Commitment to principle somehow necessitated unpopularity for John Adams, and the fullest expression of his best energies occurred in singular acts of passionate defiance. For Adams, virtue demanded a level of disinterestedness and a purity of public spiritedness that derived its compulsion from psychological imperative which seemed to require isolation and unpopularity as evidence of its authenticity.
Adams believed that there is no one principle which predominates in human nature so much in every stage of life as the passion for superiority. Every human being compares itself with every other around it and will find some superiority over every other.
Adams was obsessed with interior integrity, not with the external rewards that mastery of appearance could bring. Humility, piety, self-denial, and other habits were not just means to an end for him, but the ends themselves.
Adams suggested that most enduring political, social, and economic transformations were evolutionary rather than revolutionary. Successful revolutions such as the one he helped lead in America, were merely the final and most visible stages of what was a long process of preparation. The only kind of progress Adams truly trusted came gradually, moving at an evolutionary pace that allowed institutions to adjust and expectations to remain under some modicum of control.
In his political thinking, Adams did embrace two of the central tenets of the liberal tradition: the doctrine of popular sovereignty, that is, the notion that political power ultimately derives from the people; and the principle of equality before the law, the view that justice is blind to the class, race, or gender of the accused. In these two areas, Adams was a liberal.
Adams warned Jefferson that individual freedom and social equality were incompatible ideas, that ignoring their conflict only assured the triumph of the privileged. Adams insisted that government needed to play an active role in managing national priorities; that it was not, as Jefferson seemed to believe, only and always, a source of oppression.
An excellent book which explores the principles of government which two hundred years later we are still debating.

An exhaustive analysis of the character and legacy of John Adams. At times, perhaps a bit too exhaustive? That said, no one can claim Ellis left any stones unturned here - by the end of the book Adams' character has been analyzed and dissected with the detail of an electron microscope. Probably worth noting, this is NOT a biography in the standard sense. You are not going to get an in-depth look at Adams' presidency, or his role in the Revolution, or his years as Washington's VP. Nope...this is truly a deep dive into the character of Adams.

Although this book was published immediately before David McCullough's bestselling biography of John Adams, I believe the two make a terrific pairing. Whereas McCullough has written a traditional biography of the founding father (he went here, he did this; he went there, he said that), this is a biography of Adams' political thought in his later, post-presidential years. For much of the book, Ellis focuses on Adams' correspondence with Thomas Jefferson. By centering on Adams' thought and his written debates with Jefferson, Ellis avoids Adams' personality quirks and petty jealousies. He takes this biography to a new level; it's a biography of a great mind. Read McCullough first, but then do read this one to get a much more detailed glimpse into the mind of this great thinker.

John Adams was a well read, shrewd political thinker and a realist who never mastered the calm exterior of Washington or the lyrical writing of Jefferson. He was well aware of his flaws but this makes him more human and even more accessible then others of his generation. His view is often forgotten or dismissed as it does not fit into the mythology of America, but it was and is needed as it balances the idealistic views we often associate with Jefferson.

This book was highly recommended by Clay Jenkinson on the Thomas Jefferson Hour podcast. Ellis is arguably the best writer on the early republic and Passionate Sage might be his best book. Ellis is clearly in love with Adams and by the end of the book, so are his readers.

Adams is my favorite of the American Founding Fathers, and this book on him was really perceptive. It didn't overlook his vanity, his struggle with himself or his family, or his tirades and contrary personality. Despite what I felt was a a pretty thorough portrait of the man - all the good and bad - you can tell Ellis admires and appreciates Adams. He just doesn't idolize Adams, so Adams is not let off the hook. It's also a really well written book. The prose is really high quality. I'd recommend it to anyone who's interested in American history.

Nice complement to other books I've read on Adams as Ellis focuses mostly on his life after serving as the second president of the US.

Focuses mostly on Adams' post-presidency. Fascinating topic.

The naturally prickly among us have to find our own ways to contribute. Adams did. Ellis explains how Adams, a bitter pessimist, contributed psychological realism to the political DNA of the country. Adams knew and distrusted the animal passions of his fellow "founding brothers" and countrymen. He knew that partisanship and glory-seeking are intrinsic to human nature. Washington himself may be above party politics, but the nation as a whole would not remain so. In part, the political genius of the American system consists in structural features designed to turn self-interest to the common good. It took people like John Adams to think through that process. While we're far from the ideal linkage between individual and common interest that later philosophers like John Rawls would champion, that theme is there from the start. It seems Ellis reinvigorated interest in Adams, though it's fun to reflect on the scathing corrections and objections Adams might pen reading the book from Heaven. Some people are most safely appreciated after they're dead.

Could have been called John Adams: The Retirement Years, and After

Rather harsh on Hamilton, as might be expected. His foolish plan to make war on France with a mere 10K troops. And then to march them to Louisiana, Mexico and even Peru! The American Caesar.

Book has a couple sloppy errors.
-Reference to John Trumbull's famous painting of the Declaration at one point says it's about the constitutional convention.
-Reference to the "Council of Nice" was no doubt meant to be the "Council of Nicea".

Even though the author attended Jefferson's alma mater, it's pretty clear Adams is his favorite of the founders.

One great thing is that it summarizes or at least provides the highlights of Adams's difficult to read books on politics: Defence of the Constitutions and Discourses of Davila. Adams would have preferred that the presidential veto be final, with no chance of override. And yet he wondered why the Jeffersonians branded him a monarchist. By the way, interesting fact: neither Adams nor Jefferson ever used the veto, not John Quincy Adams either, this despite other early presidents using the veto: Washington - twice, Madison - 7 times, Monroe - once and Jackson - 12 times. Most surprising of all, U.S. Grant used it 93 times and was overridden four times.

Ellis's choice to center this biography on Adams's years *after* his presidency was brilliant. He offers an explanation for why Adams does not have a monument to him -- and Jefferson does. (John Adams is also never going to have a damn musical made out of his life like his bitterest rival, Alexander Hamilton.) Adams was a terrible writer and his philosophy (shaped by the disastrous outcomes of the French revolution) was more about constraining the masses than about turning the reins of power over to them.

Adams's thoughts are especially interesting to read now, after America's masses have recently elected a man whose campaign was based on racial animus. Adams would have predicted just such a thing.

John Adams deserves some love. He was a great president -- his refusal to go to war with France in 1798-1800 (even though that is what popular opinion demanded) allowed the nation to strengthen in its infancy as a constitutional republic without getting entangled in war. HE ALSO DID NOT OWN SLAVES, the only one of the first five presidents who didn't. (The second president not to own slaves was the sixth, John Quincy Adams - John Adams's son.)

Part retirement biography, part character sketch, and part examination of political philosophy. It sounds boring, but I enjoyed it.