No comments about The City as Subject: Seki Hajime and the Reinvention of Modern Osaka (Twentieth-Century Japan).

1 comments about Thomas Jefferson: A Brief Biography.

1. .....than the man who wrote the encyclopaedia? This little [48 page] book had its genesis back in the 1930s when Dumas Malone got stuck with the job of editor of the "Dictionary of American Biography". Then, 50 years later, he revised it to to be published in the form we see here. Normally, such a thing would not rate mention, much less five stars, BUT, Dumas Malone was the greatest Jefferson scholar that ever lived, and the forward was written by Merrill Peterson, the second greatest. Now, I could write a very good 50 page article on Mr. Jefferson, but I barely belong on the same planet as these guys.
   
   What we have here is the most basic life of Jefferson, touching all the high [and some of the low] points of his public life. From cradle to grave, it's ALL here, but in the merest outline. The name "Maria Cosway" is not mentioned, so we lose the "head and heart". Citizen Genet, Alexander Hamilton, John Marshall, and Aaron Burr all get appropriate notation. John Adams gets a bit more, which is proper. Betsey Walker gets named, and apologized for; Sally Hemings and James Callendar are noted, and dismissed with due scorn. The debt problems, sadly, have to be here, and they are. And the books, books, books......
   
   In the fifty years between the first and second appearances of this article, Dr. Malone wrote the six volume "Jefferson and His Time", one of the two greatest works of biography in the English language [the other being Dr. Freeman's "RE Lee"]. And, Dr. Peterson wrote the 1000+ page "Thomas Jefferson & the new nation", MAYBE the greatest one volume bio of anybody ever written. The present edition is published by the TJMF, to sell in the gift shop at Monticello. [GREAT gift shops, by the way]. For a lot of folks, it's enough. If you want more, try the works of Noble Cunningham, or Joe Ellis. {FORGET Fawn Brodie}!! Why do I bother with a long review of an article?....Dumas Malone. [I even have a small bio of him that I wrote published on the 'net]. Of course, Malone and Peterson's long works are definitive, but their length will deter most readers.

5 comments about George Kennan: A Study of Character.

