Not since Pearl Harbor has an American president gone to Congress to request a declaration of war. Nevertheless, since then, one president after another, from Truman to Obama, has ordered American troops into wars all over the world. From Korea to Vietnam, Panama to Grenada, Lebanon to Bosnia, Afghanistan to Iraq —why have presidents sidestepped declarations of war? Marvin Kalb, former chief diplomatic correspondent for CBS and NBC News, explores this key question in his thirteenth book about the presidency and U.S. foreign policy. Instead of a declaration of war, presidents have justified their war-making powers by citing "commitments," private and public, made by former presidents. Many of these commitments have been honored, but some betrayed. Surprisingly, given the tight U.S.-Israeli relationship, Israeli leaders feel that at times they have been betrayed by American presidents. Is it time for a negotiated defense treaty between the United States and Israel as a way of substituting for a string of secret presidential commitments? From Israel to Vietnam, presidential commitments have proven to be tricky and dangerous. For example, one president after another committed the United States to the defense of South Vietnam, often without explanation. Over the years, these commitments mushroomed into national policy, leading to a war costing 58,000 American lives. Few in Congress or the media chose to question the war's provenance or legitimacy, until it was too late. No president saw the need for a declaration of war, considering one to be old-fashioned. The word of a president can morph into a national commitment. It can become the functional equivalent of a declaration of war. Therefore, whenever a president "commits"the United States to a policy or course of action with, or increasingly without, congressional approval, watch out —the White House may be setting the nation on a road toward war.

When U.S. presidents clash with corporate titans, what tips the balance of power? In The Power and the Money, acclaimed presidential historian Tevi Troy takes readers on a riveting journey through the biggest battles between CEOs and the nation's commander in chief. He unearths the untold stories - both political and personal - that have shaped America. Troy shows how the vast reach of the federal government become a critical fact of life for every business, entrepreneur, and innovator. Today, companies find themselves navigating a competitive landscape defined by stringent regulations, so top CEOs and key business leaders must influence the legislative and regulatory system. As public affairs teams and government relations experts put forward strategies to survive Washington, CEOs have become the most important warrior on the frontlines. The Power and the Money shows how some of the nation's most important CEOs forged (and fumbled) relationships with the president. Troy also shows how the most powerful man in the world depends on CEOs. CEOs provide assistance in the form of personnel, policy insights, and campaign cash, but they also become essential foils for presidents, serving as both allies and convenient enemies. The Power and the Money reveals an intricate web of power, where CEOs need presidents, and presidents need CEOs. Troy shows how each must step carefully - or risk unpredictable costs and collateral damage. From heavyweights John D. Rockefeller and Mark Zuckerberg to Katherine Graham, Elon Musk, and more, Troy takes readers inside the friendships and the conflicts that shook the American economy and re-shaped America. Drawing on his experiences as bestselling historian and former senior White House aide, Troy offers unique insights and details that shed light on the growing, intertwining behemoths of government and big business - and what it means for the future of our nation.--from publisher

An absorbing example of political journalism, The Nixon Memo is the story of Richard Nixon's relentless quest for political rehabilitation. At issue is the key role he played during his final years in the post-Cold War debate about aiding Russia in its uncertain revolution. A thousand ironies and insights emerge in this book: Nixon, who made his reputation crusading against communism, argues that support for Russia is the most important foreign policy issue facing the United States. Nixon, who in the early 1950s raised the politically devastating question "Who lost China?" holds the question "Who lost Russia?" over Bill Clinton's fortunes in the early nineties. Nixon, who mistrusted and despised the press, turns to the press and particularly the op-ed page of the nation's most influential newspaper as a vehicle for influencing public opinion. This story of Nixon's Machiavellian efforts to pressure the White House, by way of the press, into helping Boris Yeltsin and Russia sheds new light on the inner workings of the world inside the Washington beltway. Though Nixon is the central character in this story, other politicians will easily recognize the everyday characteristics of governance, and news people will also recognize the important issue of what makes a story "news." Marvin Kalb read the documents behind the Nixon memo and interviewed scores of journalists, scholars, and officials in Washington and Moscow. Drawing on his years of experience as a diplomatic correspondent, he powerfully illuminates the intersection of press and politics in the fashioning of public policy.

This volume examines how voters and politicians influence each other, and how these interactions affect the outcome of elections and the making of policy. This work looks at how political parties and candidates form platforms and make their political stands and to what degree do politicians take policy stands that are close to the midpoint of public opinion. The author investigates the nature and magnitude of the differences between the policy stands of opposing candidates and he accesses how specific or vague candidates are in advocating policy alternatives, identifies the forums they use for policy statements, and suggests ways they camouflage vagueness. This book also examines the rhetoric and reality of problems, past performance, and general goals for the future and also considers what sorts of candidates, with what personal characteristics, are offered to the voters, and what techniques are used in personal image making.