4 comments about Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher: A Political Marriage.

1. If there was anyone who truly bestrode the 1980s like colossi, it was Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. While they acted upon the world stage, the other nations were forced to deal with them - were forced to react, while they acted. Together they reinvigorated their nations, challenged and defeated the Soviet Empire, and reshaped the modern world in ways that are still being felt some twenty years after their passing from power.
   
   In this fascinating book, author and journalist Nicholas Wapshott, draws on interviews and hundreds of personal correspondences to give a full view of their relationship. Theirs was not the simple, distant relationship enjoyed by most national leaders, instead their relationship was more like a marriage. They shared deeply-held values, they talked out and often fought over policies, and proved impervious to any attempts to set them against each other.
   
   I must admit that I really loved this book. I came of age (politically) during the Carter malaise, and remember the Reagan era with great affection. Plus, what Conservative does not fondly remember Britain's Iron Lady? This book does an excellent job of giving the reader an inside view of the relationship between Reagan and Thatcher, and really explaining what happened between them and what it meant for the rest of the world.
   
   I think that this book does a great job of giving the reader an insider's view of the 1980s, informing and explaining. This is one of the best books I have read in a while - and I read many good books - and I do not hesitate to give it my highest recommendations! Buy this book!



2. Nicholas Wapshott gives us a dual biography of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher and what he calls their `political marriage' during the 1980s when they were the hugely popular leaders of the United States and Great Britain. He shows us their childhood and the unlikely careers that finally lead to the White House and #10 Downing Street. It is interesting to remember that Thatcher's period as Prime Minister began before and ended after Reagan's Presidency. However, Reagan seemed to leave office with greater comfort than Thatcher did. Of course, Reagan was term limited while Thatcher ended up being undermined by her party as well as the accumulation of political missteps.
   
   Wapshott presents their careers and lives in a largely positive light, but does not shy away from criticism. Nor does he favor either Reagan or Thatcher. He shows the strengths of each as well as their blind spots. What the book excels at is showing their friendship and its being stronger than their sometimes vehement disagreements. These periods of confrontation are fascinating. The book bills itself as featuring previously unpublished correspondence, and it delivers these very interesting letters, but there are not as many of them as I had expected. This doesn't detract from the book in any way, but I just thought you should know that this isn't primarily a book of correspondence between the two world leaders.
   
   Were Thatcher and Reagan as important a global leadership team as Churchill and FDR? Maybe not quite, but their partnership during a critical period of the Cold War certainly helped it become a period LATE in the Cold War. Wapshott is not so sure that they caused the fall of the Soviet Union as much as they were in office when the USSR ran out of gas. While I am not a scholar of the period, I lived through most of the Cold War and followed it closely. I have no doubt that Reagan and Thatcher led the West and made things sufficiently more difficult for the Soviet leaders that they did contribute to its demise. And I am delighted each day that they did. You can't point to the way the West has muffed the post Cold War relationship with Russia to judge it any more than you can say that the Cold War makes our victory in WWII less victorious.
   
   A solid, concise, and interesting telling of these two lives on the world stage.
   
   Reviewed by Craig Matteson, Ann Arbor, MI



3. This dual biography details the remarkably parallel lives of two of the late 20th Century's most influential world leaders. Both were raised "above the store" as children of merchants, though Thatcher's father owned the store, whereas Reagan's hard-luck father never did. Both were insurgents and change-agents in traditional, staid political parties. Both were freedom-promoting anti-totalitarians deeply committed to breaking the legacy of Yalta and, in Reagan's words, "transcending" Communism. Both enhanced their reputations for firmness by staring down powerful unions -- PATCO in the U.S.; the National Union of Mineworkers in the U.K. Both furthered national restoration, in part, through controversial, but ultimately successful military expeditions.
   
   Making use of newly released correspondence, diaries and phone transcripts, journalist Nicholas Wapshott mines the depths of the Thatcher-Reagan political partnership. Like any marriage, they did not always agree. And at times, the disagreements were quite contentious. For example, the iron-willed Thatcher is seen upbraiding Reagan in strong terms over U.S. resistance to her Falklands action; Reagan's decision not to consult Thatcher before launching the Grenada invasion, and U.S.-led restrictions on Western companies supporting the Soviet Siberian gas pipeline. Reagan's zero-option nuclear gambit at Reykjavik also drew a stern post-mortem rebuke from Thatcher. Reagan is seen parrying these hot critiques with charm and diplomacy.
   
