The Problem of Democracy: The Presidents Adams Confront the Cult of Personality by Nancy Isenberg

The Problem of Democracy: The Presidents Adams Confront the Cult of Personality Reviews

• 
  robin friedman

  The True Complexity Of The Past Revisited
  
  In 2010, the historians Nancy Isenberg and Andrew Burstein wrote a lengthy dual biography, "Madison and Jefferson" which they dedicated to those who appreciate "the true complexity of the past". The book emphasized the difficult character of historical study and warned its readers against the too-ready acceptance of commonplaces and myths. In their new book, "The Problem of Democracy: The Presidents Adams Confront the Cult of Personality" (2019) the authors describe their study of Madison and Jefferson as dispelling "the long held illusion that James Madison was Thomas Jefferson's dutiful political lieutenant". They argue many historians have ignored their coequal relationship, overlooked Madison's partisanship, undervalued his presidency, and overstated his role at the Constitutional Convention.
  
  The goal of Isenberg's and Burnstein's new book is to show that many students misunderstand the second and sixth presidents, John Adams (JA) and his son John Quincy Adams (JQA), more egregiously than, the authors insist, they misunderstand the relationship between Madison and Jefferson. The authors write in explaining the purpose of their study of the two Adams presidents.
  
  "Father and son are seen as obstructionists, stuffed shirts, surly malcontents, who were resistant to the supposed good intentions embedded in Jeffersonian and Jacksonian democracy. Instead of viewing them as contrarians, we should know them as serious students of a road not taken, two who insisted that competence and rational judgment should supersede hollow celebrity and contrived popularity in a republic where voices ought always to register the choices of an informed citizenry."
  
  The authors discuss the lives and lengthy political careers of both JA and JQA, their closely intertwined lives, and their father-son relationship. Commendably, the see the Adamses important less for their tangible accomplishments, important as they are, than for their writings and philosophy. Isenberg and Burstein write: "The best reasons we find for remembering the Adamses are those that concern their stubborn insights into human psychology. They understood the tricky relationship between human nature and political democracy, and how emotionally induced thought often undermined social and political justice." The skepticism, intellectual toughness, and realization of human weakness that the Adamses displayed is an important counterbalance to the story of American exceptionalism and to the easy view of a straight-line advance of democracy. The authors find the Adamses offer compelling insights in understanding "how the United States could have proceeded from its ecstatic opening pledge -- the magnaminous 'spirit of 1776' -- to where it is today as a distressed political system."
  
  The book praises the Adamses love of learning and lifelong devotion to study. It seems them as offering a strong critique of the party system which began early in the presidency of George Washington and which led, in the authors' words to "tribalism". The Adams, father and son, were a "party of two". The authors summarize the fundamental commitments of JA and JQA in two succinct phrases: "independence" and "service to country".
  
  As is its predecessor, "The Problem of Democracy" is a lengthy, sprawling book which aims to combine history, political philosophy, and biography and includes as well a degree of polemic. I have used the introduction to the book "Mythic Democracy" in framing its themes and might have used for this purpose the concluding section as well. The body of the book, however, is divided into two parts, "Progenitor" and "Inheritor", which constitute a more traditional dual biography of JA and JQA. It begins with JA's early life and legal career, his marriage to Abigail Smith, and his role in early revolutionary activity. It covers JA's long years abroad during the Revolutionary War and his relationship with his brilliant, intellectually-driven son. As JQA matured, he and his father began to relate to each other as colleagues and friends as well as father and son. The book explores JA's eight year vice-presidency and four year presidency while threading in JQA's activities during these years as a diplomat, Senator, and political thinker. With JA's defeat in his bid for a second term, the book show the rise of JQA in his role of Secretary of State and one-term president. After JQA lost his bid for a second term, he served as a Congressman for 17 years and attained renown for his independent opposition to slavery and to the "gag" rule.
  
  At times, the thread of the book is hidden in the long biographical discussions. The book has the strength in showing the long relationship between Adams father and son, how the two were alike and how they differed. The most valuable parts of the dual biography discuss JA's and JQA'a lifelong devotion to learning. Both men were lifelong readers, diarists, and writers. They each learned from classical writers and from the Roman writer Cicero in particular. The authors offer an inspiring guide to the reading of JA and JQA. They also discuss in considerable detail the writings of the Adams father and son. Again, their writings are frequently passed over too quickly in more popular biographies. The book discusses in good detail JA's "Thoughts on Government", his three-volume "Defense of the Constitutions of the United States" and his "Lectures on Davila". JQA's writings receive equal attention, including his Diary, the "Publicola" lectures, his poetry, his Inaugural Address, and his study of the social compact late in life. Reading, writing, and thought are at the heart of this book and of the Adamses philosophy of government. They show how the Adamses critiqued individualism, charisma, the cult of personality, and over-reliance on the party system in their own day. The thought and career of the Adams counsels against a too-facile, superficial understanding of democracy, as developed by the authors.
  
