1. Walter McDougal's "Promised Land, Crusader State"
2. John Mearsheimer's "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics"
3. Brooks and Wohlforth's "World Out of Balance: International Relations and the Challenge of American Primacy"

Fareed Zakaria's "Post-American World"
Parag Khanna's "How to Run the World"
John Mearsheimer's "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics"

That post is hilarious. And no, Pdisney, Mearsheimer is not an alternative. He's been wrong on everything ("OMG GERMANY AND UKRAINE NEED NUKES OR EUROPE WILL COLLAPSE INTO WAR!!1!!1!").

I would actually pick some old stuff along with the new:
1. Anything and everything by Raymond Aron (absolutely fantastic and still completely relevant French intellectual, much available in English): "Progress and Disilussion", "The Imperial Republic", "In Defense of Decadent Europe", "The Opium of the Intellectuals", "War and Peace among Nations", "Clausewitz"...

2. Anything by Andrew Bacevic: "American Empire", "The New American Militarism", "The Limits of Power".

3. Joseph Nye's "Soft Power" and the "Future of Power".

4. Bonus: Jeremy Rifkin's "European Dream" (more of a "pop" book, but still relevant I think).

For domestic policy: all the books on why Social Democracy is superior (Paul Krugman, Tony Judt, "The Spirit Level").

For history, e.g. understanding the world: Eric Hobsbawm's "Age of Extremes" and "The Long Nineteenth Century" trilogy.

(1) Ghost Wars, Steve Coll
(2) Rise of the Vulcans, James Mann
(3) Wired for War, P.W. Singer

Captivating stories will build an appetite for more information.

George Herring's "From Colony to Superpower"
Walt and Mearsheimer's "The Israel Lobby"
Fareed Zakaria's "Post-American World"

I think you've revealed the problem with the question when you point out that "you need something relatively pithy, accessible, relevant to current events, and America-centric." "Accessible" is doing a LOT of work in that sentence. I would make it more explicit by stating that you also need something entirely atheoretical (or at least something that does not mention anywhere that it relies on any intelligible theory); something without any serious empirical work, whether qualitative or quantitative; something that confirms the politician's prior beliefs; and something that no self-respecting social scientist would publish.

What that leaves you with, I'm not sure, but it ain't good. Let me just back up my argument with (one!) anecdote. A while back I was charged by a major publisher of academic journal articles with chairing a panel in DC on how to get more policy people in town to read their work. Stupidly, I asked whether the participants they thought the empirical work or theory was the bigger obstacle to a wider audience inside the Beltway. Gales of laughter from the policy people in attendance. I was informed that Foreign Affairs is too involved and difficult not just for the median policy*maker*, but also for the median policymaker's senior staff. Foreign Affairs.

Again, what that leaves you with, I'm not sure. I think there's a reason policymakers head to Friedman and Zakaria though: both are breezy writers who give the reader the illusion that he is cosmopolitan while simultaneously stroking his nationalist nerve center. (With the notable exception of Zakaria's dissertation, which was worthwhile.)

The 20 Years' Crisis- E.H. Carr

1.) Brad Thayer and Chris Layne - American Empire: a Debate

2.) Dominic Tierney and Dominic Johnson - Failing to Win: Perceptions of Victory in International Politics

3.) Something more from the liberalism/IPE realm - Zombies!

I would give him or her the same books I first read to help get them shaped up on foreign policy.
The Post American World by Fareed Zakaria
The Second World by Parag KHanna.
America and the World by Zbig Brzezinski and Brent Scowcraft

Once, he's done with those,
How to Run the World by Parag Khanna
Taming American Power by Stephen M. Walt
Descent into Chaos by Ahmed Rashid (We're heavily involved in the region at this time after all, so it wouldn't hurt to learn more about the region)

And If they really wanted to get into theory (which I highly doubt)
The Tragedy of Great Power Politics by John Mearsheimer
The Origins of Alliances by Stephen Walt
And just to give them a fun intro to IR: Theories of International Politics and Zombies by Daniel Drezner.

" There's a reason foreign affairs is at the bottom-- in the post-Cold War world, the American public doesn't care and doesn't know much about international relations."

You forgot that, as a bonus, Senators have very little foreign policy influence. The only Senators I can think of that have had any influence on US foreign policy, post-Berlin Wall, have been Jesse Helms and maybe Dick Lugar and now, John Kyl.

Consider the Senators who have seen themselves or sold themselves as foreign policy types--Biden, Graham (the one from Florida), Robert "lift and strike" Dole, McCain. Where are their footprints on US FP?