   Reagan and Thatcher, of course, came to dissimilar ends. Reagan quietly disappeared from public life (even before the onset of Alzheimer's), while Thatcher, felled in an intra-party coup, remained an outspoken, if somewhat embittered commentator on world events.
   
   Wapshott's book is not an authoritative biography, but it does provide revealing insights into the most intimate and successful trans-Atlantic political partnership since Roosevelt and Churchill.



4. Seldom have two heads-of-state been better matched to work for common goals than were Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. However, neither their personal relationship nor their political one was as placid as usually portrayed for benefit of the general public on both sides of the Atlantic. Nicholas Wapshott's dual biography, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher: A Political Marriage, offers a more realistic look at the personal relationship that helped change the course of world history by so directly contributing to the end of the Cold War.
   
   Reagan and Thatcher, whose terms in office overlapped by the eight years of Reagan's presidency, first met in 1975 at the suggestion of a friend of Reagan's who believed that the two would be natural political allies. At the time of their meeting, Thatcher had just been elected Conservative leader and Reagan had just finished his second term as governor of California and was being pressed by some for a run at the presidency. On that eventful day, the pair found their political views to be almost identical and they forged an alliance, both personal and political, that would remain strong and productive throughout Reagan's entire term as President of the United States.
   
   Margaret Thatcher saw Ronald Reagan as an inspirational figure but Reagan's tremendous respect for her political skills, and his willingness to listen to her and to take her advice on a regular basis, placed Thatcher in the unusual position of being almost an unofficial member of the Reagan Cabinet. As a result, Thatcher influenced American international policy like no world leader other than Winston Churchill had ever done before her. She was not afraid to make demands of Reagan and she found him a willing listener who could often be moved in the political direction that she preferred as British Prime Minister.
   
   That is not to say that Ronald Reagan always gave in to Margaret Thatcher's arguments, but she knew that she could always count on Reagan to give her point-of-view a fair hearing. Together, the two leaders hastened the demise of the Soviet Union by keeping the "heat" on its leadership and by engaging their two economies in a spending war for military weapons that the Soviets could not long sustain.
   
   On the surface, the two seem to have had little in common. Thatcher's formative years as a shopkeeper's daughter, with a religious father who seldom allowed alcohol in his home, was very different from the childhood endured by Reagan, son of an alcoholic father who could barely afford food and shelter for his family at times. But remarkably Thatcher and Reagan ended up with the same strong beliefs that nothing was more important than family and religious faith. Both believed in hard work and developed a true appreciation for those who made their living in "trade," producing a strong belief in each of them that everyone deserves respect and fair treatment regardless of social class or financial worth, lessons that served each of them well in their political careers.
   
   Nicholas Wapshott's use of the treasure trove of hundreds of recently declassified letters, notes, transcripts of telephone conversations and recollections of many who witnessed the relationship as insiders has resulted in an effective political history of the eighties and the kind of dual biography that political junkies everywhere will enjoy. Taken alone, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher would have likely been recognized as remarkable politicians, but taken together as a unified team with common goals they enjoyed the kind of success that the pairing of George W. Bush and Tony Blair could only dream about. What they accomplished by joining forces was astounding.

5 comments about Asad: The Struggle for the Middle East.

1. This is such a superb work, that the title of this review warranted alliteration. Still pretty much one of the best works on modern Syria: simultaneously a biography, a history, and an analysis of inter-state machinations in the Middle East. Nice narrative flow, much of it based on interviews with the persons involved, including Asad himself. I really can't recommend this enough. Anyone with even a remotely passing interest in the Middle East should read this book. A pity Seale didn't produce more works as this and his other work "The Struggle for Syria", which covers an earlier period, are so freakin' amazing! I also recommend, as a companion piece "The Lion of Damascus" by David Lesch, a biography of Asad's son, the current Syrian president, Bashar al-'Asad.



2. This book is important for anyone trying to learn about the Middle East, but I agree with other reviewers that the book is flawed. It is very biased and paints Asad in a much more positive light than he deserves. Asad and his regime were responsible for many atrocities and has contributed to the instability of the region, but Mr. Seale simply glosses over many of these crimes.
   
   Mr. Seale's description of Asad's attack against the Syrian city of Hama is cursory at best. By all accounts I have read Hama was devastated, and thousands of people were killed, maimed or displaced, but the account given here doesn't say anything about the human suffering. Not only that but Seale seems to justify and even approve of the action because of the attacks that emanated from this city.
   
