Genovese joins Sidney Milkis and Michael Nelson (The American Presidency: Origins and Development, 1998) in producing an authoritative and informative account of the historical development of presidential power. The work focuses on addressing a central problem that teacher-scholars know all too well: “Students today are a-historical; they know virtually nothing about any president who came before George Bush” (p. ix). The writing is accessible to an undergraduate and general audience. The author also engages readers with attention to the personas and sometimes humorous peculiarities of past presidents, including the enigmatic Madison and the vibrant Jackson, as he astutely situates individual presidents' short- and long-term contributions to the office.

The book is organized chronologically, and Genovese does not endeavor to forge a comprehensive theory of presidential power. He does, however, draw useful, if intuitive, distinctions between the formal (constitutional) and informal (extraconstitutional) foundations of presidential influence. Borrowing from his previous work (with Thomas Cronin, The Paradoxes of the American Presidency, 1997), Genovese plays upon the contradictory leadership expectations and constitutional ambiguities that presidents have faced since the beginning of the Republic. These include the systemic checks and balances aimed at reigning in presidential power and the wording of Article II, which provides the basis both for restrictive and expansive interpretations of presidential authority by Congress, the Court, and the electorate.

The evolution of the presidency, Genovese posits, is “a story of elasticity and adaptability; of leadership and clerkship; of strong and weak officeholders; of change and stasis” (p. 16). The themes accentuated throughout the brief studies of individual presidencies—the pivotal role of precedents, foreign policy actions, popular politics, struggles with Congress, changing economic and international contexts—emphasize broad historical cycles of rising and declining presidential influence. Genovese's central objective is to highlight the ways in which the office has been transformed across time without any fundamental restructuring of the Constitution. He notes that when presidential power has surged forward, the “great” and “near great” presidents found themselves in challenging governing positions. The common threads that link such icons as Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Franklin Roosevelt include skill and the selfless pursuit of a higher purpose in the bid to expand presidential power. It is the combination of individual political acumen, governing context, and the demands upon the presidency relative to the larger American political system to which Genovese fittingly credits the adaptability of the institution to changing domestic and international circumstances across time.

Historians may find one of the book's main virtues, brevity, to be a liability. Because Genovese cannot cover the intricacies of each administration he is compelled to set forth the high and low points and the major historical developments succinctly. An ambitious “political time” framework á la Stephen Skowronek (The Politics Presidents Make, 1997) is not fully developed, although useful “periodic” distinctions are drawn. Genovese skillfully crafts a thoughtful, well-documented volume that will surely be appreciated in undergraduate courses on the presidency and political development.

Genovese's concise analysis of turning points in the modern era (since Franklin Roosevelt) and the challenges recent presidents have faced, particularly with respect to economic and domestic policy and the end of the Cold War, is well balanced. Above all, the concluding chapter is insightful and bound to spark lively classroom debates. By underscoring the ebb and flow of presidential influence over three centuries, Genovese reminds us that those elements of our “leadership adverse,'' separated system that simultaneously sanction and constrict executive power—and are often blamed for gridlock—are not wholly unique to the modern presidency. The continuity that connects the “traditional” and “modern” presidency is the enduring search for equilibrium comprising bold yet democratically accountable leadership.

What of modern presidents' attempts to surmount systemic obstacles and leave legacies commensurate with the “great” presidents of times passed? Should Neustadt's focus on personal power continue to orient presidency scholars today? Presidential Power: Forging the Presidency for the Twenty-First Century is a superlative collection of articles that critically examine Neustadt's influential legacy. Shapiro, Kumar, and Jacobs have produced a volume that rivals Michael Nelson's sixth edition of The Presidency and the Political System (2000) in theoretical scope and surpasses it in sophisticated empirical data analysis. Their volume is appropriate for advanced undergraduates and should be required reading for graduate courses on the modern presidency.

