The Presidents Club: Inside the World's Most Exclusive Fraternity (paperback)

The New York times described this book correctly... "In what reads like the longest Time cover article ever written, Ms. Gibbs and Mr. Duffy create a sequence of baton-passing presidential relationships, offer a précis to characterize each neatly, and then cherry-pick the evidence to support the presidents' various involvements. I have to agree. Both authors, Time editors, can write well. This book is entertaining even if it is of limited informational value. Most readers will have read much of the information before in the literally hundreds of biographies, memoirs, articles, op-eds etc. that have been printed previously about these subjects. I learned a few new things. Many of the facts I learned were at the time of their occurrence classified. Still this book which spans 530 pages plus a 100 page bibliography could have related these kernels in a 20 page article. Additionally, the book lacks footnotes so the reader cannot fact check these episodes easily. A scholarly book must be able to be fact checked. This book cannot be without burdensome research. So it is a pop-history book and as such it should at least be brief. Further, the authors treat each subject no matter how odious his conduct with kid gloves. They are very charitable in their descriptions of foibles. As far as original sources go, the authors point to personal interviews with some of the more recent subjects, but they clearly conduct these interviews gingerly. They do not probe. It is as if they wanted to maintain their access to current and past presidents by earning a reputation as an easy interviewer who is not overly critical. This is where they should have at least asked more critical questions. Spoiler alert: I learned the following which was new information for me: Nixon derailed the Vietnam peace process in which Johnson was engaged to increase his actual and electoral votes. Johnson was really on the cusp of a peace process when he obtained the South Vietnamese President's consent to attend a meeting with the Viet Cong. However, Nixon through back channels urged the leader to hold off claiming he would get a better deal with a new administration assuming Nixon won the office. Johnson was aware of the betrayal but kept the information classified. Many thousands of American boys and Vietnamese citizens died so Nixon could assure his win. For that treasonous act, Nixon should have gone to prison. Instead he became president.

When Bush 41 was engaged in obtaining the agreement of all the gulf states at the U.N. to sanction U.S. action on behalf of Kuwait, Carter was happily pleading with all of them to deny approval of the mission. This too was treason. No private citizen can negotiate foreign policy on behalf of the U.S. unless explicitly asked by the president or his agents. Bush 41 was livid and rightly so. Carter was a wild card especially when it came to rogue nations like Korea. Much of the subsequent presidents' interaction with him was designed to clip his wings. Again I would have liked to read the source material on these incidents, but doing so would have been too burdensome.

Both Nixon's Watergate debacle and Clinton's sex and perjury scandals were dealt with very kindly, gingerly in fact. The fact that Bush 43 was denied admittance to the University of Texas School of law even though his father was head of the CIA, a rich oilman, and a previously elected congressman was not mentioned. His father's successes did not buy Bush 43 admission ,because he didn't have the grades and test scores. As a result he attended Harvard Business School and had a hate on for Trial Lawyers associations his whole life. He failed at every business he tried until his father helped him buy a piece of the Texas Rangers with family money. Even though he was general manager, the agreement with the other owners and the condition upon which he was sold the shares was that he would have no executive decision making powers. He was to be a mascot and PR person only. Nor did Bush 43 receive a hearty welcome home to Dallas. Nevertheless, the authors tell us none of this easily ferreted out information on Bush 43. Bush 43's attempt to fund faith based initiatives with Federal monies was a clear violation of our 1st amendment. Even though his view on this aspect of his presidency was lofty, it demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding of the constitution which he swore to uphold. The authors don't criticize this conduct. They merely state that it occurred. The authors clearly want to get the reputation that they are interviewers who should be given access to current and future presidents and other leaders.
Had this book been titled: The Institution of the Presidency from Hoover to Obama and the interactions of past and current presidents, few people would have purchased the book. However, that is indeed what it is about. There is no "club." There were no "club" meetings and no "club" minutes. Some of these "meetings" took place no more often that twice in a year either by phone or in person if that. These authors scrounged up every tiny interaction, every nuance, every wink and nod between them and drummed up a 641 page book about them. Surely, they were paid by the word. People who like to read history/political books will like this. I would not have read this had my book club not chosen it and I suspect some of the other members would not have either. I suspect most will not read all of it and many will only read 1/4th of it. So don't believe the rave reviews listed here. Read the New York times review online for a more accurate review.

We also know that the Presidents care about how history portrays them. I suspect that Bush 43 will go down as one of the worst presidents in history. Eisenhower will be deemed a mediocre president. Kennedy will be thought of as mediocre but with promise. Johnson will be deemed the best president for civil rights and history will judge him to be one of the better presidents. Both Nixon and Clinton in spite of their personal flaws will be judged to have been good presidents with Clinton judged to have been one of the better presidents. Luckily, our system of checks and balances only permits the president to have one lasting legacy that could really hurt us. He can appoint federal judges for life. Currently we are stuck with "Dubya's" choices of Scalia, Thomas and Roberts. They are all regressive choices. Obama has said that Thomas is not qualified to sit on the Supreme court. There are many who agree with him but who fear speaking out will cause them to be labeled.