This is the sequel to the authors' previous study, Governing the White House, which examined White House organization and process in the Hoover through Johnson administrations. Drawing on scores of White House documents from the presidential libraries, Karen Hult and Charles Walcott assess the development of the chief of staff and staff secretariat positions, as well as several other institutional components of the White House, such as the Office of Public Liaison, the White House Counsel's office, the Office of Communications, the Office of Congressional Relations, and the Office of Speechwriting and Research.

The authors argue that in terms of organizational innovation and the institutionalization of structures, the presidency became more distinctively “modern” during the Nixon, Ford, and Carter years (p. 165). In their previous study of the Hoover through Johnson period, which they refer to as the “early modern presidency,” the authors indicated the prevalence of a catch-as-catch-can approach to White House structure, with the notable exception of the Eisenhower administration, where sound process and organization received top priority.

As noted in their first volume, many of the key institutional innovations of the Eisenhower era, such as the chief of staff position, the cabinet secretariat, and the Planning Board and Operations Coordinating Board of the National Security Council, were abolished in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations in favor of ad hoc task forces. This informal approach to policy led to lax coordination, duplication of effort, and a clear decline in institutional memory.

In Empowering the White House, Hult and Walcott indicate that the three presidencies of the 1970s had greater continuity in institutional development. With the exception of such entities as the National Economic Council and the Office of Homeland Security, the authors suggest that the White Houses of the Nixon, Ford, and Carter years “generally resemble the White House of today”(p. viii).

The Nixon White House became the cornerstone of the modern institutional presidency. Not only did Nixon reconstitute key organizational innovations from the Eisenhower years, including the White House chief of staff and cabinet secretariat, but he also elevated the Johnson era speechwriting and domestic policy units to full-fledged institutionalized status.

While the authors argue that a general approach, which they call “the standard model,” is most effective in “allowing presidents to pursue their policy and political objectives amid the myriad constraints they confront,” they stop short of saying that there is “one best way” to organize the White House. They do contend, however, that “the structure and operations of contemporary White Houses can make a difference in presidential politics, policy, and performance” (p. 2).

The decisions of Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter to abandon the chief of staff position had critical consequences—mostly negative. Ford's “spokes-of-the-wheel” system, for example, allowed nine individuals direct, unmediated access to the president. Inadequate staffing led to “errors of fact and conflicts with previous presidential statements” (p. 33). It also resulted in what Press Secretary Ron Nessen described as a “pretty loose and formless” structure in senior staff meetings in which “some of the people attending don't seem to understand what the purpose is” (p. 33). Although Donald Rumsfeld was appointed “staff coordinator” on September 15, 1974, five weeks after Ford became president, the staff management system, in the words of one key participant, “did not work nearly as well as the Haldeman White House did” (p. 35).

President Carter also adopted a spokes-of-the-wheel approach, saying: “I never have wanted to have a major chief of staff between me and the people who worked for me” (p. 38). Carter's staff members were young and inexperienced, and a premium was placed on loyalty to the president. This informal system engendered chaos and confusion. According to the authors, “[w]hat Carter did not appreciate was the vital role played by the White House chief of staff in organizing the president's time, helping him set priorities, managing the paper flow, and limiting access to those officials who needed decisions only the president could make” (p. 38).

Although deinstitutionalizing a structural innovation like the chief of staff position had adverse consequences, Hult and Walcott suggest that structural innovation is not without costs. For example, Nixon's White House Counsel, John Dean, demonstrated an inventive flair for meddling in the affairs of other staff units by asserting broad authority over matters that had not previously been under the purview of the White House Counsel's office. Dean's efforts highlighted “the recurrent competition over organizational turf in the Nixon White House” (p. 108). Similarly, Carter's office of White House Counsel became increasingly engaged in the policy process. At one point, the staff was almost totally absorbed by matters dealing with Israel and the Middle East (p. 113). Under Lloyd Cutler, the office “suddenly was transferred from a quiet, lawyerly operation that tended to legal business to a highly visible force in shaping and executing presidential policies” (p. 114).

Hult and Walcott indicate some fairly clear lines of continuity in White House organization across the three presidencies in their study, despite efforts by Ford and Carter to initially abandon elements of Nixon's staffing arrangements. Although they point to variation in the nature of structuring the White House, the propensity to retain or reestablish key components of White House structure appears to be increasingly irresistible. No president today would seriously consider trying to get by without a chief of staff. Even Bill Clinton's initial appointment of childhood friend Mack McLarty, in what could be described as a “weak” chief of staff system, eventually gave way to a more hierarchical and disciplined “strong” chief of staff system under the direction of Leon Panetta.

Although the Hult and Walcott study adds significant insight to the body of work on the institutional presidency, it is at times a bit tedious in setting forth the history of White House units. For example, the discussion of interest group outreach in Chapter 4 could easily be condensed into a few pages in the authors' previous chapter on public outreach. On the other hand, while inundating the reader with detail on White House units that deal with domestic policy, the authors barely scratch the surface of arguably the most important institutional component of the modern presidency—the National Security Council (NSC) and its staff. Granted, entire books have been devoted to this topic. Consequently, the authors may have considered elaboration on the NSC to be redundant with other works. Nonetheless, it is a significant oversight to omit at least a chapter-length discussion of the evolution of the NSC in a book that focuses on institutional development.

Despite these shortcomings, Empowering the White House is a worthwhile addition to the literature on the institutional presidency. Refreshingly, the authors do not seem to embrace the long-standing practice of the political science community to elevate the personal styles and idiosyncratic proclivities of presidents over proven procedures and process when it comes to White House organization. At least on the domestic side of policy, the work of Hult and Walcott goes a long way toward establishing a blueprint for the type of White House organization and procedures that can serve presidents well in their decision making and administration. There may not be one best way, but there are clear indicators of patterns and processes that are worthy of emulation. The learning curve does not need to be nearly as long as some presidents have made it.