(I omit Kerry, who only moved into FP after losing the Presidential election.)

1. Robert Hormats, The Price of Liberty
2. Benjamin Wittes, Law and the Long War
3. Robert Kaplan, Monsoon: The Indian Ocean and the Future of American Power

Here's my list:

"The Tragedy of Great Power Politics" by John Mearsheimer
"Descent into Chaos" by Ahmed Rashid
"Wired for War" by P.W. Singer

Henry Kissinger: Diplomacy (?)

A president needs to learn how effective foreign policy is crafted and implemented. James Baker's memoir and George Schultz's memoir are good examples. (Kissinger and Acheson are a bit too distant in the past.) There's also a book or two on the making of Bush's foreign policy that might be helpful....:-)

I'm gonna cheat a bit, but I'd go with:

- "Ghost Wars" by Steve Coll, in order to understand the wars in South Asia
- "Fragile Superpower" by Susan Shirk, in order to get a rising China
- And then spend the time you would spend reading books to read the corresponding Foreign Affairs summaries, which usually get you most of the way.

Not a lot of theory here, but if you're really running for president, call up some professors -- ahem, Drezner -- and have them brief you on the theories to save time.

#1: 'Essence of Decision', Graham Allison.

This book would have the intent to make a policy-maker have to think about how the 'hot dogs' of policy come about, whether it is rationality, bureaucracy, or organizations.

#2: 'Perception and Misperception in International Politics', Robert Jervis

This book gets into the psychology of decision-making, coordinating well with Allison above.

#3: 'Analogies at War, Korea, Munich, Dien Bien Phu...' by Yuen Foong Khong

Policymakers are lambasted with all sorts of comparisons with historical precedents. This book could help them analyze and navigate the lessons - and the problems - of historical analogies.

Stefan Halper - "The Beijing Consensus: How China's Authoritarian Model Will Dominate the 21st Century"

Ian Bremmer - "The End of the Free Market"

Andrew Bacevic - "Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War"

Robert Kaplan - "Monsoon: The Indian Ocean and the Future of American Power"

This last one is written more like a memior or a novel, but it still offers a good historical perspective if you ask me:

John Perkins - "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man"

“The Tragedy of Great Power Politics" by John Mearsheimer
“The Indian Ocean and the Future of American Power” by Robert Kaplan
“Politics Among Nations” by Hans Morgenthau

Fareed Zakaria's "Post-American World"
Michael Scheuer "imperial hubris"

1. "Conflict After the Cold War" Richard K. Betts
2. "Why Nations Go To War" John G. Stoessinger
3. 'Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet" Michael Klare

1) Obviously, "Theories of International Politics and Zombies" by Dan Drezner
2) "Lessons in Disaster" by Gordon M. Goldstein
3) "Arsenal of Democracy" by Julian E. Zelizer

Also, I agree with the previous comments suggesting Colonel Bacevich's newest book as well as the Brooks and Woolforth primer. The B&W book, however, will be far too boring for a novice with marginal interest.

Drezner rules.

JDS

1- Paul Kennedy - Rise and Fall of Great Powers (to understand the processes involved in a declining power and how to manage that gracefully)
2 -Mary Kaldor - New and Old Wars (for an appreciation of the reality of 21st century warfare)
3 -Robert fisk - The Great War For Civillization (riveting read and an in-depth historical analysis on the middle east)

Seriously? Half the problem in implementing policy comes from the policymakers not fully examining their own process of decision and not fully exploring the potential negative outcomes of their mistakes. Groupthink should be required reading for ALL policy makers, regardless of field and affiliation. I'd argue it's a lot more important than almost any of the books above because it actually deals with the policy making process rather than discrete scenarios that can be learned about as well by briefings or overarching paradigms that provide limited guidance in the real world.

I'd argue that nothing more than a primer on actual theory is needed- no policymaker ever acts in strict adherence to any particular theory so a familiarity with the various paradigms is enough. Theories of IR and Zombies works as well as anything else.

After that, it comes down to understanding the regions and cultures you're interacting with, while understanding the limits of hard and soft power. That's more than any single book I've seen can do. So what the hell, let them still read Zakaria's Post American World, it's a perfectly cromulent piece of writing that won't make them any worse off.

Rise and Fall of Great Powers.

Blowback by Chalmars Johnson.

1. Kenneth N. Waltz: Man, The State, and War
2. Kenneth N. Waltz: Realism and International Politics
3. Kenneth N. Waltz: A Theory of International Politics

This is a great and critical topic. A few books have stood out to me in my few years of reading International Relations.