   Asad was not a humanitarian and his regime was extremely oppressive. As with any authoritarian regime Asad enriched cronies to the detriment of the Syrian people. He killed and tortured his own people. These facts seemed to be omitted from this book. I have no idea why this was left out, but it skews the book and leaves the reader an irrevocably flawed book. This book also casts Israel as the main instigator in all the areas troubles. This book will leave the uninformed reader with the impression that had the region simply followed Asad then all would have been well. The fact is that Israel does in fact shoulder some blame for the current situation, but they certainly do not deserve all the blame.
   
   With that said the book is still important, and deserves the 4 star rating I gave it. Syria is a very important nation and the more we know about it the better informed we will be of the entire situation. This book contributes to the readers greater understanding of this region as long as they understand that the book is biased. The nature of the Asad regime means there will be little information available to readers, so any information is important.
   
   This book is well written and the author has obviously done a lot of research and got to know Asad very well. There is a lot of important information in here, but all readers should come into this book understanding its flaws right from the beginning.



3. This book is already nearing 20 years in age, so much has already been said about its portrayal of modern Near East geopolitics. Anyone interested in this subject matter should read this book, as it is provides valuable insight into events within Syria, throughout the region, and across the world that shaped the relationships between Arab states themselves and with Israel as witnessed in the late 20th century. Much has occured since and it is interesting to speculate how Seale would have woven into the narrative, among other major events, Jordan's 1994 treaty with Israel, as Assad long prided himself on thwarting such an agreement. (Granted, Seale's ongoing journalistic activities offer plenty of insight into his perspectives on most any regional developments.)
   
   Seale's research is exhaustive and paints a fascinating picture of a man who seized and retained power in a complex, volatile country and who thrust himself into one of the most divisive and enigmatic conflicts facing the world today. Unfortunately, this book must be regarded as the romantic (harsher critics may say sycophantic) chronicling of Syrian and Arab nationalism that it is. There can be no doubt that Seale is vehemently opposed to Israeli values and worldview, and to a lesser degree those of the United states and other Western powers. Seale characterizes Israel as continually exercising an almost Svengali influence on the West, able to unilaterally bend the wills of its more powerful allies and impose nefarious designs upon the entire Arab world. His attitude toward terrorism is forgiving to say the least, not to mention his argument that the West's fear of terrorism is a function of Israeli "psychological warfare" rather than a true international reality and utmost national security priority. Seale is also reluctant to hold Assad accountable for his diplomatic failures and military defeats, but is rather wont to characterize the venerable pan-Arab leader as simply a victim of external circumstance.
   
   So long as one is able to distill much of these biases (or at least acknowledge their influence on the reporting), Seale's book constitutes a uniquely detailed survey of modern Syrian history in the vital context of regional conflicts that have defined it.



4. Patrick Seale did a great job here, this book is a must read and I would reccomend it not just to people who are interested in how Syria's contemporary history was shaped by the late president Asad but also to those who want a deeper insight on Middle East politics, Arab nationalism, the question of Lebanon, the formation of the United Arab Republic by Egypt and Syria and the doomed divorce between them, the rocky relationship between Jordan and Syria, the October 1973 war, Sadat and his controversial peace treaty with Israel, Sadat's deceit, Henry Kissinger's role in the Middle East and last but not least American foreign policy in the Middle East. This book should be read by all major think tanks in America and also by the current government personnel interested mainly in Syria and foreign policy



5. This is probably the only available biography of late Syrian President Hafez Assad. Keep in mind that Seale was given all that he had asked for - like many other Western scholars who were treated to the court and became apologetic to the regime - to write this book which makes him, so to speak, the spokesperson of the presidential court. Even though Seale reports about the many murders that happened during the career of Assad, he does so from an apologetic perspective. Assad is always depicted as having to kill before his adversaries kill him. While this could be true in the context of tribal Arab politics, it relieves Assad of all of the responsibilities of the killings that happened during his reign.
   Additionally, the book lacks proper investigative methodology.
   Things are narrated from the eyes of Assad, with some minimal background. When Seale talks about Assad's brother Rifaat who tried to replace his brother through a coups d'etats in the early 80s, for example, Seale gives an account about Rifaat that could have only been written after Rifaat had fallen out with his brother and was sent to exile. Rifaat is described as a hot tempered gangster kid since his early childhood who used to carry a stick and bully his peers. While reports about Rifaat's atrocities during his rule under his brother should not be undermined, stories about Rifaat's innate hot temper should be taken with a grain of salt. If this book was written during the days of Rifaat while still in favor with his brother, then a different account would have probably been produced about the president's brother. Additionally, the sources are limited and often not thoroughly cross examined to establish their credibility when writing the history of Syria's dictator.