1. This remarkable book is both an act of filial piety and a reference point for future historians: Kennan must be taken seriously, must endure, and must be seen at least as one of the important ships in a small--and not growing-- flotilla of great American statesmen. Lukacs performs a service of recovery amidst the detritus of current American policies, in showing with great subtlety how men of wisdom once took a considered if not pure approach to diplomatic relations, and how the amorphous beast of public opinion, embodied in Congressional representatives more than ever subject to the vicissitudes of polls and "focus groups", influenced and continue to influence--and frustrate--statecraft.
   Kennan represented a rare strain in the American character, a man deeply immersed in European civilization, history, and languages, aware of America's profound European roots, who put the sum of his knowledge to use in addressing deep questions going to the heart of the American experience, teasing out the tensions inherent in the various strands of the American outlook. Remarkably, Kennan's greatest enduring influence came perhaps in the second fifty years of his life through his writings and lectures, a massive outpouring before which even a historian of Lukacs's extraordinary capabilities stands in awe.
   Kennan was remarkably consistent throughout his life in maintaining that America does not represent a Chosen Nation destined to lead mankind from darkness, that, in John Adams's words, "we are friends of liberty all over the world; but we do not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy". If this saying has been too-oft quoted by opponents of the invasion of Iraq who, despite their unqualified support for JFK's abstract principles of intervention, which I have not heard repudiated by a single self-styled liberal, then we must understand it in the context of Kennan's views: he advocated firmness when called for, in responding to the North Korean incursion into South Korea, in providing detailed proposals to create demilitarized and denuclearized zones in Western Europe and to end the partition of Germany, not to say his firmness in standing up to "anti anticommunism" during the witch hunts of Senator McCarthy, while recognizing that communists and their sympathizers had indeed infiltrated the US government to a degree. In short, he did not hesitate to assert American interests nor shrink from recommending the judicious deployment of American military power. While his famous "X" article described a political strategy, he was also aware that the ability to apply force is a necessary, if not sufficient condition of any containment policy.
   As Lukacs makes clear, Kennan recognized the duality running through American politics, itself drawing at its source from the very New England qualities that Kennan professed to admire and of which he himself was partly a product. If his soul and intellect were haunted by an older, deeper Scots and European pessimism, he was also a product of the Middle West, and possessed very American traits, although a progressivist instinct may not have been among these despite his Wisconsin provenance. This grounding led him to be unafraid to criticize excessiveness or the "legalistic moralistic" character of much of American foreign policy. In the current atmosphere of conservative triumphalism where the history of the Cold War is interpreted through the lens of an American "victory", Kennan punctures these reprehensible pretentions by pointing out that, "The suggestion that any American administration had the power to influence decisively the course of a tremendous political upheaval, in another great country on another side of the globe is intrinsically silly and childish" (all quotation are drawn from the Lukacs book).
   Amidst the theme and variations of post-war US policy toward the Soviet Union, apparently formed from reading Dr. Benjamin Spock on child-rearing, Kennan saw clearly and consistently that the Soviet Union was not a "fit ally or associate, actual or potential, for [the United States]", a pronouncement he made at the outset of WWII and which he repeated for many years after. Thus, détente, the "Evil Empire", and other variations of US policy had, despite the best efforts of neoconservative writers to lead us to believe otherwise, little impact on a Soviet Union that Kennan recognized early on had, by Stalin's time, fundamentally shifted course from Marxism-Leninism to despotism and lacked the resources or will to endure as a Communist state. Early evidence of this came in the post-war period as the USSR pulled back from Finland and Austria, and demonstrated its weakness through interventions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, among other actions.
   Kennan was equally sceptical of what is now called "global governance", including the formation of the United Nations; viewed the Yalta "Declaration of Liberated Europe" as "deplorable, [a] sham, and useless" (Lukacs's words) because Eastern Europe fell within Russia's sphere of influence; and was highly critical of the "American (and neo-Wilsonian) belief that a new international institution such as the United Nations was of paramount importance" (p. 65). He remained persuaded throughout his lifetime that "national and state interests were and would remain more powerful than any international organization dedicated to assure some kind of unchanging peace". Later, he opposed the expansion of NATO to Eastern Europe, referring to it as a disastrous mistake.
   At the same time, he saw a consistent thread running through the policies of Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Bush, and Clinton, and continued in the current Bush presidency: a naive liberal interventionist mentality to secure questionable gains, usually at a high cost. It is useful to ponder Kennan's perspective when insisting too acutely on major differences in Democratic and Republican approaches to foreign policy, remembering that restraint, moderation, and measured analysis, all qualities that Kennan exemplified in his life as a practitioner and a historian, do not appear to be embedded in either party's approach to the world.
   As an undergraduate I read the first volume of Kennan's Memoirs in a summer course in diplomatic history, ably taught by Professor Clifford Egan at the University of Houston. Among hundreds of books read in college, the vividness of some of Kennan's prose continued to recur in my mind for years after, despite not having picked up the book since 1973. Lukacs insists throughout his study on Kennan's qualities as a writer as well as his brilliance as an historian and researcher, and Lukacs's own prose is the equal of Kennan's. His concentrated "character study" in fact points the way to further serious research for historians, though this research is not likely to be undertaken as waves of fads sweep through the profession, if not the practice of historical scholarship and writing, obviating the need to "do" history in favour of constructing frameworks and "theories" whose theoretical underpinnings are of the weakest sort.
   Kennan's life and work span the twentieth century, a remarkable life, yet leaving us with a legacy that must be accounted for and drawn upon if America is to achieve its promise. This is not likely to happen, of course, given the midgets who now propose to lead us. They possess the most detailed knowledge of the opinions of voters in each and every county across the country, now represented in a colouring book cartoon of America with red, purple, and blue, yet lack the slightest insight into foreign affairs, history, or the lives of other peoples far away, not to say any mastery of other languages or cultures. More distressingly, they are not unrepresentative of America at this moment in history, when many of the most civilized have put aside judgment in favour of passion, wisdom in favour of ideology. In so doing, our putative and potential leaders and their supporters have no claim upon our loyalties and deserve to be held to the high standard of accountability upon which Kennan insisted. As Kennan might have agreed, the foreign policy questions that are most vital and of most immediate moment are questions about America, not about our enemies and rivals.
   Even with Kennan's constant global travels, capacity for research (and his love of library culture, which he saw as one of America's distinctive contributions to civilization), and seemingly unlimited energy for writing, his lectures, speeches, and even a later role under Kennedy as ambassador to Yugoslavia, he maintained a small farm in Pennsylvania, and regularly sailed the Norwegian fjords around his family's summer home, indulging in his nostalgie du Nord, and his love of the Baltic area. Throughout his life he was accompanied and supported by his Norwegian wife, with whom he celebrated a 70th wedding anniversary before his own passing at the age of one hundred. Even in his 90s he continued to produce books, articles, and memoirs at an astounding rate, and received accolades and recognition that would not have been predicted upon his leaving government service in the 1950s. Yet neither Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives, nor neoconservatives attempted to lay claim to him as one of their own, which speaks to the complexity of his intellect and the resistance of his thought to simplification.
   As Reinhold Niebuhr wrote, "The good fortune of America and its power place it under the most grievous temptations to self-adulation". Kennan's work and the exemplary nature of his life both bear close study, but there is no evidence that American leadership is any more prepared now than previously to learn the lessons offered by this distinctive patriot who often acted as Cassandra during America's most self-congratulatory and misguided episodes. Perhaps there will arise among us another such man who will exercise more influence over wise leaders, but I'm not holding my breath.



2. Lukacs styles the book as a study of character but I must say I do not feel I really know much more about Kennan after reading the book. The book is really too short to be of value. I would have liked to see more reflection on matters like the Long Telegram or the X article, but in Luckas treatment it all just glides by. There are very few excerpts from Kennan's writing. Instead there are many grand, sweeping statements about 'magisterial' books and various digressions that seem more about Lukacs than Kennan. At the end of the day that is my main objection. It is almost impossible to get past the pomposity of the writing; you feel stuck in the presence of an insufferable windbag. At one point, Lukacs refers to "The Wise Men" by Evan Thomas and Walter Isaacson as an "acceptable book". "Acceptable"? Doesn't that sound like your professor giving your essay a "B"? It is especially irritating when "The Wise Men" is so vastly superior to Lukacs' book in every way. A disapointment.



3. Lukacs' George Kennan is purpouted to be about the character of the man but rather serves as a very short biography of the man that ensured the defeat of the Soviet Union then any other American president. Many years after Keenan hammered out his containment philosophy, he remained convinced that the essential problem regarding Russia was not communism but instead was the paranoid nature of the Russian state. Look no farther then the so-called head of the Russian Republic now. Unlike, our current administration appointments, George Kennan was curious about the rest of the world and before he wrote anything down contemplated for every eventuality. That Lukacs knew Keenan is the ultimate flaw in the book, because there are several points where the author veers into untrammeled hagiography. But overall, a good introduction to Keenan and the tremendous impact he had on the world.



