Changes

Often, one of the most contentious relationships presidents have are is with Congress, even if their own party rules both the Senate and House of Representatives in the legislative branch. The book by Edwards is now slightly dated but is still relevant in an era where contentious politics between the legislative and executive branches happen before our eyeson a nightly basis. It demonstrates how presidents have tried to take leadership and influence Congress to act on their agendas.

Historians have debated what the nature of the presidency was intended by the founders of the United States. Alexander Hamilton explained the presidency as a need needed "energy" that helped to propel the legislative branch to action. In effect, the presidency was to be the engine of government rather than the government or just another branch. More than checks and balances, these branches were meant to act and influence the other. Since Hamilton's time, the presidency has often varied between more centralized or even weak power. Perhaps what was not envisioned in the early United States is the degree to which partisan politics would sculpt policy.

Presidential administrations have often been remembered , and at least partially defined historically , by single acts or decisions. For Washington, it was the Whiskey rebellion, for Truman it was his decision to support the was in Korea and subsequently fire Douglas MacArthur, while for John Kennedy it was the decision to reach the moon before the end of the 1960s. While other actions are remembered by these and other presidents, specific speeches and decisions have defined the nation through the experiences or agendas put forth. What the book demonstrates is that beyond laws enacted or agendas pushed, it was speeches and key choices made that defined the country and presidency. 

Dunn has analyzed presidents throughout US history and has concluded there are seven fundamental laws that drive presidential leadership, including its perception by the public and other politicians. These are the law of history, the law of rhetoric, the law of theory, the law of culture, the law of character, the law of politics and the law of management. Some of these laws may have changed in their importance but they are still critical to how Americans often remembers remember and values value their presidents.

There are two major areas the president has to work with during his term. These are Congress and the public. Each is a different dynamic and one could be used against the other. Effective presidents have been able to navigate both areas through persuasion, rhetoric, effective leadership style, and using (or even manipulationof) public opinion.

One great issue facing the United States has been race, particularly in regards to African Americans. Ever since the founding of the country, presidents have often attempted to balance different interests while also coming to terms with racial prejudice and shifting public attitudes. While some presidents took very bold decisions, including pushing the 13th Amendment in the Constitution for ratification, while others created a more hostile environment for African Americans also have had to navigate sometimes hostile leadershipin times of great social and political change.

An arena of presidential leadership has been the United Nations. The United States was a founding member of the United Nations and strongly advocated its position in shaping post-World War II global politics. However, since that time, domestic interests have often collided with interests by the UN body. Presidential actions concerning the UN has have largely been , in the last two decades been , about balancing United States global leadership and domestic or even political pressure at home.

Wars have been stages for the president to lead the country. In the Civil War, Lincoln had to convince the public that the Civil War was in the nation's interest even as the effort went badly and he only just managed to do that with some timely battlefield victories. In recent wars, including Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, victory has been harder to define and the public's expectation has shifted where the wars were harder to argue as being part of the nation's interest. Conflicts have largely had negative effects on presidential powers in the last few decades and more risk than benefit, damaging public opinion and limiting the larger domestic and international agendas presidents have attempted to press.