5 comments about American Dreamer: A Life of Henry A. Wallace.

1. Doesn't anyone here know how pathetically naive this man was? I mean, he wanted to pursue a policy of appeasement with mass-murderer Joseph Stalin - much as Neville Chamberlain had done not a decade earlier with Hitler. Thank God Roosevelt had the sense to remove him from the Vice Presidency; a very scary situation indeed was thus avoided.
   
   Don't waste your time - the man, however "idealistic" (meaning he didn't listen to anyone else), is a historical nonentity.



2. There are many lessons to be learned from the one-of-a-kind individual Henry A. Wallace. Because of his varied interests, people of all walks of life can find aspects of his life and personality they can relate to. This book provides insight into one of the driving forces behind modern agricultural, economic, political and social thought.



3. Henry A Wallace was surely one of the most fascinating men in American Politics in 20th Century--even tho he was, in a sense, only half-in politics. He was too naive and too much in sympathy with the poor of his own world and with the aspirations of other people to fit the American mainstream---FDR managed to achieve a lot of what Wallace dreamed of by being more politically astute.



4. This is a proverbial "long overdue" biography of Henry A. Wallace and his brilliant yet eccentric Scottish-American family. I did a Web search of Wallace a few years ago and was amazed at the scant result. This rectifies that.
   
   Beyond the coverage of his political innocence there is a good recounting of his actual science work. Few politicians actually "do" things beyond speechifying, getting reelected and becoming millionaires at the public trough. Henry, Henry C. and Henry A. Wallace were exceptions. Their philosophic designs for the farmer and state policy were important and Henry A.'s genetic work truly revolutionary.
   
   The world would be a different place without it.
   
   Not much popular press has been written about American agriculture, I guess because building cars, fighting Hitler, dropping atomic bombs and oral sex in the oval office are more exciting.
   
   This book is a good primer in America's great farming history of triumph. To simplify, the American farmer through hard work, good soil and some science grew too much product for his own good...prices essentially fell from 1890 into the 1930's. (World War I was a boom period, but wild fluctuations don't lend themselves to good planning. Under such conditions, planning was about as effective as mule husbandry.) Naturally this hurt most farmers and destroyed more then a few of them. Through government intervention theorized by the Wallace family's agricultural journal and then championed to be public law in Washington by Secretary of Agriculture Henry C. under Harding, then Secretary of Agriculture Henry A. under FDR, this anomaly was reformed.
   
   An obvious and wonderful irony is that Henry A. during this fight for state policy, was genetically engineering hybrid corns (and other crops) which hugely increased acre yield! In other words, American farmers were destroying themselves by being too successful and Wallace made them more successful...and viable.
   
   I was thrilled too with the description of Henry C.'s Washington sojourn in the 1920's. Historians breeze by that period, summarizing it as: womanizer, feckless Warren G. Harding; indolent, pickle puss Calvin Coolidge; and Depression maker, Let-Them-Eat-Cake Herbert C. Hoover. Obviously no administration sets its goal as venality, so it refreshing to see Harding to be portrayed as a sympathetic proponent of Henry C.'s policy goals and Coolidge to be an activist opponent of them. Hoover simply comes off as a lunk-headed player who was wrong and enamored with his personal successes.
   
   Historians have wrongly treated conservative governments as do-nothing when in fact doing nothing often takes as much effort as signing every bill regurgitated by Congress.
   
   And Roosevelt was duplicitous, Henry A. believed in mysticism and was a parlor red who would have ruined the country had FDR croaked a year earlier...but that I knew before I read this book.
   
   This is a good book about a classic American type.



5. I enjoyed this detailed account of the life of Henry Wallace. The book does read like a work by David McCullough, but is enhanced by a deep understanding of the culture of Washington. The book gives valuable insights into the practical political forces that shaped the New Deal and the beginning of the Cold War.

   The underlying premise of this book as that an idealistic dreamer can make a huge difference in the creating and shaping policy in the United States. The co-author of this work is a former Senator from Iowa named John C. Culver. He served one-term in the 1970's. Through Henry Wallace, the authors mount a formidable defense of the ideals of American liberalism.

1 comments about Simon Bolivar: Liberation and Disappointment (Library of World Biography Series) (Library of World Biography).

