So what should the next president read?

He's probably familiar with all these, as well, but almost anything by Studs Terkel (Working, in particular). I think understanding the lives of the people in a country is more important than grand politics, but that's just my attitude (as an economists, I'm also more attracted to facts than to the high theory).

First & foremost, some good escape fiction to take his mind off the recent ordeal. Michael Flynn's _Eifelheim_, a thoughtful sci-fi novel, would be an interesting choice.

Then, how about Marcus Borg's _The Heart of Christianity_ and Matthew Miller's _The Two Percent Solution_? And if he needs to read a national security book, it should be Amy Zegart's _Spying Blind_. Straightening out the spooks and the feebs would really put us a long way ahead in the GWOT.

I agree with yours, but I *would* have him stop with the Melian dialogue. The strong do as they like, the weak endure what they must.

In Hobbesian international relations, what else is there?

Perhaps Halberstam's The Best and the Brightest, as a constant reminder that even very smart people can do very stupid things.

Nice call. I also like the Halberstam recommendation, but would also throw in that he should watch The Fog of War.

For insight into foreign affairs:
The Limits of Power by Andrew Bacevich

For insight into domestic affairs:
The Bonfire of the Vanities by Tom Wolfe. Obama may even recognize some of the characters.

I always recommend Waltz's "Man, the State, and War" for clear thinking and a constant reminder of the chaos in the international system.

I can't help but recommend The Gay Science. I'm not even sure why.

How about Gellman's "Angler" ?

It might show Obama how easy it is for clever people to keep decisions and information away from the president.

I have to second the nomination of Gellman's book, to provide insight into the amount and variety of damage an Obama administration will have to repair in the Executive Branch and how it operates.

I'd add as well the volume of selected letters by Theodore Roosevelt edited by H. W. Brands, partly for general entertainment value but mostly for two more practical reasons. One is Roosevelt's insightful view of how a new President becomes President in the eyes of Americans who do not know him, or who only know him as something else; a lengthy letter to his Secretary of State, John Hay, recounting the story of an early cross-country tour Roosevelt made to the West Coast and back is especially provocative in this regard.

The other is the letters' demonstration of how Roosevelt engaged with the intellectual life of the country outside the narrow context of politics or even government. I don't want to oversell this -- Barack Obama is not Theodore Roosevelt, and the task of running the government is vastly different than it was in Roosevelt's time. But as Roosevelt observed, there is only so much to people who do nothing but politics all the time; Presidents less limited and insular than George W. Bush have found themselves cut off from many aspects of American life, and relating the business of government to what is happening in the country is one of the most formdidable challenges any President faces. Part of what enabled Roosevelt to blaze such a distinctive trail in American political life was the continual exchange of ideas with many of the best minds in the country in which he engaged throughout his Presidency. A President Obama should not be diffident about participating in such an exchange to the extent he is able.

How about 'To Lead the World: American Strategy After the Bush Doctrine', an edited volume by some U of Virginia profs with essays by Samantha Power, Robert Kagan, John Ikenberry, Francis Fukuyama, and Niall Ferguson, among others, offering different perspectives on the biggest threats now facing the United States, and offering advice for what the next prez (insert OBAMA!) should do about them.

OR, how about 'The Looming Tower'?

Alexander George, "The Limits of Coercive Diplomacy." It's a useful reminder of the intricacies of engaging with problematic states, as well as the inherent difficulties in an over-reliance on coercive measures to influence outcomes in international relations, something the foreign policy of the last eight years has too easily lost sight of.

MacMillan's Paris, 1919.

How a war ends usually ends up being more important than how it started.

Anything that pushes the greatness of capitalism and free markets.

I would recommend to the next president of the USA two pivotal books: Ethical Realism (Anatol Lieven & John Hulsman) and the forthcoming book of John Hulsman & A. Wess Mitchell focused on a very original idea developed in an essay published earlier this year in The National Interest-The Godfather Doctrine. These two books, in my opinion, should define the grand strategy of an Obama presidency. We need a Godfather Doctrine that should guide an US ethical realist foreign policy.

Hi Daniel,
I didn't realize you were a Williams alum! Here's how I found out:

http://www.ephblog.com/2008/11/05/recommended-reading/

At least they spelled my name right!

Cheers,
Jenny Attiyeh

Adam Smith.

Tragedy of Great Power Politics- John Mearsheimer

The 20 Year Crisis- E.H Carr

Anything at all that explains the immense damage that FDR did with the New Deal (Amity Shales, The Forgotten Man leaps to mind).

The Lost Constitution, by Randy Barnett.

You know I gotta say I am always struck by the reading the Melian Dialogue gets around these parts.

As a Greek who was taught the Peloponnesian War in high school,I was taught that the Melian Dialogue is not about "the strong doing what they must" which exemplified the cold Hobbesian nature of international relations.

No. I was taught that this was more like a Greek tragedy, a moment of hubris that would only lead to Nemesis and a fall from grace. and in practical terms it was the moment Athens lost the moral high-ground, galvanized the rest of the Greek against her and effectively lost the war.

The latter interpretation still strikes me as true. So why does the former gets all the love in the States?

Thomas Schelling's "The Strategy of Conflict". Also, Nozick's "Anarchy, State and Utopia" to provide some balance to Rawls, which I assume he has either read or absorbed by osmosis.

Russell Kirk, "The Conservative Mind" to understand those who will be in opposition to many of his policy objectives (and hey, who knows, maybe he'll see the light and be converted :)) and Gordon S. Wood "The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787" to (re-)learn that sovereignty remains with the people -- a concept that he apparently stumbled over when criticizing the constitution for not articulating those things that "government should do" .

E. B. White's "The Wild Flag"

@ #20:

I fail to understand how "the strong do as they like, the weak endure what they must," is inconsistent with your interpretation.

My reading of Thucydides says that proposition is true, and that strength must be conserved. Nothing good was served by the razing of Melos, and as Athens overextended herself and squandered her strength, she failtered and fell.

The Athenians are predicting their own downfall in the dialogue, because their statement is irrefutably true. Once they are no longer strong, they will fall.