On his debut book on Aaron Burr, the
Bridgeport Post very highly reviewed and recommended the work of Parmet and Hecht remarking, "This is scholars' work, no doubt of that... anyone with a casual interest in biography or American history will find much to interest in him in this exhaustive, though never exhausting, well-written biography." The
Freeport Journal-Standard had opinions in congruence with the Post, declaring that the book was a "fiery story, engrossingly told." The Kansas City Times called it a "fascinating study of a genuine character." Glen Macnow of the
Detroit Free Press described Parmet in his writings about Kennedy as someone that "...remains detached from the Kennedy mystique, portraying the man as neither a hero of Camelot nor a woman-chasing scoundrel." and that "Above all, Parmet avoids romanticizing JFK." Despite Macnow's approval of his impartiality in his work on Kennedy, the
St. Louis-Post Dispatch articulates that "Parmet does not mention, as he should have, that Kennedy's appointment of reactionary Southerners to the federal bench caused problems that continued for years." Jack Lessenberry of the
Commercial Appeal described his series on Nixon as "...by far, the best, mainly because it is not just about Nixon, but about the land that shaped him; that is to say, our America. Echoing Macnow's opinion regarding Parmet's neutrality in writing, Alan Miller from the
Atlanta Constitution wrote, "...[Parmet] places Mr. Nixon squarely in the context of his turbulent times. This useful perspective allows readers to draw their own conclusions about the man who still evokes fierce passions." Lessenberry and Miller's praise of Herbert's work on Nixon is heavily contrasted to that of Judith Johnson from the
Wichita Eagle who says "Besides a favorable bias, "But in his praise for the former president, Parmet tends to diminish the influence of other plays such as Dwight David Eisenhower and John F Kennedy... Richard Nixon and His America" suffers from an imbalance in events and issues." In the article, Johnson was critical of biases on Parmet's half regarding his high thoughts of Nixon. Mel Small of the Detroit Free Press makes claims that parrot the praise and criticism of Nixon's work, discouraged by his narrow inclusion of the
Watergate scandal, but also agrees that "Along the way, [Parmet] makes a reasonable case for the consideration of Nixon as a reasonable politician" In a review to his writings on former president Dwight Eisenhower,
Robert Kirsch of the
Los Angeles Times commended the book by Parmet, appending "This is not only a narrative of the administration, and a portrait of the man, it is told against the background of America, and the world, and told brilliantly." Historian
Steve Neal called it a "fascinating and scholarly account."
Richard Walton said that the work was "comprehensive and fair" and that "Parmet was tough, and justifiably so" in his criticisms of Ike. Frederick Marquardt of the
Arizona Republic disparaged the writing in certain aspects, arguing that the book was a "long rambling account" of his presidency and that the book could have benefitted from "more selectivity" and disregarding many details that the average reader may not want to know. Marquardt's opinion was not unpopular among reviewers, with fellow journalist Thomas Lask of the
New York Times describing the biographical work as "a clumsy, ill-proportioned book in which the material gets in the way of the subject". Regarding his book on the post-FDR
Democratic Party, Scott Shrewsbury of the
Star Tribune describes his account and analysis as "a narrative plagued by a rash of factual errors and stylistic deficiencies" also arguing that he "[ignored] the true dimensions of the country's needs...", mostly in response to an argument made by Parmet suggesting that the Democratic Party was attempting to accommodate a variety of beliefs "until the seams strain", proposing a solution against his self-described "umbrella" of the party. == References ==