1. This was a barely average book from a readers stand point. The story of the life of Simon Bolivar was quite interesting, but the author seemed bound and determined to sedate this excitable tale down to a sleepy murmur. The index was poorly done, and the book lacked anything in the way of personal writing of the principle, or anything from his intimates. It also had a notably sophomoric feel, and for a biography of such a looming historical figure I find that unacceptable.

5 comments about James K. Polk and the Expansionist Impulse (2nd Edition) (Library of American Biography).

1. 11 James K. Polk - 1845-49
   Polk is our most underrated president. He championed the idea of manifest destiny. He believed the United States was destined to own all the land from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Texas was annexed, and the Mexican War was fought. The treaty added California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Wyoming, Idaho, Oregon and Washington. The U.S. stretched from sea to shining sea. Polk was from Tennessee. He accomplished what he wanted and decided not to seek a second term. I rank him #6.



2. James K. Polk has one of the most interesting historical reputations among American presidents. Serving for a solitary term, he consistently ranks among the most highly regarded occupants of the White House. Yet in spite of this he has been the subject of surprisingly little attention from historians. This is what makes Sam Haynes' short study so welcome. Seeing Polk as representative of the nation's desire for territorial expansion, he provides a concise account of the life of this understudied figure.
   
   Haynes' book is hardly the final word on Polk; he compresses the first thirty years of Polk's life into a single chapter, raising many questions that are then left unanswered. It is only when Polk emerges as one of Andrew Jackson's lieutenants in the House of Representatives that the narrative slows enough to allow for insights. Haynes sees Polk as the "consummate Jacksonian," serving as a loyal lieutenant and emerging as one of the foremost heirs to his legacy. Yet two successive defeats in races for the governorship of Tennessee dimmed his political star, and his name was not among those of the frontrunners for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1844.
   
   Nonetheless, Polk emerged from a deadlocked convention as the first "dark horse" nominee in American history. Hynes argues that the significance of the 1844 presidential convention lies in the embrace of territorial expansion as an issue that united a broad range of groups in a diverse country, which helped Polk defeat Henry Clay in the subsequent election. As president, Polk was a hands-on manager who carefully monitored every department of the executive branch. While viable with the small bureaucracy in the Washington of his day, this proved impractical when managing the far-flung war against Mexico.
   
   The Mexican-American War takes up over a third of the book, both as the pivotal event of Polk's presidency and as the culminating moment of the expansionist movement. Haynes depicts it as a natural consequence of the belligerency of American expansion, which risked war with Great Britain as well over the Pacific Northwest. Polk's battles were not confined to foreign relations, though, as going to war with poorly defined aims exacerbated tensions between the proslavery South and antislavery North. Polk also clashed with the predominantly Whig military commanders, who chafed at the president's effort to micromanage the conflict. This created conflict as well with Polk's handpicked negotiator, Nicholas Trist, who succeeded in hammering out a treaty ending the war before the expected recall order arrived. His success allowed the president to step down with the war as the crowning achievement of his administration, though Polk was so exhausted that he died soon afterwards.
   
   Haynes's book provides an excellent introduction to both American expansionism during the 1840s and Polk's conduct of the war. In many respects, it serves as a useful supplement to Charles Sellers's unfinished two-volume study of Polk, James K. Polk, Jackonian 1795-1843 & Continentalist 1843-1846 (Two Volume Set), which covers his life to the start of the war with Mexico. Yet while Sellers's biography is the definitive work on the president's early years, this book is still the best modern study available of Polk's complete political career.



3. A short book written more as text book that about the life of Polk. I was disappointed with the book. We need more about James K. Polk.



4. James K. Polk and the Expansionist Impulse is an exciting and educational book. It helps to understand American history especially the policies pursued between 1845 and 1849 as well as the polities of that time but more importantly it enlightens the reader on the life of American's 11th president who added 522 million acres to land of the country. The book also confirmed the accusation that Americans think they are superior and have the ability to do anything at all better than the rest of the world. This is evident in the way Mexico was treated. Convinced that they were the only people with the requisite qualities for self-government, they looked down on the Mexicans and took away their lands. One can now perfectly understands why Mexicans harbor so much bitterness towards Americans even up to today. This book will be of a great benefit to any student studying American history and anyone at all who is interested in learning about President Polk and the lands he coveted for his country.



5. While many people try to depict the lives of our past Presidents in four or five hundred pages, this abbreviated view of the life and associations of James K. Polk is a refreshing change. As a history major, this book provides all of the pertinent information required to gain an insightful depiction of this man. It is a must read for anyone interested in Jacksonian America and an entertaining read for thinkers from all walks of life.