  I have long admired JA and JQA, and I learned a good deal from this book. The authors, perhaps, overstate their own originality, as there are other outstanding recent biographies and studies of the thought of both men. Readers inspired by this book to learn more may wish to explore the several volumes of original writings of JA, JQA, and Abigail Adams available from the Library of America.
  
  The tone of "The Problem of Democracy" is sometimes overbearing, both as regards current affairs and the Adamses contemporaries. Figures such as Jefferson and Jackson should not be viewed as merely the product of the cult of personality or of a tribal two-party system. They too have their own strengths and their strong teachings and influence. as do John Adams and John Quincy Adams. There are many strands in American thought and life and it is important to try to recognize and weigh them on their merits and not simply to substitute one set of heroic figures for another. It is in this way that we will approach the goal of Isenberg and Burstein in understanding and appreciating both the United States and its history and also the "true complexity of the past".
  
  Robin Friedman
• 
  Bill

  "John Adams had no doubt as to where he stood. It was where he nearly always stood. MISUNDERSTOOD."
  
  I normally wouldn't begin a review with an excerpt, but this groaner about halfway through the book was so amateurishly awful, it nearly derailed the entire book for me. Thankfully the rest isn't this bad.
  
  But the rest isn't altogether awe-inspiring, either. In the title, and the introduction, the authors set out to explore how John and John Quincy Adams decried the cult of personality in politics, blind loyalty to party and the dangers of pure democracy as opposed to representative democracy.
  
  After setting up this thesis, though, the book settles into something of a conventional dual biography of the two presidents. So it doesn't really succeed as an analysis of their political philosophies, but neither does it succeed as a dual biography, because much is left out. The three decades of the elder Adams's life before the younger Adams was born, for example, are only briefly skimmed over, while a key event in John Quincy's career - his influence on the creation of the Monroe Doctrine - is not even mentioned. And John Adams's most anti-democratic act ever, his support of the Alien and Sedition Acts, is recounted dispassionately without much analysis on how it conformed, or conflicted, with his overall political philosophy.
  
  As in their last political analysis/dual biography,
  Madison and Jefferson, I appreciated how the authors parse their primary sources and explain the contemporary meaning of words and phrases used at the time that might mean something else to us today. But overall, their analysis in this book often becomes pretentious and self-congratulatory, as they speak directly to the reader to point out how astute their commentary is and how we should pay close attention to each Very Important Insight they offer.
  
  Much of this fades away once the book shifts from analysis to more straight-ahead dual biography. So it's a bit jarring when the book returns to analysis in its conclusion, where its attempts to apply lessons of the Adamses' time to the present - lamenting modern-day party tribalism, lobbying and influence peddling - seem unearned as a result.
  
  Any biography of one Adams is, by necessity, going to incorporate at least a partial biography of the other. So it was a good idea to try to combine the two Adamses' stories into one. But by trying to be both a character study and a dual biography, this book doesn't fully accomplish either. There is no shortage of good, insightful books on one Adams or the other. So reading one book on each might ultimately be a better choice than opting for this two-for-one tale.
• 
  Christopher Saunders

  For most of its length, The Problem of Democracy is a workmanlike dual biography of John Adams and John Quincy Adams, father-and-son presidents who were towering statesmen and intellects defeated by a more democratically inclined opponent (Jefferson and Jackson). The Adamses were both men of unquestioned intelligence, outsized ego and intractable moral righteousness, viewing themselves as the elite of American meritocracy; thus they lacked a "common touch" required to sustain popular support, which doomed them to failed presidencies that overshadowed their otherwise remarkable lives. So far as this goes, Nancy Isenberg and Andrew Burstein do a capable job reconstructing these men's lives, careers and philosophies in all their ornery, intellectual glory. But the title baldly states a premise that the book struggles to justify: that the Adams are a case study in the shortcomings of democracy. The authors strain to parallel their subjects with present-day politics, which makes one wonder if the authors see John Adams as Hillary Clinton and Thomas Jefferson, of all people, as Donald Trump. Two individuals could not be less alike, except perhaps the color of their hair and the office they attained, and the authors do themselves no credit trying to force the comparison. The 45th President has quite frequently been portrayed as Andrew Jackson's reincarnation, and while his ornery populism and authoritarian tendencies certainly parallel Old Hickory, a closer examination reveals the holes in that comparison as well: Trump has no military career or rags-to-riches life story to match Jackson's rise, just a blustering, commonplace personality cult. If anything, Trump exemplifies the opposite problem to what the authors claim: the man who twice lost the popular vote no more embodies the perils of "unfettered democracy" than either Adams, even if the father supported authoritarian measures far more repressive than anything Trump dreamed of and the son was also an unpopular minority president who resoundingly lost reelection. As a history book it's fine, if unoriginal; the author's attempts to draw broader conclusions about American democracy, past and present, fall flat.
• 
  David Dunlap

