Reviews for Presidents above party

The average rating for Presidents above party based on 2 reviews is 4 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2008-02-10 00:00:00 Denny Linhorst In his preface, Ralph Ketcham highlights the more recent trend among scholars to emphasise and even celebrate the development of faction in the American political system. Many scholars consider the growth of a two-party system as a positive and necessary development which secured the success of America’s representative political government. Yet, according to Ketcham, historical studies of the first six presidencies that do not take into consideration the founders’ nonpartisan ideals, as well as their strong convictions about the importance of positive, active, and unifying leadership, serve to “infect the public philosophy of one era with the biases of another.” (ix) The fact is that the first six presidents, from Washington to John Quincy Adams, “despite many substantial differences in both ideology and political practice, shared an essentially nonpartisan conception of the presidency.” This is an ideology that “contrasts importantly with both “partisan” and “popular” conceptions of the presidency influential in the twentieth century.” (xi) Ketcham begins his book by looking at ideas of leadership in Anglo-America from about 1600 to 1789. The Puritans, Whigs, and Tories, mostly agreed on what constituted successful leadership. Lord Bolingbroke best articulated the qualities of such a leader, in his influential The Patriot King. Always mindful of the public good, a patriot King, according to Bollingbroke, would instil a spirit of liberty and virtue into the people by transcending party, faction, and self-interest. Furthermore, Ketcham calls attention to the importance of Augustan neoclassicism as a force in shaping American thought. The debate between the ancients and the moderns offered many American thinkers a window into understanding political institutions and ideas of leadership. It was mostly the unabashed embrace of vice and faction that disturbed Tories like Swift, Pope, and Bolingbroke, who thought that politics had degenerated into state of absolute corruption and venality during the age of Walpole. Ketcham does not mean to suggest that prominent American thinkers sided with the Tories and their critique of commercialism and modernity. Rather he claims that as a cultural and political dispute, the debate between the ancients and moderns had a lasting impact on the discourse of American political thought, especially on questions regarding the qualities of leadership. Most especially, it was the “moral thrust” of these Tories that had “a massive impact on the Anglo-American mind in the eighteenth century.” (41) Ketcham then proceeds to look at the political atmosphere in post-Revolutionary America. Despite the antimonarchical sentiments of 1776, the idea of a free and open society governed by a single legislature continued to frighten most Americans. Federalists and Antifederalists alike were not quite prepared to accept the consequences of the more radical aspects of Revolutionary American thought, such as those articulated by Thomas Paine. Indeed, most political theorists “remained committed to the ancient propositions that good government required virtue in the ruler(s) and that positive, perhaps even energetic, action to give public effect to that virtue was a crucial responsibility of those who ruled, whether monarchs, elected officials, or citizens” (81) In other words, the idea of liberty in post-Revolutionary America did not come to mean the right for citizens to do whatsoever they pleased, especially if one’s action could be construed as harmful to the general welfare of the nation. On the contrary, the idea of a strong, virtuous, and moral ruler who ruled above selfish, petty interests, was considered indispensable by most political theorists who wished to see America’s experiment with republican government prove successful. Franklin, Madison, Hamilton, et al., wished to blend Augustan neoclassic conceptions of leadership and virtue with the more Whig notions of commercialism and nation building. The conceptions of nonpartisan leadership among the first seven presidents demonstrate this intellectual tension. Notwithstanding the rancour and, at times, bitter party strife from 1789-1828, the first six presidents nevertheless still believed strongly in the ideals of nonpartisan leadership. Washington’s farewell address eloquently demonstrates the widespread belief that “the alternate domination of one faction over another . . . has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, [and] is itself a frightful despotism. (93) Yet the convergence on this Bollingbrokeian principle ended with the ascension of Andrew Jackson. Hitherto, party and faction had been accepted as an inevitability of human nature, to be discouraged and kept as harmless as possible. Martin Van Buren and Andrew Jackson helped formulate an alternative to this vision. They understood “the political party as not only a device for achieving a principled goal but also an organization worthy in its own right and therefore to be nourished generation on generation.” (143) Both Jackson’s populist belief that the chief executive was the direct representative of the American people, and his support for states’ rights helped to transform ideas of leadership. It now became a duty for the American public to organize into parties and combat the evil forces in society, while it also became the duty for the president to “crystallize the sentiments of the common people and to guide and sustain a political party as the instrument of their protection against intrusion, monopoly, and oppression.” (154) In his last chapters, Ketcham casts a broader net, so to speak, and situates changing notions of leadership within a much wider historical context. Republican ideals faced a pronounced dilemma as Western civilizations were confronted with the cultural and moral crises of modernity. (223) How could --and can-- republican ideals exist alongside seemingly axiomatic Liberal beliefs of the purpose of government as simply a negative instrument of limitation and control? In particular, what becomes of the role of executive leadership in liberal democratic societies? It is Ketcham’s contention that one way to begin to answer these questions is to recognize that many founding fathers, including the six presidents, sought to neutralize and deemphasise partisanship rather than celebrate it. (231-235) Professor Ketcham’s book received glowing reviews. In The Journal of American History, William Pencak called Presidents Above Party “one of the most important books ever written on the early national period,” which “invites reevaluation of the nature of American political leadership and the purpose of national politics.” Another reviewer praised Ketcham for making “the richness and complexity” of the early American presidency “more accessible to us than ever before.” Perhaps the best feature of Presidents Above Party, is that it sheds light upon America’s current political system, inviting readers to question whether the model, as it now exists, is what the founders had intended.

Review # 2 was written on 2009-06-24 00:00:00 Jane Kowalski Probably one of the most lucid products of the republican synthesis, not least because Ketcham doesn't strain to place people or policies in ideological boxes. This study of the presidency is a useful guide for understanding early American culture in general. It's also an unusually clear explanation of key points in Jacksonian democracy. I recommend Shane's review as a summary of the book. Of course, Ketcham's book should be a read as a study of political ideals, not a study of politics.