No comments about STORMTROOPER ON THE EASTERN FRONT: Fighting with Hitler's Latvian SS.

3 comments about Sandinista: Carlos Fonseca and the Nicaraguan Revolution.

1. Having lived trought the early years of the revolution in Nicaragua, althouhg just a child I got a first hand view of some of the struggles and dangers of the revolution. Because I was only a child I was not able to fully grasp the grand scheme of things and now as an adult I decided to begin reading about the revolution in Nicaragua and stubled upon this book.

   The book gives a clear, no nonsense account of Carlos Fonseca. Who he was, how he was raised and what he stood for over the course of his life. A clear chronological order of events into his life is presented as well as the struggles the young rag tag band of rebels went trought.

   If want to read an unbiased account into the revolution in Nicaragua and the role Carlos Fonseca played as leader of the FSLN then read this book. For me it shed light on some of the missing pieces about the revolution, the struggle and the ultimate outcome of the FSLN after the death of Fonseca.

   Good reading.




2. This is the first book I read about Carlos Fonseca that has more accurate information about him, than any other book I have read.
   I know this because I am the son of Raul Fonseca, but grew up with Carlos example and support. Carlos was the only father figure I ever had.

   Quite a task Ms. Zimmermann. Congratulations.

   I just read a few pages, but when I finish I will write a more complete review.

   God bless you!




3. This book pulls off a difficult feat, providing a balanced, neutral account of a subject about which supporters and opponents usually speak in strident, propagandistic terms.

   Because of the absence of any preachy rhetoric, and the reliance on first-hand interviews and actual source documents, the author delivers a compelling portrait of a leader whose faithfulness to pure idealism in a struggle against a seemingly unstoppable evil system can be compared to that of Churchill, Gandhi, and King.

   The Sandinistas were not the only group that took to the hills to arouse the populace in Latin America after the successful Cuban revolution, but they were the only group which actually came to power. Dr. Zimmermann's book is the story of the man who was the driving force behind the ideas, organization, strategy and success of their revolution.

   She does not flinch from criticizing the Sandinistas for their initial ill-informed and patronizing attitudes toward the indigineous peoples of their country, nor for their slow acceptance of their female compatriots, nor for their many tactical errors and blunders.

   Instead, this telling of the story of Fonseca and the Sanidnistas allows the reader to sense the very human feelings which became the basis of their appeal and allowed their success, even after Fonseca's death.

5 comments about The Last Great Frenchman: A Life of General De Gaulle.

1. The politicians of today are often - I`m sorry to say it - vague and unreliable. But to read about Charles de Gaulle is refreshing - in this book, at least. The author describes vividly his development from soldier to politician, the dramas of war and peace, his special place in history.
   
   Among other fascinating things, the glimpses of the general`s private life and thoughts, his come-back in 1958, and the way he managed to influence France and the world, are not easy to forget!



2. An excellent biography on one of the most elusive leaders of Europe. The book can get bogged down in minute details of WWII policy, but nonetheless provides a well-rounded view of who de Gaulle was--family man, soldier, general, president. He clearly had his own vision for France and did not want to be beholden to Anglo-American interests. While one may not agree with some of his positions, one has to respect the man for desiring a France that could stand on her own feet.
   
   His story is also a sad one. The man who fought so hard for his country and was given a heroes welcome in 1945 is forced from office by the late 1960s.



3. De Gaulle was loved and hated by many people (oddly enough, the same people at different times) but whether you liked him or not you couldn't argue that he didn't love his country. And he loved his country so much he was unwillingly to see it subjected by the fascists and their collaborators during World War II. He chose resistance and ultimately the Resistance chose him.
   
   Charles Williams does an excellent job with this book. De Gualle moves beyond the stereotypes that we may have of him to make him out of the ordinary, but not larger than life. Abrasive, but a man who was so because he felt that was what was needed. A man who took the courage to explore uncharted territory when he established not a "government-in-exile" but an alternate regime to Vichy, which has sold itself to the Devil. They may not have sold ALL, but they sold enough to forever stain their honor.
   
   Well written and researched. I particularly liked the thumbnail sketches of many of the characters involved with De Gaulle, a device which provided info without detracting from the narrative.