  The first father and son pairing to win election to the Presidency of the United States -- John and John Quincy Adams -- is the subject of this book. Both served single terms, losing to men who more successfully captured the public imagination than either of them were able to do (Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, respectively). On one level, the book can be seen (and read) as a dual biography; the authors' purpose, however, is to point to the parallels and contrasts between the Adamses' world view and respective political philosophies. It is not dry reading. In their excellent opening Exordium, the authors suggest that the Adamses were onto something when they decried democracy (in the 18th/early 19th century meaning of the term), something that is perhaps more relevant to our contemporary society than any of the accomplishments of the flashier Jefferson and Jackson. I enjoyed the deep insights provided into each man and appreciated the deep bond that existed between them, a bond tried, but ultimately, perhaps, strengthened, by their frequent separations in their work for their country. -- I found the authors' (to my mind) gratuitous slam of David McCullough (buried in the footnotes) somewhat distasteful. I could not decide if it was an attack out of personal vanity (that McCullough's books sell better than theirs) or out of professional pique (that McCullough's undergraduate degree was in English, rather than history). Either way, it was an unnecessary blot on what was otherwise a very good book.
• 
  James

  I started reading John and Abigail Adams’ letters on a whim a few years ago and after being struck by the Adams’ point of view and personality I quickly started referring to John Adams as my Founding Father “man crush.” After finishing this new biography, which traces the lives of John and his eldest son, I am now equally enthralled with his son, John Quincy Adams.
  
  No human being is perfect—Founding Fathers and the following generation not exempted—but the Adams legacy early on in American history really was something special. Fiercely independent and often self-confident to the point of being characterized as stubborn, both father and son would be President (the 2nd and 6th, respectively). Though they would be elected to the highest office, they despised the hero worship they saw around them in the political sphere (*cough* Jefferson *cough*), and one premise of this historian’s reading of these two great men is that one reason they were one-term presidents was not because they were bad presidents per se, but because the nascent politics of party couldn’t handle their independence. It is a lesson and a warning we well might heed in our intensely divided political time, where party and personality rule once more to the detriment of our nation.
  
  One thing that strikes me about both Adamses, and continues to deepen my respect as I learn more about them, is that they were both true public servants, sacrificing much (including incredibly long absences from family) for the sake of the nation. JA was instrumental in our independence, and in addition to being President, both were American diplomats in Europe of the nascent and expanding nation. JQA also served in the Senate and House.
  
  Throughout their lives John and John Quincy Adams sought not position and power, but rose to the occasion and accepted duties and positions of influence based on principles in which they truly believed. Never should their confidence or pursuit of excellence be construed as a vain pursuit of power.
  
  All in all, an engaging and well-written biography of these two men. Highly-recommended.
• 
  Heman

  As it has been pointed out by other reviewers, the book is more a double biography of father and son rather than an in depth examination of American democracy and its evolution during father and son’s lifetime.
  
  John Q Adams was one of the last of a generation of presidents of an epoch, for example, the last president who personally knew all his predecessors. This speaks to the ascendancy of a group of elites in the American politics of that time. The election of Jackson was an upheaval in the system, where the nature of American populist-bend threw a wrench into the more elite driven control of the government.
  
  The book points out, only in the last chapter and somewhat asymptotic to the biography of the two men, that Democracy in America was never meant to be a full democracy of the government of people by the people and for the people. There is a lot if myth making and idolizing that is entwined with the American revolution and its founders; a revolution that was really the product of the revolt of Oligarchs (a nuevo-aristocracy set against monarchy) rather than a majority of ordinary people. So now, even as then, the Democratic institutions work for the moneyed and the privileged in the same ways that in sports there are fanatical fans whose blind loyalty to groups and dogmas only benefits the club owners pockets in the end.
  
  The thrust of the book is that both Adamses were realist but not pragmatic autocrats whose service to the nation fell outside the fandom realm. Therefore, both ended up being one term presidents who were really shunned by the national political sport of partisanship.
  
  Despite that, I don’t think a good argument is made that the father and son’s politics and conservatism, their sense of self importance and pride, was somehow good politics that in the long term did anything too beneficial either way. I think one problem with Adams legacies is that the beat-of-different-drum they took up left very little tangible legacies for them, despite the 300 pages of this biography. Consider this, where would the American revolution be if John Adams was the senior diplomat in France instead of Ben Franklin? I think at the end of the day it was Franklin’s theatrical politics and playing ball rather than Adams’ acerbic approach that won a powerful ally in France. This trend in father and son’s lives continued through their Presidencies and JQA’s later career. JQA made many principled stances against slaveholding interests in the house, but actual political gains are hard to point out.
  
