This books collects two pieces of journalism, written more than a quarter of a century apart. For the first, the author was on assignment for The New Yorker in 1950 during which he had a week of unlimited access to Harry Truman. The week was chosen in advance at random, but turned out to be a dramatic one. It began with China invading Korea to shore up its client in the northern partition, reversing the gains U.S.-led U.N. forces had achieved. An ill-advised, unplanned remark by the President at his news conference about using any weapons available caused a flurry of consternation, both at home and abroad. Through this and other encounters, Hersey had the opportunity to assess both the strengths and weaknesses of a man he clearly admired.
The second part is a reprise, when Hersey was sent by The New York Times Sunday Magazine to the Ford White House. The differences are clear. Hersey admires aspects of Gerald Ford’s character and personality, but has grave reservations about the man as president. They crystallized around the one area that was off-limits from the start: whenever the President met with Henry Kissinger, or Kissinger’s deputy, Brent Scowcroft. The author makes it clear that his reaction is not because of feeling left-out, after having full access to foreign policy discussions during a time of major crisis on the earlier occasion. It had more to do with the contrast to meetings on domestic policy Hersey had witnessed, when a multitude of counselors had the President’s ear. Yet on matters of foreign policy and national security—issues on which Ford had far less experience—it was Kissinger alone. Hersey notes the contrast between this and the openness Ford had promised in his first, well-received message to the nation after assuming office in the wake of President Nixon’s resignation.
In addition to the contrast between Hersey’s admiration of Truman and reservations about Ford, other differences are evident as well. Hersey, operating on a New Yorker budget and deadline in 1950, had the time to prepare assiduously for his week in the White House, time spent reading and interviewing Truman associates back home in Independence, Mo., as well as in Washington. There was no such preparation for the week with Ford, for whatever reason. Whereas the account of the first week has a solid feel to it, the second half of the book is more impressionistic. Hersey admits more than once to a feeling of struggling to keep up. The difference of a quarter-century is evident in the style as well; the earlier half uses a wide, precise vocabulary, even to the point of seeming cluttered at time, while the second half is more minimalistic.
Hersey’s book offers insight into the workings of the White House, made more fascinating by the contrast in personalities between the activist Truman and the passive Ford. I was left with questions, however , about his assessments of the two men. It strikes me that Truman’s repeated references to the wartime commission that bore his name, and even to his construction of a new courthouse back home in Independence could reflect not a healthy pride in his achievements but a feeling of inadequacy, as if uncertain about filling a job few expected him ever to have. Ford’s stolid passivity meanwhile, clearly a disappointment to Hersey, who had hoped for a period of change in the wake of Watergate, just may have been—in combination with the easy friendliness and decency of the man, to which Hersey freely attests—just what the country needed as it healed from a traumatic episode.
It is not a mark against a book if it makes me think further and form my own judgments. So all in all, a good read, recommended to anyone interested in the workings of government. ( )

Truman and Ford's Presidency reviewed from historical view.American worries about the nature of the office,its power,its complexities,its staff,world role. Active stances taken by Truman and Passive by Ford is explored. ( )