4. Truly a great figure of the 20th century. As the author points out de Gaulle would have been a minor footnote in French history if he had died before 1940. At the age of 50 he stepped unto English soil after leaving France where he had been condemned to death for refusing to go along with the French government in signing the armistice with Germany. His strength and moral courage brought France out of the abyss of collaboration to (once again) a player on the world stage.
   De Gaulle is accurately portrayed by Williams as an uncompromising man - he skillfully out-maneuvered his rival, Giraud in Algeria during the war to place himself as the sole leader of Fighting France. De Gaulle was to share power with no man. The constant quarrels with Churchill would be humorous if there was not a war to be won. And as Williams states that war, for De Gaulle, was against Britain and the U.S. De Gaulle's single-minded vision was to return France to a position of power at the conclusion of the war. If that meant irritating Roosevelt and Churchill more than Hitler - so be it. Probably De Gaulle's biggest miscalculation, as Williams' points out was with Roosevelt. De Gaulle never comprehended the man or the nation. De Gaulle had a European view of the world and did not have Churchill's grasp of everything that the U.S. had to offer for the liberation of Europe. Roosevelt was reluctant to fight for the British empire and was therefore much less interested in preserving France's external holdings and viewed De Gaulle as a brash upstart with truthfully little to offer in terms of military strength.
   Ironically De Gaulle himself came to see that anti-colonial point of view in the early 60's when Algeria was granted autonomy with the blessing of European France.
   Williams' illustrates on several occasions how De Gaulle's sheer strength of personality and his ability to irritate most anyone on any occasion, including his fellow countrymen, makes for a great historical biography of an extraordinary individualist.



5. De Gaulle was, as this book points out, the last great frenchmen. Some will debate this raising the name of Mitterand, but De Gaulle looms over france like an albatross as the conscience of the nation.

   De Gaulle was influenced as a young man by the injustice of the Dreyfuss case. The hatred of inequality would later convince De Gaulle to fight to the death rather then submit to Nazi terror.

   The book details De Gaulle as the war hero in WWI. He went on to write about the new generation of tanks and how best to employ them(as the Germans would) in concentrations. During WWII De Gaulle found himself watching the government vascilate and finally give in to the hated Germans. To cap it off De Gaulles WWI hero Petain was the one to give in to the Nazis. De Gaulle fled to Britian to carry on the conflict and he was found guilty of treason by the Vichy french.

   De Gaulle carrried the honor of france abroad, helped to liberate hte colonies from the Vichy and finally leading the french back to Paris. De Gaulles later carerr found him helping to extricate the french from Algeria.

   A wonderful book, easy to read and enthralling.

4 comments about Heist: Superlobbyist Jack Abramoff, His Republican Allies, and the Buying of Washington.

1. Peter Stone's first-rate investigative reporting -- done over several years -- is a deftly handled take by an experienced Washington reporter on Jack Abramoff's scandalous activities. The thing that makes this book stand out is the incredible amount of original reporting that went into it. The tale is also well-written and not overly hyped. It doesn't have to be. It is told in delicious, understated detail that could easily be turned into a movie script.



2. This book didnt go far enough of this neo-conman's connection to Dubja "00's" decade of greed; similar to the gopper "80's" greed. I wonder if the government will take back Casino Jack money he stole from the Indians and return it? or will the government let Casino Jack keep the Indian's money when they get out of Club-Fed, like Michael Milken and Ivan Bolsky.



3. What a story! A classic tale of corruption in Washington, DC. I was both entertained and educated by the author's summary of this complicated series of events. He introduces the characters, the situation, and describes the "action" in a respectable narrative style.
   
   Sometimes I pay almost no attention to the Federal Government. The unveiling of Abramoff, DeLay, Ralph Reed, and the other villains is this drama passed me by. This book has filled me in admirably. Stone's choice of level of detail seemed just right.
   
   I take off one star for the few places where one wishes the editor had made the author clean up unnecessary repetition, and for the general lack of color. The style is that of a journalist, not a novelist.
   
   A fine job of reducing a complicated story to a brisk, informative read.



4. This was a highly entertaining and readable account of the Abramoff scandal. Before I started reading it, I had a pretty vague understanding of the whole affair. I had obviously followed the story in the newspapers but tended to get lost in all the details of the intricate plot. Stone does a good job of explaining Abramoff's activities in a clear way that renders the affair understandable even to those with no prior knowledge. For the most part, Stone's voice is fairly unbiased. He presents the facts and lets them speak for themselves. He mostly refrains from making moral judgments of Abramoff and his collaborators until the last chapter, in which he situates the scandal within the larger topic of corruption in Washington. If I had to make a criticism, it might be that the author is sometimes repetitive, as he had a habit of citing certain facts and making certain arguments multiple times. Overall, however, I would recommend this book to anybody looking to gain a better understanding of the Abramoff affair. It makes for a pretty entertaining read at points, mainly just because the affair itself is so interesting and populated by such a colorful cast of characters. As far as I know, this is the only book-length treatment of the Abramoff scandal.

