Writing about incumbent Presidents has always been a polarizing subject, since the times when the rabidly partisan editor James Callender maligned George Washington, claiming that the first President had "debauched and deceived" the nation by self-promotion. Things haven't gotten much better since, and it is virtually impossible for readers to know how much of any contemporary historical accounts of the current presidency are fact and how much are polarized spin. Michael Wolff's recent book
Siege: Trump Under Fire may be more fact than fiction, or it may be the reverse. But what is clear is that his follow up to his earlier book about the Trump Presidency,
Fire and Fury, is disappointing in that it sacrifices a historical chronicling of some of the most interesting issues confronting the current administration, opting instead for salacious gossip that paints a picture of a president completely devoid of any redeeming qualities or intelligence whatsoever. This may be completely fair or Wolff may be serving as the James Callender to those of a different ideology. Readers will never really know.
The Trump Presidency has had some very interesting events that will bear further scrutiny for future presidential historians. These include the controversial confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, important meetings with powerful foreign leaders Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-Un, the government shutdown over funding of a border wall between the United States and Mexico, detention and separation of children from their parents at the US-Mexico border, the mid-term elections and the significance to possible impeachment proceedings and the Muller investigation into possible Presidential wrongdoing. All of these are interesting stories that deserve greater historical chronicling than are provided in this book. Many of the relevant details of these events are glossed over in this book, in favor of a dumbing down of the story into something akin to a sitcom about "s--t my president says".
The book appears to have two central themes. The first is a focus on anecdotes of presidential craziness. Rightly or wrongly, Wolff tries to convey the impression that the current presidency is unfocused, haphazard, and centered on a chief executive with a narcissistic personality disorder. Where there is enough evidence to support the contention that there is more than a kernel of truth to much of this impression, the book ignores a more objective analysis of the position of those concerned about how to address the issues of border security, the impact of illegal immigration on the economy, and the declining middle class. Issues take a back seat to presidential personality. Is this the fault of the subject or of those who report about him? The fault likely lies on both sides, but whatever proportion is justified, analysis and discussion of important issues are getting overlooked and forgotten.
The second theme running throughout the book is the influence that Steve Bannon, who is undoubtedly the source of much of the author's information, has on the book. It is as much a book about what Bannon thinks as it is about the President.
On the positive side, the book does touch on all of the aspects of the recent period of the Trump Presidency that will be relevant to future historians. But it fails to recount those issues in sufficient detail of what is of significance about them, and there is too much over-simplification of them. For example, in its chapter on the Kavanaugh nomination, it glosses over what took place in the actual hearings and gives little consideration to what Kavanaugh's opponents and his defenders were saying about how to address accusations of serious misconduct at a later time. The book does present a picture of how systemic dysfunction follows when there is too great a focus on the personality of a President, as opposed to the President's goals and vision for the nation. These stories seem important to Wolff only as a springboard for gossipy tales.
Perhaps the greatest contribution of the book is that it calls on voters to examine what price they are willing to pay to shake up the political establishment for the sake of badly needed change, and to evaluate whether or not the experiment of electing a politically inexperienced power-driven chief executive is accomplishing the changes that they hoped for when they marked their ballots.