denounce the demagogue himself. Also, using the CIA to incite rebellion and assassinate foreign leaders was unprecedented, although, like executive privilege, he was not the chief abuser of these extra-legal powers (LBJ did more with the CIA, and for executive privilege, you know who). However, Ambrose points out many of his successes also: he was the only President of the 20th century (aside from Clinton) to preside over two full terms of peace and prosperity, and one of an even smaller group that left office with a popularity rating higher than when he entered (also, incidentally, like Clinton). It is interesting to note the two men's similarities: both won the presidency after the opposing party had been entrenched in the White House for years, both were moderate compromisers, both were thought of by their detractors as do-nothing presidents and by their supporters as great ones. There's a book I'd like to see, but I'm getting off subject. Eisenhower got us out of Korea, kept us out of Vietnam (despite elaborate efforts to "get us in"), continued Truman's multilateralist policy in containing communism, urged calm and restraint at a time of great fear and paranoia, and history has proven him right at questioning the sanity of the missile gap, warning us of the military-industrial complex, and avoiding conflict in Southeastern Asia. Now, if only we'd listened to those ideas...
Although many might characterize Eisenhower's presidency as a catalogue of missed chances, he provided stable leadership and political moderation at a polarized time. Unlike some reviewers, I am not bothered by Ambrose's open admiration of his subject. Ask any historian if it's possible to write unbiased history and they'll say it's not. If they say they're unbiased, they're lying. I'd just as soon, in the interests of full disclosure, hear where the author stands in order to evaluate him. For his wise but flawed leadership, Eisenhower has earned a place in history, and this is a great introduction to a pivotal figure in 20th century history.
