“At issue is whether the federal government should be a strong central power, as Hamilton believes, or if the states should wield the most strength, as in Jefferson’s point of view. This debate will continue for generations to come.”

The authors introduce one of the book’s core themes: The Evolution of Presidential Power. As the federal government increased in power—especially in the 20th century—the presidency became more powerful in turn.

“Back home in Monticello, [Thomas Jefferson] owns seven hundred slaves and opines that slavery is a necessary part of America’s growth.”

Slavery was one of the major issues shaping not only the policies of many US presidents but their personal lives as well. The support of Jefferson and other framers for slavery set the US on a course toward the disaster of the Civil War, and the authors present this trajectory as clear evidence of Racism as a Source of National Division.

“Dolley Madison cultivates politicians and diplomats, famous men like Irving, and wealthy members of Washington society in her attempts to build a new social order for the capital.”

The first lady was practically an institution—so much so that, while it was typical for first ladies to be the presidents’ wives, presidents without wives would recruit female relatives to serve as their first ladies. They served and continue to serve an important role as public support for the administrations.

“However, Monroe has just witnessed a brutal political spectacle—the 1824 presidential campaign between John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson. The election is thrown into the House. Adams wins, but a shroud of bitterness descends on the United States.”

Another historical trend that reemerges in Confronting the Presidents is polarization. The authors use the metaphor of “a shroud of bitterness” to describe the political divisions that trickled down from centers of political power into wider and bitter divisions among the populace.

“As president, [Andrew Jackson] governed capably, with unbending will. Future presidents Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, and Donald Trump will publicly reference his presidency as a model for their own.”

Certain presidents have been transformative figures emulated by several of their successors. One of these is Andrew Jackson—the first president who did not come from the upper classes and was not among or closely connected to the Founding Fathers. The authors of Confronting the Presidents consider Jackson the first “populist” president (53).

“Image aside, Van Buren was a poor president who simply could not solve vexing problems.”

One of the factors that determines the success or weakness of a presidency is the president’s ability to address the wider social and political problems of their time. Martin Van Buren, like other presidents in his era, failed to address the issue of slavery. This was both a humanitarian failure and a failure to address racism as a source of national division.

“By 1844, John Tyler’s cabinet is completely composed of southern conservatives. The agenda is tariff protection for cotton and tobacco planters, states’ rights, and pro-slavery protection—ideals that will drive the impending Civil War.”

Here, the authors lay out the causes of the US Civil War. Although the causes may be multifaceted, they are related to slavery and to the failure of presidents to address slavery.

“Fillmore was a weak chief executive who failed to grasp the growing danger America was facing from a slavery-driven insurrection.”

This assessment of Millard Fillmore illustrates the authors’ belief in The Interplay Between Personal Character and Public Leadership. Because he was personally “weak,” in the authors’ view, Fillmore was unequal to a uniquely challenging historical moment.

“What history does demonstrate is Abraham Lincoln’s superior character. Above all, he was anguished over a fractured country and millions of enslaved human beings.”

For Confronting the Presidents, the interplay between personal character and public leadership is a crucial theme. Abraham Lincoln’s status as a great president is inexorably linked to his personal and moral characteristics.

“[Andrew Johnson’s] long conversations with old friends from his many years in Washington, and he takes occasional trips to the circus and watches minstrel shows. Checkers are Johnson’s game of choice, often enjoyed with a glass or two of Tennessee bourbon. When he attends church, which happens sparingly, he and Eliza prefer the Methodist service—though Johnson is also drawn to Catholicism, if only because there is no charge for the pew.”

This is one of many examples throughout Confronting the Presidents of the authors detailing the personal life of a president. Anecdotes like this illustrate, for example, how Andrew Johnson’s simple background in Tennessee shaped him.

“Johnson’s antiblack policies are already sabotaging Reconstruction. Violent pro-white groups such as the Ku Klux Klan are emerging in the South, physically attacking freed slaves.”

Johnson’s Reconstruction policies had the consequence of empowering the Ku Klux Klan, ensuring that racism remained a powerful force in US history for generations to come.

“Yet for all the poverty in America, there exists a group of powerful men with more money than they can ever spend. The Hayes administration marks the rise of what will become known as the Gilded Age. The United States is being transformed into a new commercial society.”

