Eyewitness To Power: The Essence of Leadership Nixon to Clinton

Eyewitness To Power: The Essence of Leadership Nixon to Clinton Paperback

by David Gergen (Author)

Leadership: The Ultimate Guide
Few Americans have observed the ups and downs of presidential leadership more closely over the past thirty years — from Nixon to Clinton and Watergate to Whitewater — than David Gergen. A White House adviser to four presidents, both Republican and Democrat, he offers a vivid, behind-the-scenes account of their struggles to exercise power and draws from them key lessons for leaders of the future. Taking us inside the administrations of Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Clinton, Gergen reflects on everything from why Nixon was the best global strategist among recent presidents to how the Bill-and-Hillary seesaw rocked the White House during Clinton’s tenure as president. 
Gergen argues that, as the twenty-first century begins, our success as a country will depend heavily upon the success of a new generation in power. Drawing upon his many experiences in the White House, he offers seven vital elements for future leaders. What they must have, he says, are inner mastery; a central, compelling purpose rooted in moral values; a capacity to persuade; skills in working within the system; a fast start; a strong, effective team; and a passion that inspires others to keep the flame alive.

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com Review

David Gergen is probably the only person to have served at high levels in both the Reagan and Clinton White Houses–not to mention his posts in the Nixon and Ford administrations. He’s a consummate Washington insider, a man who appears regularly as a centrist political commentator on PBS’s NewsHour with Jim Lehrer and works as editor at large for U.S. News & World Report. Eyewitness to Power, his first book, draws upon this unique experience. It’s part memoir, part political history, part portrait of White House culture, but it’s mostly a meditation on what it takes to be a great political leader. Gergen focuses on the four presidents he has known best–Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Clinton–and offers pointed assessments of each. He calls Reagan “the best leader in the White House since Franklin Roosevelt,” and says Clinton “is one of the smartest men ever elected president and has done some of the dumbest things.” Gergen does not hesitate to offer harsh criticism: Nixon was hateful, Ford was overwhelmed by his predecessor’s scandals, Reagan was often detached, and Clinton was not in control of his appetites. Yet there’s a reflective admiration for each man.

What makes this volume rise above the mountain of books on leadership (usually written for executives) is its spot-on observations about the way Washington works, drawn from years of experience: “Republicans like hierarchy and order; they’re not like Democrats, as I saw later on, who thrive on chaos and creativity”; the Nixon view of Watergate “was the same as the Victorians had of adultery: the sin was not in the doing of it but in getting caught”; “In most institutions, the power of a leader grows over time. A CEO, a university president, the head of a union, acquire stature through the quality of their long-term performance. The presidency is just the opposite: power tends to evaporate quickly.”

Gergen concludes by describing the seven leadership qualities a great president must have: personal integrity, a sense of mission, the ability to persuade, the ability to work with other politicians, a strong start after inauguration, skilled advisers, and the ability to inspire. Those traits, of course, will serve people well from all walks of life–and Eyewitness to Power will appeal not just to readers interested in the presidency but to anyone occupying a position of responsibility (or interested in getting there). –John J. Miller –This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

From Publishers Weekly

Few observers are as qualified to comment on the merits of presidential leadership as is Gergen, having served as a speechwriter and adviser to fourchief executives. In these finely etched tales of his time with Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton, Gergen not only explains what made these men tick but also draws broader lessons on what makes for presidential greatness. It begins, he says, with strength of character; then a president must have a clear and compelling vision of what he wants to accomplish, and must be able to communicate this vision to the American people. Organizationally, he must be able to work with other centers of political power, particularly Congress; be decisive in his early actions in office; and have around him strong and prudent advisors. Finally, he must inspire. This is a lot to ask of any leader, and Gergen admits that none of those for whom he worked quite had it all, though in his estimation Reagan came closest. Both Nixon and Clinton were men of brilliance, he says, yet harbored deeply flawed characters; Ford was honest and capable but never quite defined his goals. Reagan, for all his considerable virtuesAcourage, conviction, visionAtoo often allowed his inattention to detail and hands-off management style to derail his intentions. While some may debate Gergen’s assessments, his own eye for detail and knack for narrative are to be admired. He brings to life the everyday world of the presidency and provides telling portraits of these fallible yet fascinating leaders. (Sept.)
Copyright 2000 Reed Business Information, Inc. –This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

From Library Journal

The modern age has produced a series of disappointing presidents. Gergen, an insider in both Republican (Nixon, Ford, Reagan) and Democratic (Clinton) administrations, here calls on his considerable insights and experiences in an attempt to figure out why presidents have so often failed. He also offers suggestions to future presidents on the skills necessary to succeed in the White House. Gergen distill the essence of leadership to several core principles: recognizing that leadership starts from within; promoting a compelling purpose; possessing a capacity to persuade; working well within the system; getting a sure, quick start; having strong, prudent advisers; and inspiring others to carry out a mission. Balanced, timely, thoughtful, well written, insightful, and full of insider accounts, Gergen’s excellent book should be on the reading list of both presidential candidates as well as anyone interested in understanding the dilemma of presidential leadership. Recommended for public libraries.DMichael A. Genovese, Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles
Copyright 2000 Reed Business Information, Inc. –This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

