Reviews and Press

Gil Troy US News & World Report Interview In Praise of Moderate Presidents Historian Gil Troy talks about the promise of centrism in the 2008 presidential election By Johannah Cornblatt - US News & World Report, July 14, 2008

Gil Troy on Leading from the Center - Charlottesville Radio Interview, July 13, 2008 - Download mp3 Here

Listen to the MP3 audio from Gil Troy's July 8, 2008 appearance on "Wake Up Monterey" KION 1460AM with Mark Carbonaro: Download mp3 Here

Watch the Gil Troy on BookTV, CSpan2 online now discussing Leading from the Center: Why Moderates Make the Best Presidents First aired July 6, 2008 and then re-aired July 13, 2008 - BookTV or Buy the DVD

Gil Troy on The Jim Bohannon Show July 9, 2008 Listen online or Download MP3 of the interview

Gil Troy WTOP 103.5 FM Interview, June 17, 2008: Download mp3 Here

Gil Troy discussing “Leading from the Center: Why Moderates Make the Best Presidents” with Dave Gordon - davegordonwrites.com, June 4, 2008

NY Post Review: Hail compromise! Huzzah negotiation! Purple power! "Leading From The Center: Why Moderates Make the Best Presidents" By Gil Troy (Basic Books) By JULIA KAMIN - NY Post, June 22, 2008

St. Louis Dispatch Leading From the Center: Why Moderates Make the Best Presidents - St. Louis Dispatch, June 4, 2008

Moderate does not equal namby-pamby, and extremism is not an American norm; instead, the founders "celebrated modesty, balance, self-denial, and rationality," none of which seem abundant in politics today.

Against those who hold that America has become bitterly divided between red and blue, Troy (History/McGill Univ.; Hillary Rodham Clinton: Polarizing First Lady, 2006, etc.) observes that "a rich web of common cultural, political, economic, and social ties" tightly binds the nation. The best presidents, recognizing this network of elective affinities, have governed from a moderate, centrist position and shunned extremes on either side of the aisle. But neither does moderate equal passive: By Troy's reckoning, the best have exercised "muscular moderation," as with George Washington's straight-edged governance over a still tumultuous time and Theodore Roosevelt's refusal both to play to class loyalties and to accept the notion that capital and labor were necessarily inimical. By that reckoning, Dwight Eisenhower gets solid marks for his detestation of partisan politics and his quaint notion that the president was meant to be a unifier. Some presidents in Troy's account were set on moderate paths but turned less moderate by events, as with Lyndon Johnson in the face of the Vietnam debacle; some were moderately inclined but so sensitive to public opinion as to be swayed off course, as with Bill Clinton. As for the president who once trumpeted himself as a unifier, Troy joins with a growing majority in finding George W. Bush to be a disaster who "damaged America's national fabric by failing to lead the country as a whole" and insisted instead that he owed attention only to "everyone who shares our goals."

Fans of Millard Fillmore, that noted moderate, won't find much new in these pages, but those sick to death of extremist rhetoric should be assured by the author's conclusions. -- Kirkus Reviews

This well-intended book is an enjoyable exercise in wishful thinking. Historian Troy of McGill University (Morning in America) plays the part of pundit by arguing that moderate presidents have always served the U.S. better than others. Americans are centrists at heart, he says, tracing the ups and downs of national consensus through the Bush administration. Yet Lincoln, one of Troy's heroes, wasn't moderate when it came to secession-he refused to compromise. Troy's definition of "best presidents" is also open to debate. Does "best" mean most effective or most conforming to Troy's centrist hopes? The author may think he's swimming in fresh waters, but instead he's offering a venerable American prayer for tranquil and harmonious government. The founders themselves deplored partisanship. And while Troy claims to roam over all American presidential history, he picks and chooses his early subjects, then deals with every president since FDR. Nevertheless, he makes his case in as robust a fashion as possible. That his history is stronger than his argument doesn't detract from the pleasure of the work. (June) -- Publishers Weekly