4. Lukacs views this as a study of a man's character, but it's really more of an overview of Kennan's life. It probably will have limited appeal to people who have read a lot of Kennan's work, particularly his books and collection. It is probably better for someone like me who is familiar with his famous work on "containment" and has read some of Kennan's more recent magazine pieces in the New Yorker and elsewhere. Kennan had a remarkable career that straddled academia and government and his mastery of Russian and German allowed him to get beyond the usual sources of information that fed Cold War debates. He was truly a man of the 20th century who was engaged in the world from the time shortly after WWI through the end of the Cold War.
   
   Lukacs provides the broad outlines of Kennan's life and what he felt to be Kennan's most important books. In that respect, he has written a biography that is likely to stimulate interest in Kennan's longer works, particular those from the middle Cold War era. Lukacs never really describes his relationship to Kennan, although it is clear that they were friends and collegial with respect to topics such as foreign affairs. It may be that this was written too close to Kennan's recent death to provide the distance necessary to fully consider another person's life.
   
   As a character study, the book falls somewhat short and misses obvious connections between experiences and points of view. There is a short description of Kennan's religious journey (from a Presbyterian upbringing to an vaguely described flirtation with Catholicisim and finally adoption of Episcopalianism) without recognizing the essential Calvinism in Kennan's lifelong world view. Kennan was clearly an enthusiast of bourgeois values, in the traditional sense and sympathetic to rather authoritarian, despotic government. He advocated a kind of government by "wise men" that certainly suggests a belief in "a predetermined elect". Ironically, he had the opportunity to see how policy by wise men could be undermined by broad political currents (the Truman years) or could bring about disastrous policies (the JFK years). Lukacs wonders how Kennan would have viewed this philosophy in light of our current government by "wise men" most of whom have come from the conservative "think tank" world, something that Kennan probably would have viewed as an a oxymoron. Kennan's view of the world comes off as lacking holism in important areas. While recognizing that past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior, even at a political/social level, Kennan seems to have minimized the dynamic nature of societies and the inevitable presence of internal and external forces which propel societies in new directions. Rather he is a humanist of the old school and conservative in the sense of being skeptical of "progress" and intervention. In many cases he proved prescient, as in Vietnam and the execution of the Cold War, but in others such as the rise of fascism, his cautious view of the world was inadequate.
   
   Kennan lived a remarkable life and was able to see a much of the world and play a part in US foreign policy at key points in our recent history. He was a true scholar and one unmoved by constraining or trendy paradigms. His status as an outsider and a public intellectual probably lessened his academic prestige, but his depth and insight make him someone worth revisiting and reading further. As a character study, this book has serious analytic shortcomings. As an affectionate brief biography, it works better and it should stimulate more interest in the life and work of this remarkable man.



5. I knew almost nothing about Kennan before I read this book, but Lukacs got me interested in learning more about Kennan and reading Kennan's books. This is by no means a balanced, objective, or scholarly work - Lukacs very obviously admires Kennan and makes no attempt to hide this. If you want a scholarly analysis of Kennan's life, work, or legacy, this book is not for you. But if you want to read a mostly well-written and interesting biography of a rather major American figure, I recommend it.

4 comments about FINAL ENTRIES 1945: THE DIARIES OF JOSEPH GOEBBELS.

1. In the closing weeks of the European component of WWII, Goebbels's attitude towards the Jews remained unchanged: (April 3, 1945): "The Jews have applied for a seat at the San Francisco Conference. It is characteristic that their main demand is that anti-Semitism be forbidden throughout the world. Typically, having committed the most terrible crimes against mankind, the Jews would now like mankind to be forbidden even to think about them." (p. 305).
   
   However, Jews were not the only scapegoats; nor were they the only ones blamed for starting WWII. On March 18, 1945, Goebbels referred to Poland's losses to, of all things, "...Polish arrogance in August 1939..." and having failed to accept the "...extraordinarily generous [German] proposals at that time..." [Sic!] (p. 165). Goebbels engages in an even more overt blame-the-victim mentality towards Poles when, in his entry of March 30, 1945, he quips about: "...Poland, which began this war anyway..." (p. 274). In addition, on March 26, 1945, Goebbels mentioned "...Poland and Russia, the most primitive countries of Europe." (p. 233).
   
   In other contexts, Goebbels had various scapegoats coming in handy, as summarized by historian Trevor-Roper: "...castigating whole classes, whole groups, whole nations: the miserable bourgeoisie, the generals, the Luftwaffe, the Churches, the Jews, the Swiss, the Swedes." (P. xxx).
   
   It is both sobering and sad to realize that someone of Goebbels's character had a much better grasp of Soviet intentions that did Churchill or Roosevelt. Goebbels even quoted a British newspaper in this regard (March 3, 1945): The Daily Mail just made a truly sensational admission; it says that for two years now I have been the only person to analyze the case of Poland correctly and forecast accurately the way in which England would succumb to the Kremlin. Churchill comes in for criticism of rare severity." (p. 30).
   
   In stark contrast to the appeasing attitude of western politicians towards "Uncle Joe" Stalin, Goebbels commented (March 9, 1945): "In the region which was formerly Poland the Soviets are pursuing their bloody reign of terror undeterred by Anglo-American protests. They take not the smallest notice of Churchill and Roosevelt. A new wave of arrests is sweeping across the country, the victims being mainly the Polish nationalists." (p. 88). Also (March 21, 1945): "The Soviets are going quietly on deporting Poles to the interior of Russia. They take not the smallest notice of the Anglo-Americans." (p. 190).
   