From Booklist

Gergen stumbled into the Nixon White House and later served the Ford, Reagan, and Clinton administrations. His focus here is on the nature of leadership, particularly the leadership strengths and weaknesses of his four presidential bosses and, in a final chapter, the types of leadership Americans should seek in electing future presidents. Currently U.S. News & World Report editor-at-large, public-service professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, and News Hour with Jim Lehrer commentator, Gergen seems a quintessential “centrist,” more fiscally conservative than many Democrats, more socially liberal than many Republicans. His analysis of the achievements and inadequacies of the presidents he served is nuanced and enlightening. Intimate without wallowing in tabloid tidbits, Gergen’s description of his work at the White House offers a valuable sidelight on history, plus pointed thoughts on what qualities citizens truly need from their presidents. Mary Carroll
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved –This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

Review

Robert A. Rankin The Philadelphia Inquirer Superb…Gergen is a masterful journalist…fascinating…fair…generous…and wise.

Michael Beschloss author of Taking Charge: The Johnson White House Tapes, 1963-1964 A preeminent political analyst and public servant reveals intriguing hidden dimensions of the four presidents he served and brings us a meditation on presidential power that, like its author, is shrewd, thoughtful, and wise.

Jon Margolis The New York Times Book Review Perhaps nothing distinguishes Gergen’s book from other White House memoirs more than the fundamental sympathy and respect he shows toward all the presidents he served.

About the Author

David Gergen is a prominent national journalist, teacher, and public lecturer. He is a professor of public service at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and codirector of the school’s Center for Public Leadership. He is also editor-at-large at U.S. News & World Report and is a regular political analyst on television.

Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.

Chapter Nine: Riding the Roller Coaster

The Bill Clinton I found in the Oval Office that summer was very different from the fellow who had taken the oath in January. He had wanted to be a transformational president, he had told James MacGregor Burns and Georgia Sorenson shortly before his inauguration. Jefferson, Lincoln, the two Roosevelts, Kennedy — they would be his models. “Not for eighty years — not since Woodrow Wilson had come to office — had a new president offered such a considered strategy of leadership,” they wrote.

By summer, Clinton had seen his hopes go smash. As he opened up to me in our early talks, his frustrations flowed to the surface. As he and Hillary had come riding into town, their ideals flying high, they felt they had met resistance at every turn. They were angry with Republicans and the press for denying them a honeymoon. He was also unsparing in self-criticism. Somehow, he felt, he had allowed himself to get way out of position, too far over to the left, and he had to get back to the political center, which he described as his natural home. He recognized that he had presented no core vision and had never come up with the right public message after his inauguration. He took blame as well for what had gone wrong in the White House, right down to the disorganization in his staff.

Worst of all, he had lost his self-confidence. He acted as if the stuffing had been knocked out of him, a far cry from earlier days. As governor, he had always brimmed with optimism. Whatever might befall him on a Monday, he would wake up Tuesday thinking it was a brand-new world, waiting to be conquered. Mistakes were what you learned from, not what you brooded over — or not for long. The first months in Washington had taken a cruel toll, especially because his ambitions had been so lofty.

But if Clinton was down, he wasn’t out. He was never a quitter. Instead, he liked to wear out his opposition by hanging in — or, as he put it, “showing up for work every day.” He had wanted this office since he was a kid, of course, and he wasn’t going to surrender it without a fight. Just as he had rebounded from defeats as a governor and campaigner, he was prepared to do so now as president.

Men who make it to the presidency usually have a reserve of internal strengths they can call upon when in trouble. He certainly did, and in the months that followed, I saw them all emerge: resilience, persuasiveness, a luminous intelligence, courage, a capacity to learn from mistakes, and a deep caring about the public good. They are the best of Bill Clinton — the qualities that carried him to the White House and allowed him to become one of the five presidents of the twentieth century who served two full terms.

Never in my time at the White House did I see him engage in anything unethical or underhanded. There was no corner-cutting or finagling. I knew he still had an eye for women. As men do, we might talk of one or another we had seen during the day. The Vice President liked to join in stories, too. But so far as I could tell, that was all there was — talk. I brought with me an attractive, young, intelligent assistant, Dianna Pierce, who was frequently with him alone, and he never made a pass or an inappropriate remark. Nor did he to any of her female friends. The Clinton I was seeing was a man at his Sunday best.

Not that he was perfect. I’ve known some public men with tempers, but his was the worst by a magnitude of at least two. Early on, I flew with him to Chicago on a small version of Air Force One, and when he learned that small details of his airport visit with Mayor Richard Daley had been mishandled, he erupted so violently that I wished I had a parachute.

