The Presidential Difference: Leadership Style from FDR to Clinton. [Paperback]

Fred I. Greenstein (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: October 1, 2001

Drawing on a quarter-century's work, Fred I. Greenstein, one of our keenest observers of the modern presidency, provides a fascinating and instructive account of the qualities that have served well and poorly in the Oval Office from Franklin D. Roosevelt's first hundred days to the beginning of George W. Bush's presidency. Greenstein offers a series of bottom-line judgments on each of his twelve subjects and a bold new explanation of why presidents succeed or fail. Previous analysts have placed their bets on the president's political prowess or personal character. Yet by the first standard, LBJ should have been our greatest president, and by the second the nod would go to Jimmy Carter. Greenstein surveys each president's record in public communication, political skill, vision, cognitive style, and emotional intelligence and argues that the last is the most important in predicting presidential success.

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com Review

Princeton University's Fred I. Greenstein caps off an illustrious career as a presidential scholar with The Presidential Difference. This book won't fundamentally change the way anybody looks at the last 11 chief executives--Greenstein's earlier work The Hidden-Hand Presidency revolutionized the academy's view of Eisenhower--but it does provide a worthwhile series of minibiographies and analytical summations. Greenstein rates his subjects in several categories: communication, organization, political skill, vision, cognitive style, and emotional intelligence. His assessments can be quite frank: Roosevelt is the source of "endless positive lessons"; Truman "illustrates the cost of a defective communication style and a situation-determined approach to presidential leadership"; Ford is "underappreciated"; and so on. Who is Greenstein's favorite? It's clearly FDR, even though he confronts the question with an amusing anecdote about LBJ. Walking on a tarmac in Vietnam, an airman says, "This is your helicopter, Mr. President." Johnson replies, "They are all my helicopters." Writes Greenstein: "Each of the modern presidents is a source of insight, as much for his weaknesses as his strengths. The variation among them provides intellectual leverage, permitting comparisons and expanding our sense of the possible." And so, he writes, "They are all my presidents." --John J. Miller --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

From Publishers Weekly

What makes a successful president? Greenstein (The Hidden-Hand Presidency), a noted Princeton political scientist, attempts to answer that question by examining the terms of every chief executive of the last 70 years. He considers them in six categories: political communication, organizational capacity, political skill, vision, cognitive style and emotional intelligence. FDR receives high marks almost across the board; Eisenhower wins the prize for organization and Reagan for vision. In Greenstein's view, "emotional intelligence"--which is his shorthand for maturity and levelheadedness--is the most important attribute: "In its absence, all else may turn to ashes." As negative examples, he points to the terms of LBJ and Nixon, whose impressive respective domestic and foreign achievements were all but destroyed by their stubborn paranoia and mercurial tempers. Unfortunately, the brevity of Greenstein's case leads to some rather cliched observations, evident in such hackneyed chapter titles as "The Paradox of Richard Nixon" and "The Highly Tactical Leadership of George Bush." But what Greenstein loses in depth, he gains in contrast, and his most illuminating lessons come when he weighs the advantages of one president's style against another's (such as Eisenhower's military-like staff organization vs. the freewheeling chaos of the Clinton White House). This book may not become the executive tutorial that Greenstein seems to hope, but it is nonetheless a concise, interesting analysis from one our most knowledgeable presidential scholars. (May)
Copyright 2000 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 300 pages
• Publisher: Princeton University Press (October 1, 2001)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0691090831
• ISBN-13: 978-0691090832
• Product Dimensions: 9.2 x 6.2 x 0.7 inches
• Shipping Weight: 15.2 ounces
• Average Customer Review: 4.3 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (15 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #562,842 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

20 of 22 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars A Good Book on an Impossible Subject, October 21, 2000

By 

"mrgray" (LONDON England) - See all my reviews

This review is from: The Presidential Difference: Leadership Style from Roosevelt to Clinton (Hardcover)

The Presidential Difference: Leadership Style from FDR to Clinton.

Professor Greenstein has provided us with a highly readable book with much sound analysis of the Presidency and the last eleven men who have held the most powerful political office in the world. Each President is given a chapter that covers the essentials of his presidency and each ends with a summation of its importance under the heading of 1/ Public Communication, 2/ Organisational Technique, 3/ Political Skill, 4/ Vision, 5/ Cognitive Style, 6/ Emotional Intelligence. This is a vast subject and the author's discipline is remarkable in keeping within his tight framework. Although there are moments where the reader may wish that he had succumbed to some of the more seductive questions.