   The situation under which Poles found themselves was obvious to Goebbels: (March 11, 1945): "Stalin is firmly determined--and no one can understand this--to negotiate with no one over the Polish question. How rigidly he has already imposed his will is evident from the fact that Mikolajczyk, the former Polish Minister-in-exile, now proposes to submit to the dictates of the Kremlin. Under protest admittedly, but what value are such protests today? Anyway the only choice for the Poles is either to be exterminated by force or to bow the Kremlin." (p. 100).
   
   Goebbels saw right through the Communist smear campaign directed against non-Communist regimes (March 19, 1945): "It is well known that Communists always call everything fascist that is not Communist and, under the guise of a struggle against fascism, exterminate all forces opposing bolshevization of a country in which they have any influence...According to Pravda, the London Poles are a gang of degenerate landowners rejected by the Polish people. In short, Pravda's general tone is one hardly customary even between enemies, let alone between allies." (p. 172).
   
   On March 22, 1945, Goebbels discussed the Soviet-staged trials, in Bulgaria, of two witnesses who had been present, two years earlier, at the site of the Katyn massacre (p. 206). The two priests were tearfully forced to recant their blame of the Soviets.
   
   Goebbels repeats certain themes throughout this latest set of his diaries. He seems obsessed with the incipient British loss of their worldwide colonial empire, and that regardless of the outcome of the war. He thinks that the new German jets can enjoy a 5:1 kill ratio over the Allied propeller-driven planes, but recognizes that Germany can produce far too few jets to make a realistic impact in the air war. He repeatedly suggests that the Germans should have withdrawn from the Geneva Convention. This would have allowed the Germans to kill Allied POWs in reprisal for the German civilians killed by Allied bombing raids. It also would make the German soldiers fight harder, aware of the fact that the Allies would reciprocally take no prisoners.



2. This was the third of three Goebbel War Year diaries that I bought and read. Although not the easiest prose to read -- in part they were not written necessarily to be read but to be perhaps used in a memoir that was destined to never be written -- this and the other two diaries are fascinating books for people fascinated by that era.

   This diary ends on 9 April 45. According to the introduction he continued writing through at least 22 April 45 when he and his family moved into the bunker. It would be interesting to read any additional entries through 22 April -- and beyond if available -- as the situation became more hopeless. The book does, however, conclude with an epilogue that included his and his wife's last letters to his stepson, the only member of the Goebbels family to survive the war.

   The term "Jekyll and Hyde" was easily applicable to the first diary and not as easily applicable to this diary. However there term is somewhat applicable. The man -- despite the obvious problems at the fronts -- still has hope. Maybe the hope is flickering but he still has hope. He does realize that military victory is now unattainable but maybe if the military can score one or two major successes they can finagle some kind of a negotiated settlement more favorable than "unconditional surrender". This thought appears to be running through the Nazi government during the February - April 45 timeframe covered in the book.

   Whereas in the previous two diaries great words are written about great events that resulted in great victories, this time Goebbels write great words about not so great events. The brave German military puts up great resistance to stall an American, or a British, or a Soviet offensive. Nazi forces counterattack and push eight or ten or twelve kilometers. The war is not lost yet! Why are such events important? The longer the war goes on and the more casualties are inflicted upon the enemy maybe the people in the West will grow tired and more conciliatory towards a less than complete defeat of Germany. Or maybe by stretching out the war maybe the Nazis can finagle a separate settlement with the Soviets. Or maybe the western Allies will realize how dangerous the Soviets are -- who are, after all, spreading its Bolshevic tentacles over eastern Europe contrary to previous agreements. Goebbels is hoping that something -- anything -- will happen to preclude what looks like an inevitable defeat.

   Reading the book one realizes how little hold the government actually had over the people. Even in the previous diaries there were criticisms of the government that was voiced by the people that Goebbels acknowledged. Of course, in 1945 there was little the government could do. The people were unhappy about the air raids for which the government generally and the Luftwaffe specifically had no answer. Althought Goebbels still disliked several of his counterparts in the government like Foreign Minister Ribbentrop his greatest condemnation falls upon Hermann Goering. He feels Goering's corrupt and inept leadership of the Luftwaffe is the main reason why victory that appeared so close in 1941 is now so far away in 1945. Yet he still writes that even as late as April 1945 if there are major personnel changes in the military and the government National Socialism could still be saved in Germany.

   He is not beyond criticizing is Fuehrer. He still thinks Adolf Hitler himself can do no wrong. The problem is that Adolf Hitler has surrounded himself with wrong people and for whatever reasons will not get rid of them. Although Hitler agrees with almost all of Goebbels suggestions for fixing the government Hitler does virtually nothing. Goebbels is frustrated.

   It is also interesting how his attitude toward the inferior Slavic Soviet forces has evolved. He is still convinced the Soviet military is -- man for man -- inferior to the German soldier. But the Germans are being overwhelmed by superior numbers and machinery being thrown at them by the Allies. But he is impressed with Stalin. Once upon a time he and others had scorned Stalin for the massive purges of the Soviet military in the late 1930s. At one point in the book he relates reviewing the biographies of the leading Soviet military leaders. The Soviet military leaders were all under the age of 50 and were die-hard Bolshevics who would do anything to win. This was a big reason why the Soviets survived the seemingly hopeless situation in 1941 and why they were winning the war in 1945. In contrast, the German military leaders were old and had no deep political or philosopical ties to National Socialism. If they won the war, great. If not, oh well. Goebbels concludes that maybe Stalin was not so crazy for purging his military and after the war the Nazis should do likewise with their military.