1 comments about Andrew Jackson and the Constitution: The Rise and Fall of Generational Regimes.

1. Gerard Macgliocca's book is an important contribution to our understanding of constitutional history. It is a remarkable concise essay that tries to reestablish the importance of the Jacksonians and the Taney Court in our legal history while presenting a theory of the rise and fall of constitutional "generations".
   Magliocca sees each constitutional generation as being "formed" by shared collective experiences that cause them to largely share political and legal beliefs. The experiences that Magliocca is talking about can be things like 9-11, the Great Depression, the Civil War, etc. (pp.2-3). Obviously he is talking about a tendency of a majority as opposed to the views of any one individual. These generations are also reflected in the political domination of one party, e.g., the Jacksonians, FDR Democrats, etc.. The great eras of our constitutional history can thus be seen as a period when one generation held sway. At that moment, another generation is always beginning to develope in response to real injustices that are ignored (or condoned) by the dominant generation.
   Magliocca throughout his book lists patterns of change that every rising generation follows. This is where my comparison to the I Ching comes in. I am being somewhat tongue-in-cheek in making that comparison but Magliocca invites that sort of response with statements like the following: "Reform leads to resistance, and resistance leads to reform. That is a central theme of the constitutional cycle" (p.112). Fortunately, Magliocca has some very powerful ideas to offer us about some of these patterns of change. For example, he believes that as a rising generation rises to power through Congress and the Presidency, that the older generation still dominant on the Supreme Court begins to escalate their resistance. At this point, the older generation is likely to start to hand down "preemptive opinions". These rulings utilize three tactics:
   1. The Justices will decide every issue instead of following the usual practice of avoiding major constitutional issues. They are trying to create landmark rulings.
   2. The Court will try to undermine the rising generations thought in the strongest possible way. They want to attack its basic principles and rule them invalid.
   3. Since this is usually very difficult to do with established doctrine, the Court will invent some "new theory of equality or fairness" to ground their ruling on. (p.43)
   Magliocca believes that both Worcester v. Georgia in 1832 and Dred Scott v. Sanford are examples of such decisions. It is worth the reading of Magliocca's book for his reading of these two cases alone.
   The Kuhnian thrust of Magliocca's argument (that I allude to in my review title) is that Magliocca believes that these "generational" conflicts are fought out politically and not through contests of reasoning. His history of the Taney court and of the rise and fall of the Jacksonians provides strong evidence for his belief. Magliocca also makes room for the role of chance events (the death of William Henry Harrison and the subsequent Tyler presidency, the assassination of Lincoln, etc.)
   Overall, this is, as stated, a very impressive essay. My problem with Magliocca is hinted at by my use of the word essay. This books needs expansion. As it is, it is only 129 pages long. He should have continued the story through both the rise of the Progressive and the New Deal generation. Magliocca is claiming universal validity for his thesis with its individual patterns of change.
   Here is another example:
   "Rising movements are filled with a righteous belief that the voters have give them a mandate for constitutional reform. On the other side, the justices generally believe that they represent the true voice of the people as set forth in the text of the Constitution and decades of precedent." (p. 37)
   This seems true enough but it needs to be shown to be a truly universal pattern. Show me how it worked in the switch to the Progressives or to the New Deal. Applying his concepts to more historical examples would allow them to be further refined.
   This is especially true of his concept of preemptive opinion. I would love to have seen an Appendix with a listing of all the cases that Magliocca suspected could be considered as such. I would love to read what Magliocca would have to say about a case like Buck v. Bell in 1935? It would seem to be a good candidate for preemptive status except for the third tactic. Indeed, Justice Roberts seems to reach back to fairness standards of a generation or two earlier in that one. (See the second chapter of Leuchtenburg's, The Supreme Court Reborn, for a good discussion).
   So my complaint is that the current book feels more like a precise for a reasearch program to be completed. Magliocca may be on to an essential way of understanding major changes in our constitutional history. He hasn't convinced me that it is applicable to that larger history as yet. He has provided us, however, with a very fine and subtle reading to the Jacksonian period. I do not want to minimize that. For example, be makes a subtle and important point about how the beliefs of the abolitionist evolved as a result of watching the Jacksonian treatment of the Cherokees. His book is well worth reading for the period history alone.
   But I, for one, am waiting for the rest of the history.