FDR emerges as he usually does, as the effortless president- a man whose exquisite political touch was applied at just the right moment and whose guile was limitless. Yet his style may have led to destructive competition between members of his staff. Truman effectively gets a roasting - man better suited to the politics of his home state of Missouri than to the national stage, while Eisenhower is the 'Clark Kent' of American presidents whose skills have only recently been recognised. The point where many readers will part company with the author's conclusions is where he asserts that Kennedy lacked vision. This view is supported by Kennedy's lack of a consistent approach to the Soviet Union, which presumably represents the lack of a sound underlying political philosophy. This startling claim is further undermined when the author claims later that Reagan did indeed have 'vision'. Worse still, this latter claim is scantily justified by Reagan's opposition to communism. On that basis Senator Joe McCarthy had vision. The author mentions how Bush was uncomfortable with the 'stridency of Regan's early anti Soviet pronouncements' and that during Reagan's second term he reached out to Gorbachev. No such generosity of interpretation is extended to Kennedy- a mere three years in office. This contentious conclusion does require more justification. As it stands, few will be entirely comfortable with a description of Kennedy as lacking 'vision'. Was there no vision behind the Test Ban treaty of 1963? Was the author (and most now accept that he was indeed the author) of the Pulitzer prize winning Profiles in Courage lacking in 'vision'? There is a broader reservation about this book -at times the author makes comparisons between Presidents that seem to give insufficient weight to their differing circumstances- as if comparisons can be made across the decades of the office and its occupant. As if every president was armed with the same resources and faced comparable foes- as though the presidency existed in a vacuum. Again, if we look at Kennedy and Reagan. The former faced a Soviet Union much more virulent and about which much less was known than was the case in the final years of the latter's presidency. There is little evaluation of the limitations imposed by the policy inheritance of a president's predecessor or indeed of the very obvious factor of single and double term presidencies. A president, mindful of re-election. is likely to be cautious in the more contentious areas in his first term. In an era where overwhelmingly historians are devoted to mass movements and long term trends, it is refreshing to have a view that stresses the importance of the character of the chief executive. But can comparisons between presidents ever be more than superficial? Can we pretend that Truman's experience of dismissing McArthur and paying heavily politically for it, can ever really be reproduced? After all, there is only one McArthur in American history. Can we pretend that the civil rights challenge facing Johnson was comparable to that faced by FDR? The exceptional considerations of every presidency make comparisons beyond the superficial, very difficult indeed. Ford emerges as a solid president, who did not allow the pressures of office to affect him and who was not burdened by many of the emotional problems of the others. Ford is also credited with many new imaginative departures in presidential administration. The author does not however reflect on the irony that Ford was never elected to the oval office - either as president or vice president (having replaced Agnew) and the greater irony is that he was selected for the VP position by Nixon-the most flawed president of the 20th century! The other underlying assumption that causes concern is that of completeness of picture. Eisenhower, seemingly detached during his presidency has since been revealed through the release of materials as an astute political operator aware of every political development. The slow-drip release of records relating to Nixon confirms him to be worse than imagined and Truman who boasted that he did not lie awake worrying at night has since been revealed as a man as burdened as any by the weight of his office. How then can we evaluate Bush and Clinton, the latter still in the Oval Office when this book was published?

The author does promise in his first chapter that he has considered each president on his own merits as a flesh and blood individual and that presidents and those who select them will benefit if they do not 'begin with a blank slate'. Although some readers may question whether the author has given enough weight to the changing America each president faced and sought to lead and although many may disagree with a few of his conclusions, most will agree that he has, on balance, succeeded in providing some new insights into the strengths and weaknesses of character that helped and hindered the last eleven presidents.

14 of 15 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Modern Presidents under the Microscope, August 3, 2000

By 

E. E Pofahl (HUNTINGTON, WV USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: The Presidential Difference: Leadership Style from Roosevelt to Clinton (Hardcover)

Fred Greenstein has written a readable, enjoyable account of the modern presidency covering FDR to Clinton. The author reveals the tone of his book when he states in Chapter 1 "Each of the modern presidents is a source of insight, as much for his weakness as his strengths. The variation among them provides intellectual leverage, permitting comparisons and expanding our sense of the possible." Each president is covered in chronological order by a chapter where they are analyzed on six qualities, Public Communicator, Organizational Capacity, Political Skill, Vision, Cognitive Style and Emotional Intelligence. The reader may be tempted to skip and read only the chapters for the presidents that interest them; however, the book should be read from beginning to end "in sequence" as the evolution of the modern presidency is clearly illustrated as the chapters unfold.