   The popular perception of Hitler and his entourage is they were living in an insane fantasy land as the Soviets closed in on Berlin. Unfortunately, the last three weeks of Goebbels life were missing so maybe there was some degree of truth to that perception. But in the book you see a somewhat different view. Yes the war was going bad but he had to grasp at some kind of hope -- whatever that may be. Goebbels recognized that if the end is near it would be a catastrophic defeat. Therefore his only hope was to stretch the war out as long as possible and hope for some miracle. Hitler himself is not so much a ranting, raving lunatic (many of the accounts of Hitler's final days were written by witnesses who were the target of his anger and thus had a reason for depicting his as insane) as a man who is angry with his generals but is resigned to his fate.

   As we know, neither Joseph Goebbels nor his Fuehrer survived the war and neither man was able to write their autobiographies explaining why they did what they did. Perhaps the closest thing to a Hitler autobiography would be Mein Kampf that depicted his early life and early political battles through 1924 and his "Table Talks" -- a series of monologues recorded between 1942 and 1944. For his Propaganda Minister these diaries is the closest we can probably hope to find to an autobiography. These "autobiographies" may be distorted but they are distorted in their own words.




3. Having just been through the Iraq war, some of Goebbels musings resonate peculiarly with some of the more grandiose statements that came out of the end of that particular conflict.
   
   It is very hard to judge Goebbels as a man from these pages. Even given that they were unedited, this was intended to be the record of a Reich that won the war. This is not a private journal in the sense that he was always intending to rewrite it for history-- and presumably he was smart enough to realize that if he was still around to rewrite it for history then the Hitler regime had in some measure made it successfully through the war.
   
   What is interesting for the armchair historian are the places where his real feelings break through the propaganda. Presumably these are the moments that would have been edited out for publication. At times he whines about other nazi officials, at another point he sarcastically remarks that a plan of Hitler's would have been brilliant had it had any chance at all of succeeding.
   
   He was clearly a bright man (if an evil one), and it is interesting to watch his mind work in what were obviously (even to him) the final days.



4. I didn't really know how to rate this book. As a diary? As history? Should I have rated Trevor-Roper's editing?

   So I rated it a "5", but it hardly matters. I don't think anyone will read Goebbel's diary because it's "popular."

   My reactions to this book were mixed. I found my opinion of Goebbels as a man and a mind considerably lower after finishing the book. Yes, I knew beforehand that he was a recalcitrant Nazi and mass-murderer. On the other hand, I've read Albert Speer's books, and he always spoke admiringly of Goebbel's intellect. I respect Speer's intellect highly, but I must say that he was wrong about Goebbels. Goebbels in this diary is an ugly, sordid, vicious little man, repeating the same tired mantras again and again, transparently trying to varnish his image for history, and sniping and gossipping about everyone around him. (But then, Speer found himself to be dreadfully wrong about Hitler, too.)

   Intellect? I hardly found myself able to discern one in this mess.

   Still, I'm glad I read the book. It adds another dimension to my understanding of the Third Reich, and serves as a counterbalance to the other accounts I've read.

   But I wouldn't call the experience of reading this book enjoyable.

1 comments about The Autobiography of Malcolm X.

1. Malcolm X, along with Dr. King and Huey Newton, were essential to the Movement of civil rights in America. Although his message was viewed by some as rather hostile, was it really? Compared to the treatment of Negroes up until the 1960's,and even into today with the Klu Klux Klan and other ignorant white supremacist leagues, was anything but hostile.
   Malcolm X, in his autobiography, exploits the occurances and treatment from whites that shape his character into the person that he came to be. Through a detailed account of his life, X portrays several issues in light of racism and its existence in not only the South, but as well, the North. Yes, Northerners, as truthfully portrayed by X, were racist - however subtle and 'unmeaningly.' His developement into 'Malcolm X' from 'Malcolm Little' is a catalytic event unfortunately unknown to most high school curriculums, yet is AS ESSENTIAL to the Movement as Dr. M.L. King. He held as charged, vociferous, and legitimate message as King, Newton and many others; and, the entire light of this 'spectrum' of characters was essential to the shaping Civil Rights in America.

1 comments about America's Rasputin: Walt Rostow and the Vietnam War.

1. Milne's biography of Rostow demonstrates the futility of creating a independent state without having any support of the native population. Rostow thought that is possible to end the Vietnam War by merely bombing North Vietnam. The North Vietnamese fearing for their industry would stop supporting the Viet Cong and bring NVA troops across the border and thereby an independent South Vietnam could be preserved. But this theory backfired and the North Vietnamese will strengthened and chaos erupted in South Vietnam. Still Rostow stayed true to his theory and persuaded Johnson to ignore offers of a bombing halt by Harold Wilson, Henry Kissinger, and members in Johnson's own cabinet. The only weakness of this book is that Milne ignores the influence of Thomas Schelling on members of the Johnson cabinet and their decision to bomb North Vietnam. Nevertheless one can see elements of Rostow's theory about bombing in order to create a stable state in John McCain's rhetoric about bombing Syria and Iran in order to create an American backed Iraqi state.

5 comments about The Wrong Stuff: The Extraordinary Saga of Randy "Duke" Cunningham, the Most Corrupt Congressman Ever Caught.

1. The Wrong Stuff is a good read on a number of levels.
   
   It challenges our overuse of the word "hero" and forces us to be more discerning and skeptical about those we so readily put on pedestals. Apart from those few minutes over North Vietnam, a bit of luck combined with flying skill, there was nothing heroic about Duke Cunningham. Character flaws were evident in his youth. What he did in Congress should come as no surprise. As Sartre says, the end is in the beginning.
   