1) Lee Smith: The strong horse. It was an interesting, and I thought mind-changing book which really made me think about the complexities of the Mideast.

2) I second Brzezinski's and Scowcroft's "America and the world". Two of my favorite people when it comes to foreign policy, and the book had an interesting set-up that went from topic to topic so politicians don't feel "trapped" listening to one topic for hundreds of pages.

3) Leslie Gelb: Power rules. At times I find Gelb short on substantive reasoning in his writing, but he writes with a common sense approach that I believe many politicians would find easy to agree with.

And as a bonus) EVERY politician should read Henry Kissinger - Diplomacy. This is both a history book and an IR book so I didn't want to place it under the main three. But this taught me more about European affairs and the shaping of international politics more then any history class ever has.

You need to create two new books: "The Conservative Guide To IR" (with compiled quotes from conservative IR think-tanks such as AEI) and "The Liberal Guide To IR" (with complied quotes from liberal IR think-tanks such as Brookings). Most of the problems with previous lists is that they aim to PUSH an agenda (such as realism, or social democracy, or "limits of American Power") rather than re-confirm what a person already believe in. And our goal is to ensure that politicians understand IR, even if they do not agree with the same IR policies as we do. Our goal is to EDUCATE, not to persuade.

Fact is, politicians already come in with pre-conceived biases, so rather than overthrowing them, we should present viewpoints that logically follow from said conclusions, and ensure that our politicians are educated about IR, even if they end up voting the same way that they would before. "The Conservative Guide To IR" and "The Liberal Guide To IR" will act as basically a 'party whip', to ensure that politicians act in an ideological manner consistent with that of, well, their ideology.

I'd say there are a few too many focusing simply on what's been popular in the past ten years like Coll, Zakaria or Rashid.

Perhaps this is reflective of my status as someone uninitiated into foreign affairs but I was somewhat surprised not to see Samuel Hutchinson's "Clash of Civilizations" on anyone's list. Has this book fallen out of favor, been somehow discredited or otherwise rendered unimportant? I was under the impression it was a fairly influential book (I certainly enjoyed reading it), but perhaps the more educated among the FP readers can correct me.

Clash of Civilizations would still have been on everyone's "hot this summer list" had it not been shown to be complete bullshit once you look past the sweeping pronouncements and tried to apply it to the real world as some of the knuckleheads in Bush's first administration wanted to.

Clash was more a framework for looking at the post Cold War world rather than a book of practical application? Perhaps I've misunderstood it but I believed it was the first, or at least among the first/most influential books to look at foreign affairs through the lens of civilizational core values. Again, I could be way off here.

"The Future of Power" by Joseph Nye. Excellent and easily accessible book about IR in the 21st century.

"Warrior Politics" by Robert Kaplan. It's more general than his other stuff, and gives a very good introduction to a more power-oriented perspective. I think he's very wrong, both empirically and normatively, but our hypothetical politician should hear this perspective.

The last one is tough. I'm debating between "Global Capitalism: It's Fall and Rise in the 20th Century" by Jeffry Frieden, or "The Shield of Achilles" by Phillip Bobbitt. Problem: both are very long, "Shield" is about 1000 pages. However, they're both engaging page-turners.

Yeah, and "Clash of Civilizations" has fallen out of favor in the academic set because it just doesn't do a very good job of explaining how the world actually works. Also, culture-based arguments seem to often to be based in what psychology calls attribution bias, in which we assume others do what they do because of who they are, while we do what we do because we are responding to environmental stimuli. When Huntington says international conflict is based on values, it ignores all the real material sources of conflict (and cooperation) that do a much better job of explaining why things are the way they are.

The pretentiousness here is so thick you could cut it with a knife. For all the value-added provided by foreign policy theories and theorists, our aspiring politician may as well read 'Curious George'. Or, horror of horrors, Thomas Friedman.

Jeez.