  Some interesting takeaways:
  The [Missouri] compromise appeared to most observers to give a slight edge to slaveholders. Adams, without claiming the power of prophecy, recorded in tremulous tones, “If slavery be the destined sword of the hand of the destroying angel which is to sever the ties of this Union, the same sword will cut in sunder the bonds of slavery itself.” Supposing that a “calamitous” civil war would be required to defeat slavery, he took a dramatic breath and proclaimed, “As God shall judge me, I dare not say that it is not to be desired.” This was 1823.
  
  Once JQA became president he presented an ambitious plan: “John Quincy Adams was ready to stage: federally sponsored roads, canals, and other advanced engineering projects; a national university more or less on the model of the great European temples of learning; an astronomical observatory (the Old World boasted 130 such “lighthouses of the sky” and America not one); and broader encouragement of invention.” But congress rejected these measures.
• 
  J. Michael Smith

  This is the second book Isenberg and Burstein have written coupling two presidents so we could see how one illuminates the other. (Their other book is on Jefferson and Madison.) Their motive for writing the book on the Presidents Adams is to explore their belief and critique of democracy. Referring to such concepts as “impersonation of democracy,” "unchecked democratic posturing and pretense,” and the role of “glitter” in democratic elections, the authors turn to two of history’s most astute political scientists (the Presidents Adams) to find better understanding regarding the political dysfunctions present in the United States today.
  
  The book contains two excellent biographies, one of John Adams (JA) and one of his son, John Quincy Adams (JQA). The quality of the biographies is rooted in the authors’ sympathy for their subjects, their critical eye, and their careful exploration of original source material, particularly the extensive diaries and letters of both men.
  
  My interest in the book was enhanced by the promise of learning the Adamses’ take on “democracy.” We are, after all, being warned about the death of democracy some observers of today’s political scene.
  
  For years I have engaged in healthy debates with my Chinese friends over the qualities of democracy vs. authoritarianism. But in recent years, with elections giving us too many inadequate leaders, I am having a harder time making the argument for democracy. Countries adhering to democracy haven’t done so well in resolving issues of environmental disaster, immigration, racism, gender-related rights, moral stability, election integrity, domestic violence, crime, international influence, public health policies, healthcare, economic recovery from COVID, or management of wealth and poverty.
  
  Isenberg and Burstein found much in the writings of JA and JQA to remind us that “democracy” is not an infallible god. The Adamses believed it was both necessary to good government AND vulnerable to multiple abuses. The Adamses offer checks and balances to democracy.
  
  John Adams referred to a “free government,” one that collects advice from the people, offers free access to the people, and encourages free communication of the people’s wants, knowledge, projects, and wishes. (pg. 108) Several elements are essential to “free government”: freedom of speech, religion, assembly, and press; education, town meetings to learn of local issues, vital churches, and local militia. These local activities provide a training ground for responsible participation in government. Democracy won't work if the people who vote aren't educated and rational.
  
  Free government is a check on the insidious power of the wealthy, well-born, and powerful. JA argued that there can be no “free government” without a democratic branch, specifically, one selected through elections. While elections provide the means of democracy, Adams argued that there must be checks and balances on the masses. The Presidents Adams concurred with one newspaper that noted, “Elections are brothels.” The “people” are subject to manipulation, dissemination, artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, superstition, glitter, flattery, quackery, and bribery. Well-resourced politicians, whose primary interest is self-aggrandizement, will lead masses astray and into decisions that are contrary to both the popular good and the principles of free government.
  
  The Adamses saw such abuses in Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, and Andrew Jackson—all of whom cultivated personality cults, promoted themselves through images and slogans, and made tools of other people to put themselves forward. John Adams, in contrast, wrote a letter to a political ally describing the two of them as having “an ugly modesty about us…we have taken pains to conceal our names, we have delighted in the shade, we have made few friends, (turned others into) no tools…” He was, of course, overstating his own modesty a bit. But there is much truth to what he said, as no personality cult ever grew up around either JA or JQA. Their independent thinking and constant intellectual growth prevented such adulation.
  
  The Adamses reveal in both their letters and their diaries that they were as critical on themselves as they were on others. This genuine humility and self-examination mingled with their pride and stubbornness, and any picture of them that does not include this paradox is deceptive.
  
  John Adams was engaged in developing and perfecting the idea of a “constitution.” He was the primary author of the constitution of the state of Massachusetts, and the U.S. constitution was modeled after that and much influenced by Adams’s writings, even though he was serving as a diplomat in Europe during the Constitutional Convention. He was particularly keen to develop a difference between the functions of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The House of Representatives would represent the voice of the people, elected by people who knew the candidates locally. The Senate, on the other hand, would act as a check on the House, made up of wise, successful, noble, and able people. The Senate would hold in check the tendency of people to be tricked by the powerful and wealthy. In a world of passion, anger, competition, individualism run amok, liberty turned to licentiousness, and fragmentation, the Senate would make sure the adults remained in charge. (pg. 111)
  
  Adams worried about state and federal elections, where candidates would not be personally known by the voters, and thus more subject to intrigue and deception. “Candidates…invent public identities in order to acquire attention and impress voters.” (pg. 113)
  
  Both Adamses saw how Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson used “democracy” to hide the fact that they were powerful, wealthy slaveholders, who used the democratic masses to maintain the status quo of southern electoral advantage (the enslaved were counted 3/5 in the census, increasing the number of seats in the House the south had…and the number of electoral votes—yet the enslaved could not vote, making the votes of plantation owners and other whites worth much more than northern votes.)
  