   The Wrong Stuff illustrates the need for political reform in campaign finance, the legislative process of earmarks, ethics and oversight. These are dry subjects, but by putting a face -- albeit a sad and corrupt one --on the subject, the authors have penned a readable, well-understood page-turner. They have made a complex issue understandable.
   
   And it is a good how-to book on journalism. Marc Stern broke the story by using good, old-fashioned news instinct born of experience first gained poking around the docks of the gritty Los Angeles port of San Pedro, then later the back hallways and rooms of Washington. He followed those instincts by working the phones, asking probing questions, pounding the pavement and not taking no for an answer. If you want a lesson on how to win a Pulitzer, which Stern did, this is a good place to start. He followed the Yogi Berra axiom: "You can see a lot just by looking."



2. I live in San Diego and bought this book at a street festival. Two of the authors (Marcus Stern and Dean Calbreath) were there and signed the book for me.
   
   The book describes the seemingly sudden fall of Congressman and war hero Randy Cunningham. I say "seemingly" because the authors show that his crimes were the logical extensions of a pattern of behavior based on the belief that he was above rules and laws that the rest of us follow.
   
   The book starts on Duke's best day: May 10, 1972. On that day he and Willie Driscoll shot down three enemy aircraft; this made them the first Navy Aces of the Vietnam War and they were awarded the Navy Cross. What few people knew about Duke was his demand that he be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. When he made this demand to his commanding officer, Ron McKeown, told him: "You ain't going to get the Medal of Honor. Here's what's going to go down: First, both of you are going to go get a haircut. Then you're going to get your blues cleaned and pressed with gold braid and make sure you've got a good shine on your shoes. And tomorrow, at ten o'clock, a grateful nation is going to heap its praise on two of its lofty heros and give you the Navy Cross. And you're going to accept them and be gracious and charming. Anything less than that and I will personally rip your [breasts] off."
   
   From there it's off to the races. Duke's life was nothing more than a series of these events leading to Congress where he had no Ron McKeown to reign him in. As a congressman he played up the war hero image to the max, even falsely claiming to be the inspiration of Tom Cruise in Top Gun. He also found that there were people who would slip money to him in return for awarding defense contracts and this seemed to have no limit.
   
   Duke's world started to fall apart when it was revealed that he sold his home for an inflated price to Mitchell Wade, a defense contractor who earned incredible profits from Duke's earmarks. Pulling this string began an avalanche of stories that even Duke's best efforts couldn't stop. My favorite story was his call to an antique store in Maryland. Mr. Wade bought several antiques for Duke and in a pathetic attempt to cover this Duke called the manager to "remind" her that when Wade paid for it with a credit card, Duke reimbursed Wade with cash. He insisted he paid Wade $35,000 but the manager (Sandra Ellington) wouldn't buy it saying that she would remember if he gave Wade 350 $100 bills.
   
   I liked the book and recommend it, but with two caveats. First, the book has 4 authors and it shows. They all have different writing styles and it makes the book choppy; they would have been well served if they had hired one editor to smooth over this and make the book easier to read. Second one of the authors (I'm not sure which) had a habit of making assumptions with nothing to back it up. In describing Duke's lifestyle between marriages he talked about Duke's evenings at the officer's club on base. "Cunningham...was no stranger to the police during these years. But these were different times, way before Mothers Against Drunk Driving and legislative crackdowns on drinking, long before the term 'designated driver' existed. And not many cops, either on or off the base, were about to arrest a man they knew was the Navy's only ace. Far better to just make sure he got home safely without hurting himself or others." The quotation is fine but gives no indication that Duke drove drunk or was pulled over. This would have had much more credibility if he had a quotation from a local cop who had pulled him over.
   
   That said, it's a good read about a man who believed he was untouchable.



3. Don't forget, Duke was using his influence and reputation as a war hero to steer defense contracts. He was stealing from the Armed Forces in time of war, a traitor to his country and his own men.
   
   Not only is Duke at the center of the Hookergate scandal, this ties into the US attorney scandal, as well as the indictment of Brent Wilkes and former CIA official Kyle "Dusty" Foggo. The Wilkes/Foggo debacle is apparently tied to bribery at the CIA. Google their names and "IranConta" to see how many of the characters in the Cunningham scandal go back to the Reagan adminsitration. Apparently the money laundring, drug running, and bribery network that started in the 80's took on a life of its own. While the Iraq war was still in the planning stages, they swarmed into DC and started bribing congressmen like Cunningham to get their cut of the Iraq pie in the form of sole source contracts.



4. The author's claim that Cunningham was a corrupt Congressman is true, but his claim that he is the "Most Corrupt Congressman Ever Caught" is not true. Congressman William Jefferson has been caught The FBI seized $90,000 in marked bills in Jefferson's home freezer. That cold cash is just the tip of the iceberg of the evidence against "Dollar Bill" Jefferson.
   There is a major difference between Cunningham and Jefferson. Cunningham was a brave and decorated combat pilot. By contrast, Jefferson did not serve in combat and may never have served in the military at all.
   This book is a one-sided hatchet job.



5. Lily Tomlin once said no matter how cynical you are, you can't keep up. Mostly, I've viewed Congress as corrupt in those small, corrosive and bipartisan ways: a campaign donation begets wording in a bill, a vote or a visit. But, the size and scale of Duke Cunningham's pocket-bulging corruption boggles the mind. It must be read to be believed. And, the authors carefully inserted an important qualifier in their subtitle: the Most Corrupt Congressman EVER CAUGHT. All of which makes you wonder: What happened to all those promised reforms on ethics and lobbying?

4 comments about Alexander Hamilton And the Persistence of Myth (American Political Thought).

