Presidential Power From The New Deal To The New Right by Herbert S. Parmet (Professor Emeritus of History, City University of New York) is a informed and informative political analysis of the growth of presidential power in the twentieth century, ranging from the depression-era New Deal of Franklin Roosevelt through the administration of President Bill Clinton. Views drawn directly from the White House are expertly combined with extensive research and relevant documents to make for a solidly informational presentation and inherently fascinating reading, as Professor Parmet traces a path through history, pointing to the advantages and the pitfalls for presidential power in the future. Presidential Power From The New Deal To The New Right is highly recommended for academic Political Science supplemental reading lists and reference collections.

Through this book, there is a better understanding of the struggles and the hardtimes that JFK was presented with. The struggle with personal life and the issues that surrounded his presidency. It was an overall nice approach to portray his life and develop a better picture and understanding in what was going on in his life.

George Bush was a paradox. Prep school- and Ivy League-educated son of an aristocratic, rich Connecticut US Senator, he transplanted himself to Texas and (with a resounding lack of success) tried to re-invent himself as an old-school Texan. He lost two consecutive attempts to become a US Senator himself, and would have been a completely forgotten political wannabe had it not been for the charitable help of Presidents Nixon and Ford, who appointed the "wimp" to some key positions, which obviously made Bush think he was competent enough to become president, because he then ran in 1980. After being destroyed by Reagan in the primaries (and denouncing Reaganomics as "voodoo"), he then received some more remarkable charity when Reagan picked him for his running mate. After eight years as Vice President, Bush finally won the presidency (although he never would have won if he hadn't have been Reagan veep) and soon proved as incompetent at that job as Dan Quayle at a spelling bee. In short, Bush was a politically unsuccessful, rich New Englander who happened to have been picked for the right jobs by a couple of America's other worst presidents, and was then able to become President himself. An uninspiring, dull story and an OK book at best.

The biographer was a distinguished scholar at the Conference on the Bush Presidency at Hofstra University in April 1997. Although this book was essentially finished by the time of the Conference, there is at least one footnote (Steven Burgess) referring to a paper presented at Hofstra. This reviewer suggested that Parmet look at the critical books by Jack Matlock on Bush's foreign policy and Monica Crowley's book on Nixon's devastating appraisal of Bush, but there is no evidence that this occurred. P More importantly, Parmet is weak when it comes to explaining the Bush stagnation. Despite the Persian Gulf War, there ensued the slowest four-year growth period in the postwar years. Thus, it is more appropriate to refer to the Bush stagnation rather than the Bush recession. P Whereas it is possible to describe Reagan's supply-side economics as a version of "commercial Keynesianism," there would seem to be no Keynesian bones in George Bush. Bush raised taxes in 1990, in collaboration with Tom Foley, as the economy headed downward. Later he refused to sign a reasonable tax cut coming out of Congress in March 1992. Instead he relied primarily on a change in withholding of income taxes which produced a brief upturn in the fourth quarter followed by sluggish growth in early 1993 when the tax rebates were smaller due to the previous tax cuts in 1992. P Readers interested in a critique of Bush's economic policy may want to read the contribution of Timothy Canova after the publication of the proceedings by Greenwood. 92. P

To me as a non-American it has always been a puzzle why George Bush is generally regarded as mediocre and after reading the thoughtful and very complete biography by mr. Parmet I have not found the answer.

Bush has been a succesful businessman after a distinguisged service in the Air Force during the war. He has served as a Senator, as head of the CIA, as the Ambassador to China in an extremely interesting period in Sino-American relations and, finally, as a Vice-President to a very succesful President. What more can you ask as preparation for the most powerful job on earth? It is true that he failed to get elected twice, but is it not a credit to any man when he overcomes defeat to embark on such an interesting career?

The view which I get from this biography is on a balanced man who understood politics very well and also had the gift of personal integrity unmatched by most of his predecessors and certainly not by his successor.

It is true that he was not the greatest of communicators and PR guys, but there one should not forget that he had a very difficult, if not impossible act to follow. It is to his credit that he did not even try to imitate Reagan, but that he led the country in his own personal style.

One should forgive for being biased, as a European, to his Foreign Policy, since my understanding for and interest in the domestic scene is limited.

Bush Presidency can be characterised by formidable leadership in two distinguished events. His conduct of the events of the Gulf War was exemplary. Powell get's a lot of the credit, but I feel that is, partly, undeserved. It was the President's deciding leadership which effectively stopped Saddam's adventure in Kuwait. Of all the wars in which the US got involved after 1945 the handling of the Gulf War was the most succesful. It has been an act of extraordinary diplomacy and brinkmanship to get e.g. Saudi Arabia and Israel on one line. Haven't we all been worried about the Tel Aviv reaction after the first scud missiles hit the country? Personnaly I will not forget the relief I felt when, in the middle of the night in Europe, I saw and listened to Bush anouncing the invasion. This was clearly a leader who believed in what he was doing and who felt to be in full control, aware of the risks of his venture.

A second event has been the unification of Germany. After all the rhetoric of the Reagan administration, it was under Bush that this extraordinary process was done swiftly and with great succes and, most astonishing, without bloodshed. I am aware that the prime players were Kohl and Gorbachov, but it could never have been done without the full support and the tacit agreement of the US. Indeed, by taking a silent and , overtly, modest role Bush did exactly the right thing. I don't think under Reagan, it would have been as smooth.

All this is reconted in this book in fine scholarly detail, which distinguishes this author from the many, more sensational, political writings one sees so often these days.

I think this is a fine book about a succesful Presidency and a man of integrity one could only wish would emerge more on the political scene.

Mr. Parmet's version of the Nixon biography was very much scattered in many different directions. I did find the story of Richard Nixon quite interesting - when he bothered to talk about it. The course of the book was slow going to start with. Add in the fact there was 2/3 of too much in-depth information not necessary to the bi-line, to only 1/3 about the man himself. I found myself often losing focus throughout the book. My opinion is there has got to be a better Nixon biography out there to read, and my advice would be to find it. Don't bother with this one.

I consider this biography to be a disappointment. It is not a "true" catalogue of Nixon's life nor is it an interpretation of his presidency. Nor is it a portrait of "Nixon's America" as the title implies. Whatever this book is, it will not enlighten the reader about who Richard Nixon was or his term in office. There has to be a better book on this subject. I hope.

Perhaps a better title would be "Nixon Juxtaposed." A standard biography focuses on the person,up close and either distorting or ignoring the context. This text pulls the camera back to a distance where the lense incorporates the events and other personalities which were operating simultaneously, giving Nixon a context. And with the broader lense of context comes further revelation. "Nixon and His America" should be read after two or three "hard" biographies. When you think you know Nixon up close and in detail, step back and understand him in bas relief.
If you are of an age that you can remember Nixon as Vice President and forward, then you can participate in this book by comparing your recollections of events with this account. You may or may not adjust your perception. We are all products of our environment and the age in which we live. Nixon was no exception. He, as all of us, had many facets. "Nixon and his America" reveals yet another.