The author avoids the pitfall of attempting to rank the presidents leaving the reader to form his own opinion. Presidents are shown to have defects, and all presidents are shown to have certain strengths making for a balanced analysis, i.e. none are total losers or absolute winners. Readers may be surprised by positive qualities for presidents, such as Johnson and Nixon, as well surprise with the shortcomings of the more popular chief executives such as Kennedy and Reagan. The author lists features of these modern presidents that future incoming presidents and their staffs should study and/or emulate.

An interesting observation Greenstein makes is the critical importance of Effectiveness as a Public Communicator . To illustrate his point, he relates concerning the 1960 missile gap, that U-2 flights had confirmed to Eisenhower that there was no missile gap and that in "Eisenhower's concept of national security, the United States did not need to equal the Soviet Union in all areas of military endeavor. What it needed was sufficient retaliatory power to deter the Soviets from aggression." The author continues that "This thesis was eminently suited for public enunciation . . " which Eisenhower failed to so enunciate. Ultimately this communication failure led to a defense policy that started a nuclear arms race with the Soviets. However, Greenstein notes that the majority of the other presidents also failed to effectively use the "bully pulpit". Today's complaints about public manipulation through presidential press conferences, speeches, etc. should not be confused with the author's regard for the importance of effective public communication as a means both to educate and to inform the public regarding critical issues.

Many persons look upon the presidency as a one man show. However, the author clearly demonstrates the critical factor of how the White House is organized and the importance of the roles played by the president's staff and aides. In some cases the staff and aides made the presidency successful while in other instances weak, inadequate or poorly organized staffs resulted in marginal presidential performance. The book further notes that even with competent staff , the president did not always use them effectively often intimidating them into being "Yes Men". He tells the story of Chester Cooper of the NCS staff fantasizing about facing down Johnson over Vietnam but in his fantasy when Johnson asks "Mr. Cooper, do you agree?" Cooper finds himself answering "Yes, Mr. President, I agree."

The final chapter, titled Lessons from the Modern Presidency, summarizes the modern presidency on the basis of the six previously noted qualities. Referring to Johnson, Nixon, Carter and Clinton all of whom had impressive intelligence but defective temperaments, Greenstein ends the book with the following warning "All four presidential experiences point to the following moral: Beware the presidential contender who lacks emotional intelligence. In its absence all else may turn to ashes."

Normally a book is not known for its appendix. However, this book has an excellent appendix titled Background on the Modern Presidency which gives for each president an outline of their Life; Elections; Political Composition of Congress (during their term); their Appointments including Vice Presidents, Cabinet Members and Supreme Court; and finally Key Events.

The reader will be disappointed when the book ends and will wish for at least another chapter or two if not a second volume. This is intelligent, informative, easy reading at its best.

7 of 7 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Presidential Leadership in the 20th Century, March 5, 2002

By 

dougrhon "dougrhon" - See all my reviews

This review is from: The Presidential Difference: Leadership Style from FDR to Clinton. (Paperback)

This book by political scientist Fred Greenstein is the first I've read focusing, not on presidential achievement but on effective leadership. Using a series of criteria including vision, cognitive ability, management style and most importantly emotional intelligence, Greenstein looks briefly yet closely at each president from FDR through Clinton with a special afterword on George W. Bush. (pre 9/11) Greenstein chronicles the successes and failings of each president he profiles. Roosevelt receives the highest regards for his ability to translate his popularity into bold leadership. His secretive and manipulative management style is condemmed. Truman is praised for his management style but criticized for his inability at times to lead the nation along the lines of his vision. There is truth to this criticism but Greenstein doesn't look at external facotrs that effected Truman's ability to govern such as the Republican demagoguery of the Democrats as "soft on communism". Eisenhower is highly praised, and properly so, for his strong management style and his strong, quiet leadership. Kennedy gets deserved criticism for his early failings but not enough credit for his later growth. One thing Kennedy is properly criticized for, in my view, is his overreliance on intellectuals, something that would plague Clinton as well. After Kennedy we have a series of failed presidents, with Ford excepted. The common denominator between Johnson, Nixon and Carter are their weak emotional intelligence quotas. All are thin skinned, unable to work well with others, naturally suspicious of those outside their circle. Clinton too is regarded as weak emotionally. Greenstein's thesis is that persons of low emotional intelligence should not become president as it is a recipe for failure. Interestingly, in his brief comments on President Bush, written before Sept. 11, 2001, he predicts, based on his observations of Bush's steady emotional inner core, that he will be a strong and succesful leader. You don't have to agree with Greenstein's entire analysis to appreciate the achievement of this book. It is refreshing to read a book about the presidency that moves beyond Arthur Schlesinger's tired and outdated theory of active and passive presidents. A good read and I highly recommend it.