  Isenberg and Burstein use the writings of the Adamses to point out that those who developed a “cult of personality” (Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, Jackson) take advantage of people’s tendency to live vicariously through the lives of the rich and famous. If tragedy befalls a celebrity, people will feel ten times worse about it than a tragedy that befalls an ordinary person. (pg. 140)
  
  There is an interesting comparison of Washington and the Adamses at the end of the book. While the Adamses both respected and appreciated Washington, (he was never the subject of an attack from them), Isenberg and Burstein see the cult of personality reaching its apex in those days with Washington. Most people, then and now, know very little of Washington's thinking, his political philosophy, his intelligence, or his substantial decisions. They know him instead by image: silent, above the fray, honest, popular with the people, calm… Both Jefferson and Jackson sought to model themselves by image. The critique of Jefferson, Jackson, and Franklin is for another book, another essay. But the Adamses rejection of image making for themselves is noteworthy.
  
  This book is a critical read today for helping us understand the struggles of democracy. Perhaps democracy is dying because we have been unable to counter its excesses. There is a cycle, the authors contend, that whips back and forth between the injustice of the oligarchy and the rage of the masses. Such struggle is with us all the time. What we see today in the rage stoked by demagogues is nothing new. The news keeps us worked up daily over the issues of democracy and political dysfunction. A good history, such as Isenberg and Burstein have written, gives us some clarity and a glimpse of the path forward. It is very good that the Presidents Adams have left us such a wealth of wisdom in their diaries and letters. A little more time with them and a little less time watching and reading the news would make us all a little more sane.
• 
  Ted Hunt

  This book is well researched and well written, and it really digs deeply into the personalities and ideologies of the second and sixth presidents. My relatively low rating is based on what I would call the "false advertising" of the title. I thought that I was buying a book that was going to delve into the origins of American political democracy in the early 19th century, a time when the nation moved from electing a man like John Adams (the father) to electing Andrew Jackson. That transformation has usually been celebrated as a culmination of sorts of the promise of the American Revolution, and I was anticipating that the authors were going to analyze the changes in the electorate, the culture, the candidates, and the political process that saw the birth of something we might call "American populism." I have thought for a long time that we currently live in an era similar to that time, with education and expertise not only being ignored, but ridiculed, and with a cast of characters that includes President Trump as a modern day Jackson. But, beware, that is not what the book is about. In the very last chapter the writers get to some very interesting musings about the nature of American democracy, but by and large the book is a dual biography of this father and son rather than an analysis of the era in which they lived. The authors center their treatment of the subjects around the writings of the two men, most notably their correspondence with each other. They do point out from time to time what the two Adamses had to say about the idea of "democracy," and one of their theses is clearly that these two men were far superior in their defense of our nation's political institutions than populist autocrats like Jackson, whose name became synonymous with the word "democracy." But for the most part the book serves pretty much as a standard biography, albeit for two historical figures rather than just one.
• 
  Robert Stevenson

  I have mixed feelings on this book, there is a lot of good history telling, it is well sourced and told in a clear understandable narrative. Both John Adams and John Quincey Adams are complicated men but so where many of the men of their respective eras. They were both book lovers, avid readers and students of philosophical antiquity.
  
  However, the authors in elevating the Adams over vilify others unfairly. Hamilton is not the archangel of death and destruction, Ben Franklin was not a mere celebrity and Washington is more then a stoic handsome statue. And it is native to believe both of the Adams President were free from self interest and only slight arrogant for purely noble reasons.
  
  Additionally, I found the authors so myoptic on the Adam’s they failed to mention other competing historical intellectual developments in comparison. Instead they mentioned in passing some of the Adams diary notes on writers like Adam Smith and Voltaire and Rousseau but failed to explain how the Adam’s misinterpreted these works or how they were wrong in there assessments. The authors do explain which ideas from both men are the most significant, from John Adams “Thoughts on Government” in 1776 and John Quincey Adam defense in the “Amistad” case.
  