Derived from a Columbia University conference in 1996, the essays in Presidential Power take up a range of issues pertaining to Neustadt's power approach. The authors test key hypotheses, raise new questions, and challenge core assumptions. The book is organized into six parts, and a senior scholar provides an overview and commentary on the essays at the beginning of each section. Chapters by George Edwards and John Gunnell place Neustadt's approach within traditions of American political science. The second section covers issues of personal power—bargaining with Congress, the timing of presidential speechmaking, and advisory structures. The third and fourth parts focus on the institutionalization of the presidency and the position of the executive relative to other systemic actors. The fifth section discusses presidential polling and media communication. The concluding chapters consider the effect of Clinton's proposed impeachment as well as a somewhat plaintive essay by Neustadt himself on the future of presidency research.

If the essays strike a melancholic chord with Neustadt, it is because the objectives of the authors tend to be at odds with the original purpose of his classic study. Whereas that work was meant as a primer for officeholders on the practice of personal power, these essays are heavily weighted toward rational choice assumptions and the “new institutionalism.” They focus less on individual skill and are far more concerned with concrete theoretical development in presidential scholarship. As Jacobs and Shapiro note in the concluding chapter, Neustadt's work “no longer offers a reliable roadmap embodying the consensus among contemporary scholars” (p. 489). Many of the contributors reject “Neustadt's emphasis on the personal basis of power in favor of an analysis of institutions and political structures” (p. 491). At the same time, some of the underlying themes of Neustadt's classic work, including “institutional partisanship” (the view that presidents should prevail over other systemic actors), presidents' relationship with the public, and reputational issues, are prevalent in the essays.

Neustadt is critiqued from a variety of angles, and some disconfirming evidence is presented alongside traces of his well-established insight on presidential power. Several authors take issue with Neustadt's choice to hold the institutional context of the presidency constant. Charles Cameron, for instance, considers how party control of Congress shifts legislative leadership from “coordination” under unified government to “strategic bargaining” through the veto power under divided government. Others, like Nolan McCarty and Rose Razaghian, suggest that presidents engage in more “strategic anticipation” than the bargaining model profferred by Neustadt. As they attempt to control the bureaucracy through appointments, presidents may create thev false impression of a “honeymoon” early in their term by saving controversial appointments until later. Others, such as Bert Rockman, are skeptical of Neustadt's organizational prescriptions for the presidency. Neustadt touts Franklin Roosevelt's “multiple advocacy” approach as the key to success, yet Reagan, for example, was largely successful (at least in his first term) through a far more structured organization. Renée Smith finds that presidents can act as “teachers” through “self-made happenings,” but they do not always maximize the potential of “prestige” with the public. Public approval does not appear to drive decisions on the timing of presidential speeches.

Embedded in the collection of articles are other considerable insights, controversial theses, and sophisticated methods to which a brief review cannot do justice. Some of the articles draw data from archival material (Matthew Dickson and Diane Heith); Robert Lieberman compares Neustadt's approach to Skowronek's “regimes” in political time; and Congress-centered arguments about legislative delegation to the president are presented (David Epstein and Sharyn O'Halloran). All told, the collection accentuates how the new wave of research on the presidency focuses on the institutional and structural constraints on presidential power and the executive's direct connection to public opinion. This approach is at variance with Neustadt's emphasis on the personal basis of presidential power and “insider” reputation.

Not all scholars will agree with the general perspective of Presidential Power. The “psychological” presidency (e.g., James David Barber, The Presidential Character 1992) and interconnecting issues of personality, leadership style, and presidential politics (Fred I. Greenstein, The Presidential Difference, 2000; Alexander L. George & Juliette L. George Presidential Personality and Performance, 1998; Erwin C. Hargrove, Presidential Leadership, 1966) are deemphasized. Nonetheless, the critiques of Neustadt are a tribute to his pioneering work in charting the course for presidency scholarship. The essays also reflect the theoretical maturation of the subfield in recent decades as scholars continue to map out new directions in presidency research.