Industrialization and the rise of business corporations represent another major trend overshadowing the history of the United States presidency. The authors argue that Rutherford B. Hayes foresaw the problems that would be created by corporate power.

“Chinese men begin immigrating to California in order to work on the transcontinental railroad. When that is completed in 1869, many Chinese immigrants turn to mining. White settlers see them as a threat. In addition, the Naturalization Act of 1890 does not allow Chinese immigrants to seek citizenship, which is limited to ‘free white persons.’”

Even with the evolution of presidential power, presidents have been constrained by their times and cultural paradigms. Chester A. Arthur, for example, felt obliged to consent to anti-Chinese legislation even though he personally disapproved of it.

“After a series of bland presidents, Roosevelt has changed the federal system in many ways.”

Theodore Roosevelt was another landmark president in the evolution of presidential power. By using the power of the presidency and the federal government to limit corporate influence and to support progressive causes like environmental preservation, Roosevelt laid the groundwork for future ambitious presidential reforms, like the New Deal.

“Despite the hardship of his last months in office, Woodrow Wilson left a legacy of turning the United States from an isolationist nation into a world power [and] he transformed the Democrats from a party mired in Civil War—era southern politics into one bent on progressive reform.”

The evolution of presidential power did not just encompass the use of the federal government to push through domestic reforms. Presidential leadership was also intertwined with the growth of the United States as a world power that intervenes in the fates of other nations.

“Many historians consider Warren Harding to be one of America’s worst presidents. He was overwhelmed by the demands of office, so much so that he placed the good of the nation in the hands of corrupt people while he abdicated the discipline of leadership.”

Just as Abraham Lincoln’s superior character made him an excellent president, Warren Harding’s lack of “discipline” contributed to his poor political record. This is one example of the interplay between personal character and public leadership.

“Franklin D. Roosevelt ranks as one of the greatest presidents based on the challenges he faced. While there is debate to this day about some of the actions he undertook, America emerged much stronger due to his leadership. That opinion is not universal, with some believing FDR damaged his country by creating a colossus in Washington. However, the safety nets Roosevelt put into place protect vulnerable Americans to this day. And despite his personal failings, FDR won the victories he had to win.”

The New Deal represented another major step in the evolution of presidential power. However, it was also an example of how presidential leadership is helpful, perhaps even needed, to navigate the United States through a time of crisis.

“Nixon’s thirty-minute broadcast is a triumph, demonstrating the new power of television in shaping an election.”

The influence of media is another major historical factor discussed throughout Confronting the Presidents. The rise of television is treated as an important development in this trend. However, overall, the authors argue that the media has long held the power to shape elections and presidencies.

“The disastrous Vietnam War divided Americans and ushered in a distrust of government that continues to this day.”

The authors frame the war in Vietnam as a uniquely divisive force in US politics, one that gave rise to a potent culture of resistance and undermined trust in the presidency and the government.

“The Republican victory was clearly an homage to President Reagan, who succeeded in reassuring the public of America’s nobility and greatness.”

By foregrounding Reagan’s emotional impact rather than his legislative or economic impact, the authors reinforce their underlying argument that the president sets the national mood. While Jimmy Carter’s “malaise” speech undermined American patriotism and confidence, in their view, Reagan unified the country with his optimism.

“The fact that [Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton] overcame their backgrounds speaks to the validity of the American dream.”

Since the presidency of Andrew Jackson, there have been occasional presidents who have come from relatively poor and obscure backgrounds. The authors see that kind of mobility, the ability to rise from poverty to the presidency, as an exceptional and perhaps unique aspect of the United States.

“It is during the Bush presidency that Americans frequently begin speaking of themselves as living in conservative ‘red’ states or liberal ‘blue’ states. The rising influence of cable television adds to this division. Networks tilt their points of view toward liberal or conservative audiences.”

In the latter sections of the book, the authors trace the development of present-day political polarization as a largely media-driven phenomenon. As media organizations began catering to partisan audiences, they reinforced those audiences’ existing biases.

“America is a far different country today than it was in 2008. And not for the better. Division and suspicion now rule the United States. Politics has become a bitter enterprise.”

The authors characterize the present era as one of extreme but not unprecedented division. A goal of the book has been to show how present divisions have their roots in much earlier historical periods.