Bill Clinton getting mad is like Mount Vesuvius erupting. At the White House, he would usually blow at least once in the morning and straight into the face of George Stephanopoulos. Perhaps he felt that George was the son he never had and could trust him to take it. Certainly, Stephanopoulos bore up with a stoicism that was commendable. He sensed that if he didn’t talk back, Clinton would cool off and, within a few minutes, we could get back to work. A White House photographer once captured the two of them, Clinton exploding and Stephanopoulos passive, their faces inches apart. I imagine that negative went the way of Rose Mary Woods’s lost tape. Though brief, those scenes were jarring.

From the beginning, there were also signs of trouble at home. A chipper president would arrive at the office in the morning, almost whistling as he whipped through papers. A phone would ring. It was a call from upstairs at the residence. He would listen, utter a few words, but as we started back to work, his mood would darken, his attention wander, and hot words would spew out. Had we seen the outrageous things his enemies were saying about him now? Why hadn’t we attacked? Why was he working so hard and getting so little credit? Why was his staff screwing him again? What, I would wonder, had she said to him now?

Perhaps I was overreacting when I also thought that this White House was too paranoid about the outside world. Nothing matched the distrust I had seen in the Nixon White House. But it was that experience — and the price Nixon paid — which made me extrasensitive as I listened to President Clinton, the First Lady, and others in their entourage talk of countless enemies. Sure, I argued, there are folks out there who would like to do you in, but there are plenty of others — in the press, on Capitol Hill, over in Georgetown, up in New York — who will give you a fair shake if you approach them in the right spirit. Make the system work for you, not against you.

My advice did not always go down well. I told myself that this was a White House under siege. It was natural that feelings were raw and jagged. Clinton was smart enough to see that down the road he must address these deeper problems. Otherwise, like Nixon, he could face more serious trouble. But for now, just over four months into his presidency, he had an immediate crisis on his hands: how to pull himself out of a ditch so he could govern. If he didn’t do that, all the rest wouldn’t matter. If he did, he would take care of the rest later on. Or so I thought. A bumpy ride lay ahead.

The Makings of a Comeback

Over the next seven months, Bill Clinton staged a spectacular comeback. In late May, he stood at 38 percent in the public opinion polls and observers wondered if he were doomed. By late December, he had risen to 58 percent and could take credit for many of the most substantial accomplishments of his presidency — congressional passage of his budget plan, NAFTA, national service, and the Brady Bill; signing of a peace agreement between the Palestinians and Israelis; and the launch of the Vice President’s efforts to “reinvent” government. With the First Lady’s plan for health reform also opening to positive reviews, Clinton seemed poised once again to embody great new hopes for social reform.

Some commentators said that since the turnaround started around the time of my arrival, I must have been primarily responsible. Not true. I believe I was one of those who helped, but Bill Clinton was the chief architect of this comeback, just as he has been for others in his life.

Clinton had dug a deep hole for himself and now, rallying, he almost climbed out. He was the one who rediscovered his remarkable strengths and turned them again to his advantage. The rest of us on his team provided a supportive environment. We tightened up operations at the White House, so he wouldn’t be burdened with more snafus, but mostly we encouraged him to remember who he was. We were there for him emotionally. We cheered him on when he won and cheered him up when he lost. In psychological terms, we created a “safe space” where he could work things out on his own.

In earlier years, I had learned that men who are elected president usually know a lot more about what works for them than do their staffs. They are also the only ones on the ballot; no one in their employ won a single vote. Conservatives who said “Let Reagan be Reagan” were ultimately right. What better rule now? “Let Clinton be Clinton,” I decided. Give him your most honest evaluations but don’t try to substitute your judgment for his. Instead, a staff must try to bring out the best in a president.

Both Clintons were eager to shape up the White House operation. Some changes seemed cosmetic to the outside but were dramatic within the microcosm of the White House. Early in the administration, for example, Stephanopoulos had wanted to keep access open to reporters, but Hillary and Susan Thomases had wanted to exile them to the Old Executive Office Building across the street. As a compromise, a door was shut between the press room and the office of the press secretary. Reporters could visit Stephanopoulos and Myers only with permission. That access had never been blocked before, and reporters rightly resented the change. George and Dee Dee weren’t happy, either.

In our first conversation, I asked Hillary to have the door reopened, and she immediately agreed. She even wondered why it had not been done before! As tiny as that move was, the press saw it as a symbolic gesture that promised better days were ahead. And for a while, they were. Both Clintons agreed to talk with reporters more and invited them to a round of dinners that summer. As he sensed that they were no longer baying at him, Clinton felt less tense and regained his old ease in talking with them. The war against the press was moving toward a truce.

With encouragement, Clinton also began paying more attention to other centers of power. For too long, he had treated foreign policy as a sideshow — as if he were telling his foreign policy advisers: Keep the world quiet while I fix things at home. In the Cold War, presidents typically spent at least 60 percent of their time on foreign affairs; with Bush, the figure could rise to 75 percent. Clinton early on reversed the tables: domestic affairs probably consumed 75 percent of his time, foreign affairs less than a quar… –This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.