• 
  Richard

  A needed antidote to the Jefferson-Jackson fans who always wind up pillorying the Adams and their integrity.
• 
  Lindsay

  One of the best books I've read in a long time. Brilliant history, but funny writing and super enjoyable to read.
• 
  Mark

  Big fan of the John Adams historical reassessment several years ago, spearheaded by a great David McCullough book and a shakier HBO miniseries starring Paul Giamatti and Stannis Baratheon. Historians Isenberg and Burstein rather sniffily dismiss McCullough's fantastic scholarship before continuing into an interesting but unfulfilling parallel biography of Adams and his son and fellow president John Quincy Adams. The Problem of Democracy mounts a very good defense of the second President Adams, a career politician and diplomat who could have existed at no other time than the early 19th century. Between his father's foreign missions and his own assignments, J.Q. Adams spent a significant chunk of his life abroad before returning to the states to serve as senator, president, and congressman, uniquely in that order. Adams II wrote and spoke French arguably better than he did English and there's an interesting parallel to made between his life and those of South American patriots like Francisco de Miranda who tried to apply a political education formed over long years in Europe to totally dissimilar conditions in the New World. John Quincy Adams held many political views that were more European than American, notably a strong abolitionist bent and a healthy skepticism about direct democracy. He was in a sense the first major national American politician to switch political parties (multiple times), although the parties didn't exist at all in the way they do today at the time. The authors of the this book are stretching for a timely thesis about the Adams' mutual moderate interest in keeping American government elite and nonpartisan, and the presidency a mere civil service job. Both father and son had fitfully successful one-term administrations and were succeeded by far more charismatic rivals in Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, respectively. The trouble is that the behavior of John Adams, in particular, while in office, doesn't support this idea. If anything he agitated for an even stronger executive. The popular picture of Adams at the moment is one of a hardworking, brilliant guy who knew he wasn't as well-liked as Washington and Jefferson and resented the hell out of it. His conscious efforts to shape his son into a leading light of the second generation of American politics didn't really take, as Adams the second was even less of a man of the people, whether from the European influence, the miserable lives his sister and both of his brothers ended up living, and a religiously-driven attitude of absolute moral right and wrong. Isenberg and Burstein have an immense amount of surviving correspondence to work from, but they don't land their argument that the Adams were significantly anti-populist in the manner they're reaching for. It's more that their particular visions lost out, and they remained cranky about it for the rest of their lives in that particular New England style. Intriguing lines of inquiry about the family's lifelong study of the classics, their religious views, and their difficult private lives aren't sufficiently developed. I'd love to read another book specifically about John Quincy Adams that's better than this one.
• 
  Paula

  Very interesting and informative book about two US Presidents that I knew little about. The book is about their father-son relationship, their political and governmental lives during founding of the country and through first 6 presidencies.
  
  The father and son kept diaries/journals through their lives and kept in touch with each other, family and persons of note through letters (many extant), traveled extensively and often in service to the newly formed United States.
  
  The authors explore the Adams interaction with and reaction to prominent Revolutionary & early US persons and events including Hamilton, Jefferson, Franklin; Fugitive Slave Act, Whiskey Rebellion, French Revolution, western expansion and attending slavery debates; as well as their participation on the world stage as ambassadors, prolific writers, and as presidents. The books and authors that the father and son read and were influenced by are noted and related to positions and policies the men pursued.
  
  John Adams [JA] and John Quincy Adams [JQA]
  p113 JA saw danger early that "Political aspirants would always put image over integrity."
  
  p139 "Politics should be about the public good, but it almost never was. More likely, it was about being seen. Politics was about celebrity--an old theme of John Adams.
  
  JA successfully defended the British soldiers who killed colonials at Boston Massacre. JQA successfully defended the people who commandeered the Amistad
  
  p403 JQA Fourth of July oration on nullification: "...state's rights were not human rights. If one state could nullify a law of the land, then that one state was effectively being granted absolute authority over every other state...Nullification was a ploy...The nullifiers of South Carolina put forth a concept of sovereignty at odds with the republican notion of deliberation and at odds with the democratic principle of majority rule. As a feudal remnant, nullification was 'incompatible with the nature of our institutions.' "
  
  p450 The authors see from their historical research that both Adams were astute observers of assertive democracy, not as some historians have seen them as obstinate enemies of.
  
  p458 "To claim that democracy is inclusive is to conceal the fact that government recognizes hierarchies: if broad suffrage does not democracy make, and popular sovereignty is a legal fiction, then representative government--which counts interests--is as close to real democracy as America gets."
• 
  James Earl

  This is a biography of John Adams and his son John Quincy Adams capably told in order to examine one of the enduring threats to every republic, including our own. Both Adamses read, and read again and again, the Greek and Latin classics--and did so in Greek and Latin, as did the other Founders--and took to heart what they learned from them about virtue and character, and about the elected leaders and the tyrants who governed the ancient republics. Like all the Founders, they drew from the classics lessons about what caused republics to fail, or to submit to a tyrant, and how a republic might endure longer than any of the Greek or Roman republics did.
  
