geeky
While both of these descriptions have much more than a kernel of truth in them, and while the author provides a factual basis for his strong opinion of each of his subjects, Fleming plays the role of both historian and judge of his subjects, rather than presenting the facts and allowing his readers to form their own conclusions. Having said this, Fleming gives ample examples of Jefferson's strong prejudices (in favor of France and against England), his constant undermining of Washington's presidency while supposedly being an integral member of his "team", his subsequent lack of respect for Washington's legacy (referring to him as "General", never as President) and his mismanagement of both diplomatic and military matters during his Presidency. Fleming is equally strong in his opinions of many of the contemporaries of the book's two main subjects, including James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, Aaron Burr and James Monroe.
The strength of this book however is in its skillful analysis of the ongoing conflict between the office of the presidency and the institution of Congress, an issue that has continued to vex the nation throughout its history. Washington's vision of a strong presidency has been of primary importance in times of national crisis (as demonstrated by Lincoln and FDR) and has been abused at other times. Conversely, an imbalance in favor of the power of Congress has caused problems such as the watering down of any meaningful reconstruction following the end of the Civil War, and the rampant rise of debt and deficits. It is in the author's description of the contributions of Washington and Jefferson in shaping the roles of the Presidency and of Congress that is most intellectually engaging in this book. Fleming argues that a study of the presidencies of Washington and Jefferson is essential today because it provides an understanding of why a strong presidency is essential, and why a disproportionate devolution of power in favor of Congress can result in a loss of accountability, and a loss of any central focus in favor of multiple self-interests.
If I had been the editor of this book, I would have urged the author to pull back the reins on his strong personal opinions of his subjects. The facts speak loud enough for themselves to allow readers to reach their own conclusions, and it is important for historians not to become retrospective editorial writers. Aside from that criticism however, this book provides a great deal of insight into the complicated relationship between these two giants of US history, it compares and contrasts their competing visions for their new nation, it makes a strong case as to why one of those visions was vastly wiser than the other, and it makes an especially compelling case as to why all of this matters today.