1. When one looks at American political history, we tend to analyze the issues at the surface without realizing the ideology that influenced policies over the last 200 years. Stephen Knott developed a unique method at extracting the driving force behind American history. His thesis is that Alexander Hamilton was so influential in the development of the American government and economic system that his ideology has loomed in the background of every major period in U.S. history.
   
   Mr. Knott provides research on historians, authors, and politicians of the last 200 years who have provided favorable and/or critical analysis of Hamilton's influence on American government and policy. What Knott was successful in proving was the point that Hamilton has had an effect, for better or for worse, on nearly every presidential administration. He also demonstrated how these administrations tended to attribute their policies to either Hamilton or Thomas Jefferson. The rivalry that began while both worked in George Washington's administration has continued to this day.
   
   While unique and informative, this particular book on Hamilton does have one major drawback. Knott eventually shows his admiration for Hamilton. However, although he wisely references the negative material against Hamilton made by politicians and historians over the years, he tends to dwell on one particular comment that has not even been completely proven: the supposed quote that was used to show Hamilton's preference for a monarchy when he called the general public 'the beast'. Knott concludes his book by saying that most of the negative comments made towards Hamilton are not warranted, especially that particular quote. He does not help his own position with his constant referral to that quote throughout his book. He uses it so often, it tends to become distracting and it takes away from the other good material he has provided.
   
   This is not a biography on Hamilton. Therefore, before purchasing this book, it is recommended that a biography on Hamilton be read first. Knott assumes the reader already knows some of Hamilton's accomplishments, milestones, and thoughts on government. Recommended biographies on Hamilton would be the books by Ron Chernow or Forrest McDonald.



2. "fall for anything."
   
   Construction on the myth began years before Alexander Hamilton died on July 12, 1804. It surely got its nurturing from the National Gazette started in 1791 by Philip Freneau, Madison's Princeton roommate, and Thomas Jefferson. And it surely had its fires flaming during the fallout from Hamilton's Reynolds Affair which tainted his career from then on. From the get go, Hamilton's image was tarnished. He didn't fall for anything however. The day he died is the same day as the battle of the Boyne where the catholic, Stuart King James II and his Jacobites were defeated by the protestant William III, of Orange. Another Hamilton had died in a duel on November 15, 1712 in Hyde Park in London. Although his birth was deemed illegit, Alexander Hamilton was of noble lineage; his father's family was derived from the Scottish, ducal line of Hamilton.
   
   Stephen F. Knott's book is not a biography; it's more of a thoughtful, unbiased tracing of pundits' and politicians' interpretation/opinion of his work in American government through the years up to the present. It is a must read for anyone who attempts to judge Hamilton's person because the historical record is replete with misrepresentations of his life's work. Knott's analysis is thorough; you'll understand the bias behind any biographer who studies him. I believe one best understands Hamilton from his own writings and those scholars who studied them as Knott did. Knott shows that Hamilton has been labelled a fascist, a monarchist, a Napoleon, a dictator, a Caesar by mostly Jeffersonians who were content with superficial studies of his life. He also explains how Hamilton viewed popular opinion, how he saw government stood to represent the people, how government stood to protect the people from unwise, even lawless movements such as fascism and communism. Knott also feels that we have much to learn from his thought on how our government should function.
   
   In Knott's Chapter 7, entitled Hail Columbia!, he quotes the historian Daniel J. Boorstin as writing, "we are either Jeffersonians or Hamiltonians. In no other country has the hagiography of politics been more important". However, where does Burr fit in? He was Jefferson's Vice President at the time, good friends of the New York governor Clinton who was vehemently opposed to the Constitution. Indeed, New York was the state most resistant to its ratification, very nearly succeeding in killing it altogether if it had not been for Alexander Hamilton and others. And, as Knott relates, Adams, Jefferson, Washington, and the other founding fathers saw Burr as unprincipalled and unfit to govern. As to labelling Jefferson's people as "the beast", Knott rightly traces it to a comment a Henry Adams made, years after Hamilton's death, from a comment he heard fourth hand. I believe, and noone has made the connection, if Hamilton made that comment, "the beast" that he referred to is none other than the symbolic beast of Daniel 7 and Revelation 13 which opposes the saints and God and which exalts itself above God and above the law. Hamilton was christian to the core, fighting the good fight, not participating in evil deeds of darkness but exposing them just as Paul exhorted the Ephesian church to do in Ephesians 5:11. He publicly confessed his adultery. I believe he died a martyr and a saint.



3. Knott provides us with a clear account of Hamilton's philosophical contributions and a compelling story about the uncertainty with which Americans approach his legacy. This book is masterful in detailing the competing political agendas and in framing how politicians, acamedicians, and pundits use the Founders and their rhetoric to push forward their own agendas. A wonderful book that helps us understand our American political culture, as much as one of our country's most important Founding Fathers.



4. Finally! A compelling defense of the Founder second only to Washington in terms of indespensibility to the creation and greatness of this county. Professor Knott chronicles the roller-coaster ride of Hamilton's reputation, from his murder by the scoundral Burr to the present. He presents overwhelming evidence that General Hamilton has been abused by critics, historians and Jefferson-lovers alike. Knott's painstaking history of the apochryphal "great beast" comment provides a frightening lesson of how a single malicious report can turn even a great man's historical reputation upside down. The fact that Mr. Hamilton's solitary statue stands ignored at the back door of the Treasury Department while Mr. Jefferson is surrounded by marble and carved words perfectly illustrates how the myth of greatness trumps the reality of greatness. Professor Knott's conclusion that "a return to Hamiltonianism" could fix much of what ails American politics is right on the money. Fantastic book.