  The two Adamses strove to be worthy in both character and achievement. But each served only one term and was displaced by the kind of leader they thought unworthy. John was replaced by Jefferson, whose achievements were many and enduring, but whose character was not virtuous. John Quincy was replaced by Andrew Jackson, a man of neither virtue nor achievement beyond being a successful general in the War of 1812. Both Jefferson and Jackson enjoyed a popularity that was carefully created and managed to appeal to what the Adamses sometimes called "the mob."
  
  Some modern leaders come to mind, as is clearly the intentions of the authors. Reagan and Clinton both enjoyed legendary personalities, but they were very different in terms of the classic virtues. H.W. Bush was a man the Adamses would have liked--conservative as they were, a man of honor with a very solid record of public service. They would have valued Obama's virtue but probably would have thought he ought to have demonstrated more "product" before ascending to the presidency.
  
  One cannot escape wondering about the timing of Isenberg and Burstein's book. My bet is that they wrote it because they are very concerned about the current state of our republic and the direction it is heading. In the background, I suspect, though never even hinted at, is Donald Trump, a man obviously lacking the ancient virtues and with a public image carefully constructed over the past decade or more.
  
  The value of this book is that it addresses how a republic can be maintained--a crucial topic the Founders were VERY intentional about in the framing of our constitution. The authors' research is comprehensive, their writing is good but not always "felicitous."
  
• 
  Randy

  This was an interesting book to read. Frankly, it was the title that caught my attention, and not knowing much alot the Presidents Adams, I figured I would give it a go. I did not expect it to take a month, but I slogged through it. That is not to say this isn't a book worth reading, it just took me longer than expected. Having said that, here is what I took from the book. Yes, there is a left leaning political bias that the rest should be aware of, but it is not terribly overt until the final chapter where the authors summarize thier writing. The book is solidly researched and very well footnoted. From the footnotes it is clear these authors have no professional respect for David McCullough and his popular book on John Adams. I have not read it, and may not. The Problem of Democracy lays out some very clear truths. The Presidents Adams would not have been as successful without each other. They were strong confidants of each other and relied on that support. Naturally, the first John Adams was on a path toward national leadership, but may not have gotten as far without the support and advice from his son. Secondly, both came to distrust those around them. Some of this distrust was well founded, but it did lead each to be very self critical. Third, and the main crux, is neither trusted political parties or political alliances and we're each brought down in thier presidencies by the very political affiliances they distrusted. In that regard, this is an important book for today's climate. The Adams belief that the highest officers in the land should not be had by popular adoration but the the well reasoned discussion of ideas is sorely lacking today, on both ends of the political spectrum. Another item that is clear is that media bias is no worse today than it was in the early era of our republic. The legacy of the Presidents Adams should be the knowledge that nothing is greatly different today than 200 years ago and that we need political leaders who truly go into public service ti state the public. This book is a great argument for term limits and for reeducating people that there are great problems with a democracy and we don't live in one on purpose.
• 
  Jaclyn Knight

  If you read the title & were attracted to the phrase “cult of personality” or felt completely in line with the description inside the front cover you will enjoy reading this book. If you like principles practically applied & have felt a sense of incongruity in our present government with the ideals described by our founders you will enjoy this book. This book will solidify in your mind the difference between true democracy & representative government and show how at least some of our founders didn’t believe true democracy was attainable or even desireable.
  
  An easy way to digest the authors theories (especially if you know a lot about JA & JQA already) without reading the entire 460 pages is to read the stylistically titled preface & conclusion chapters. In between these two is a condensed (but meandering) history of the lives of JA & JQA highlighting their interaction with so called democracy & how their political & moral thinking was formed & carried out. Each chapter is titled to show a trait or life character that the Adams men shared such as “Exiles” “Party Irregulars” or “Intellects” all while maintaining the mostly chronological history telling. A wonderful secondary theme shows how the lives of father & son were intertwined. My one major critique of the book is that the middle section doesn’t often leave you feeling that you understand why this part of their shared history was included or not included despite obvious attempts. I feel like the book could be tightened up & they could more directly state or point to their theory of Adamsian government outlined in the book end chapters while telling the story or pair down the history so you don’t lose the connections while reading. There are also some real intellectual gems found in the midst of the long middle section that will make the book worth your reading if you take the time. If you believe in principled leadership & detest the cult of personality you will feel akin to the Adams men & want to give them their rightful place in American history as great statesmen & moral leaders.
• 
  Gayla Bassham

  Really 3 1/2 stars, but my love of Abigail Adams compels me to round up. (Yes, I realize she was problematic. I love her anyway.) The thesis of this book is that the early colonists' failure to appreciate the Adamses reveals a flaw in the American political system--specifically, that presidential elections tend to overemphasize the "common touch" at the expense of education and experience. Given the extensive research I tend to think this book had to have been in the works pre-Trump, but certainly the argument gained an added resonance when he was elected president.
  