1) China History: Jonathan Spence, "The Search for Modern China"
(More contemporary/policy: Kenneth Lieberthal, "Governing China," Barry Naughton, "The Chinese Economy," Toshi Yoshihara and James Holmes, "Red Star over the Pacific" and Robert Kaplan, "Monsoon: The Indian Ocean and the Future of American Power")

2) Terrorism and Small Wars: Philip Bobbitt, "Terror and Consent: The Wars for the Twentieth Century"
(Backups: Anatol Lieven, "Pakistan: A Hard Country," John Nagl, "Learning to Eat Soup with Knife," David Kilcullen, "The Accidental Guerrilla," Peter Bergen, "The Longest War," and Audrey Kurth Cronin, "How Terrorism Ends")

3) US Role in the World and the Global Economy: Michael Mandelbaum, "The Frugal Superpower: America's Global Leadership in a Cash-Strapped Era"
(Joseph Nye, "The Future of Power," Richard Haass, "War of Necessity, War of Choice," Stephen Walt, "Taming American Power," Frank Ninkovich, "Global Dawn: The Cultural Foundation of American Internationalism, 1865-1890," Mike Moore, former New Zealand PM, "Saving Globalization," and John Mearsheimer, "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics," and Patrick M. Cronin, "Restraint: Recalibrating American Strategy")

Let's face it, the great books are too long and dense for policy makers. They should instead have several good foreign affairs and international economics feeds on their Google readers or other aggregators: Drezner, Walt, Duck of Minerva, Juan Cole, FT's Beyond Brics and Martin Wolf, WSJ's China Realtime, Matt Iglesias, etc...

If you want them to read books, they have to be simple, direct and short. Also, as someone already suggested, for a book to be accessible to a policy maker it has to speak to their already deep-seated convictions at least so as it doesn't put them off completely. For conservatives, I'd recommend Kagan's Return of History and the End of Dreams. For liberals, I'd recommend Ikenberry's (edited) The Crisis of American Foreign Policy. Three good books for either side would be Ian Bremmer's The End of the Free Market, Weber and Jentleson's The End of Arrogance and Pape and Feldman's Cutting the Fuse.

Mearsheimer & Walt, "The Israeli Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy"

or

Stoessinger, "Why Nations Go To War"

I dreamt of being a politician. I gave up my Sci-Fi and picked up the Non-Fi. Now, after many years of reading paperback-punditry and academic literature, I still think the ivory tower writes too much for itself. Whereas in the 20th century, when the academy thrived, specialization was the name of the game, in the 21st, one will be judged on his flexibility in juggling several areas of micro-specialization. The key word: inter-disciplinary.

With that in mind, I offer three books that may not scream INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, but instead will provide the reader more insight on key areas which will affect the international arena:

1. Zombie Capitalism: Global Crisis and the Relevance of Mark - Chris Harman.

2. The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom - Evgeny Morozov.

3. Blackwater: The RIse of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army - Jeremy Scahill.

That should be enough to keep a budding senator's mind occupied for a few weeks. But, as a bonus, I'll add a fiction book which - in my very humble opinion - is the greatest IR book of all time, and an incredible vacation page-turner:

Dune - Frank Herbert

Whether you think Spice stands for a world's problems with oil or a generation's love of LSD, the chase for control of the universe's most precious commodity serves as a great tale of IR politics.

Several of these suggestions are odd. Why expect a president to become an expert in IR theory (for the reason Anonymoose notes above, that’s probably a waste of time), and why have him read things from the same DC Wise Men he surely hears from on occasion? What’s useful to a principal is to know where opportunities could lie, and what kinds of mistakes to avoid - so I think something like Painful Choices by David Welch or Failing to Win by Tierney and Johnson is a lot more useful than whatever the latest book is on American decline or American resurgence or whatever new stripe of Realism is trendy this Tuesday.

I'd suggest one of the three should be Paul Collier, The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries are Failing and What Should Be Done About It.

They'll be forced to process, to some extent, plenty of media about military hot spots around the globe. But Collier would give them at least a passing introduction to the nameless multitudes that only infrequently have lobbying access or media publicity.

I'm going to agree with Bored, the list is overly pretentious, and it seems like everyone is viewing the President as a wonk in training. But then again, Dan wants something 'chewier' than Friedman.

If we want to go down something that might be a bit more useful, I'll go with these three:

1. The Long Road Home and The War Within - by Gary Trudeau

2. Earth - By John Stewart

3. Thud! - By Terry Pratchett

4. As a bonus - The Dilbert Principle - by Scott Adams

But if we're going to play the game, might as well run with these three groups (toss up's in each of them):

1. Power in Organizations: by Jeff Pfeffer / The Art of Warfare By:
Sun Tzu (Author), Roger T. Ames (Translator, Introduction)

2.The Power Broker or The Means of Ascent: both by Robert Caro.

3. The Best and the Brightest: By David Halberstam

4. The Black Swan: By Nassim Taleb

5. On Money and Markets by Henry Kaufman