  I am sympathetic to this premise. Nonetheless, I am not totally sold. The elder Adams had a number of flaws; one could argue that his famously thin skin and short fuse made him temperamentally unsuited to the presidency, "common touch" or no. Similarly, the younger Adams could be grumpy and high-handed. Was he preferable to Andrew Jackson? Almost certainly. But I couldn't help but feel there was probably a third alternative in 1824 who would have been preferable to both, but possessed neither a gift for populist rabble-rousing nor a famous name and highbrow education.
  
  In short, although I agree that the United States overrewards folksy, "tell'em like it is" rhetoric, it's hard for me to view the aristocratic, privileged Adamses--who, after all, both got to be president--as victims.
• 
  Scott

  Written with our current partisan political stalemate in mind, this fantastic book dissects the points of view and political philosophy of the two Adams presidents. It also does a walloping good job and presenting the high points of their careers (it would be hard to find a more experienced and qualified presidential candidate than JQA).
  
  The main point is that the Adams’ have gone down in history as “failures” or ineffective, or many other things because they refused to play to and pick a political party. They stubbornly adhered to Washington’s admonitions against the rise of factions and parties and we’d have been better if they had successfully committed the country to shifting factions/coalitions rather than parties.
  
  The book also takes on the analysis of the accusations made against these two presidents: they were monarchists, they were pro-British, they had aristocratic aspirations, and - of course - that they were anti-democracy. They were indeed anti-democracy in its pure form (which boils down to mob rule and being ruled by the ignorant and emotional) but the strictest adherents to the republican form of government, which assured that mob rule didn’t take over.
  
  So much more to say, but no more time.
• 
  Jan Lynch

  In The Problem of Democracy, Nancy Isenberg and Andrew Burstein offer a beautifully accessible biography of John Adams and John Quincy Adams. Detailing the relationship between father and son, the work shows how each affected the other's thinking. The two were consummate bibliophiles; it was interesting to learn of their favorite authors, books, and admired historical figures. One of the notions the narrative debunks is that the Adamses had monarchical sympathies. Hardly the elitists that they are often labeled as, the Adamses wanted a specific type of government structure, one that avoided the pitfalls of democracy--leaders chosen by charisma rather than ability, chaos resulting from individualism gone corrupt, unequal representation, laws that favor the rich. Instead, the two hoped for a government structure that supported access to education and individual improvement, that provided infrastructure, that allowed the promises of the Declaration to be fulfilled for the largest number of people. Recommended for anyone interested in the American Revolution or the antebellum period, but a must-read for any fan of John or John Quincy Adams.
• 
  Robert Sparrenberger

  It’s a provocative title that really just boils down to a dual biography of both presidents Adams. It’s well written and gives you the high points but it’s already been done before in bios of both men with more detail.
  
  Nancy really doesn’t like David McCullough. She’s piles scorn upon is book in the footnotes and declares that his book is trash. I think she’s jealous that someone really wrote a very successful book and made a lot of money and beat her to it. She sticks up her nose because he’s a English major and she’s the real historian dispensing Information to the masses.
  
  I should mention that I didn’t like her Aaron burr book either because she took cheap shots at Ron chernow. This time she stuck it in the footnotes. I guess the other author told her to hide her scorn.
  
  Read each man individually. They are on my read list. This one has been done already Nancy. Try again.
• 
  Wesley

  This was a fairly dense examination of the Presidents Adams. If you're a total U.S. [political] history nerd and JQA fanatic like me, you'll love it. Though I do have to critique - it drags often at times. What is redeeming to me (and gave this book a five-star rating from me) is the final chapter which summarizes and synthesizes the many ideas presented throughout the book. It offers a stunning message and captures both the political dynamism of the new Republic as well as an examination of what this means for contemporary America. If you're looking for biography, this is not your book. But if you're looking for a sweeping examination of America's legacy from the Presidents Adams you are certain to find it here.
• 
  Sharron

  The side by side comparisons of John Adams and John Quincy Adams are well written. What is particularly illuminating, however, is the final chapter of this book which is entitled “ad consummandum”. In fact, if you have already read biographies of these men, you could just read the introduction and the final chapter and still feel the purchase of this book was well justified.
  
  Note - If after reading this book you want a further explanation of the cult of personality in our society, read Neil Postman’s “Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business”. It’s brilliant. I plan to read it again now that I have finished “The Problem of Democracy”.
• 
  Tracey

  If you are interested in early American history, in particular their early presidents, you'd find this book interesting. Initially I was drawn to the book because I was intrigued by the notion of 'the problem of democracy' and 'the cult of personality', but the book is mostly about the two Adams presidents. These two men are usually depicted quite negatively, however, this book gives you a more accurate picture of the Adams presidents - their personal life, their work and influence, and their key concerns for the republic. Amongst these concerns was the dangerous political slide towards demoagoguery. At 500+ pages, this book takes commitment and interest, but it's well worth the read.