5 comments about The Napoleon of New York: Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia.

1. "The Power Broker" is often compared to this book, with this book coming out of the comparison as inferior.
   
   The comparison is completely understandable. Similarities:
   
   1. It's about New York
   2. It's about the depression/WW II era
   3. It's about very strong central figures
   
   One book is hundreds of pages long and carries scads of bibliographic references. And, it's written by a respected New York historian - Robert Caro.
   
   This book is shorter and has more pictures.
   
   It appears that Jeffers and Caro approached their work from very, very different perspectives. Jeffers' angle was more journalistic. And it was effective within that definition: what might be criticized as a lack of historical detail is balanced by a vivid and fun writing style. The moods of 'the LaGuardia era' are captured with complete satisfaction and, to me, blessed brevity.
   
   I had a lot of fun reading this book; it satisfied my desire for a picture of a very, very charismatic and colorful "character." It is not, though, great history. If you want more details, I suppose we're now looking at a more primary source: LaGuardia's own writings, which Jeffers characterizes as self-serving.
   
   I can't comment since I have not read them. But Jeffers does not fawn over LaGuardia, and I enjoyed the ride...



2. The Napoleon of New York by H. Paul Jeffers was not satisfying. The author fails to provide enough of a historical context to allow reader to form their own opinions of LaGuardia. On the contrary, the author bungled the basic chronology of some key events such as the year of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire and the labor strikes which so heavily impacted his career and the direction of local and national politics which he was soon to enter.
   
   Jeffers seems to dubiously attempt to lure the less informed reader into developing the same zealous reverence he has for his subject. The result is skimping on how and why LaGuardia acted in his famous manner and providing more of an anecdotal account that is probably rife with hyperbole.
   
   For such a complex and important figure, The Napoleon of New York simply does not do him any justice. Jeffers needs to take a hint from Robert Caro's seminal biography, The Power Broker.



3. Part Italian, part Eastern-European Jew, Fiorello LaGuardia was the appropriate mayor at a time of peak immigrant population in New York. But to acknowledge his popularity on this basis alone is very wrong-minded. "The Napoleon of New York: Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia" by H. Paul Jeffers, while not an extensive, exhaustive biography, goes to great pains to make us understand why the Little Flower has achieved mythic proportions in New York's and America's history books. His remarkable achievements, his pit-bull tenacity, and his Herculean ability to face down the pugnancious Robert Moses, all exhibit LaGuardia's unlimited energy, and his all-encompassing love for his city.

   Coming to City Hall during a record-setting unemployment level and disastrous budgets, LaGuardia faced seemingly insurmountable difficulties the minute he sat behind his desk. As Jeffers rightly demonstrates, this diminutive man would not be daunted or intimidated by any group, government agency, or persons of power when prosecuting his agenda. He personally was responsible for funnelling tons of federal money to the city during the Great Depression. He created jobs on one hand, while eliminating the patronage positions held by the hated Tammany machine. No small task. This is but one example that this book explores. There are dozens of others. Pick up "The Napoleon of New York: Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia" and learn more about this truly amazing New Yorker.




4. Paul Jeffers is a master of the popular biography, and he has produced another laudable work in this genre with this chronicle of Fiorello LaGuardia. I approached this book with only a cursory knowledge of LaGuardia, but came away with an enriched understanding of the Little Flower's far-reaching influence on New York City.

   I was struck repeatedly by the parallels between LaGuardia and another successful, highly influential Mayor, Giuliani. Both wielded absolute power ("dictatorial," to their detractors), did not brook dissent easily, ran as anti-machine reformers (barely gaining office initially but subsequently amassing larger majorities), assailed corruption and malfeasance, and left New York City a markedly better place than they found it.

   By his own admission, Jeffers's is NOT the definitive LaGuardia biography. He writes with broad brushstrokes, painting a colorful, big-picture portrait, and avoiding the pitfalls of needless minutae. Jeffers also has a talent for placing his subjects in the context of history. (To wit: LaGuardia spent his formative years in Prescott, Arizona, whose Mayor was the famous Bucky O'Neill of the "Rough Riders" lore. During the Spanish-American War, young LaGuardia was a stringer for a St. Louis newspaper, where he was in the company of such legendary war correspondents as Richard Harding Davis and Stephen Crane.)

   As a result of this style, all of Jeffers's biographies are entertaining, easy to read, and provide a succinct overview to laypersons with a passion for history. If you fit that description, "The Napoleon of New York" is for you.




5. Fiorello LaGuardia was an amazing character. He was loved and hated depending on who you asked, but one thing is for sure- he did great things for the city of New York. This biography explores his immigrant roots, his rise to power, and his quest for revitalizing New York. A tough politician indeed, but one who brought greatness and glory to his city.

5 comments about Thomas Cranmer: A Life.

1. I have'nt finished this book but as you've asked me I respond. The book is heavy going,but probably no one will ever do better owing to the subject i.e Cranmer's deeds are known in all their inconsistancies in the earlier years,but nothing is known of the personal reasonings that gave rise to them.
   Even the glories of his style of writing just seemed to come from nowhere,but the Author does a good job in explaining its inimitableness



2. I took "Thomas Cranmer" on in order to make sense of a seeming paradox: What I already "knew" of him did not square with the theology I had begun to discover in his Collects and Prayer Book. I was curious!
   
   MacCulloch does a masterful job at presenting this complex, and sometimes contradictory figure of the early English Reformation. Despite the derrogatory review given by "a reader," I found very little bias and no axe-grinding in this work. Actually, I came to the book expecting some bias. Even being thusly prepared and properly skeptical, I found only a very few times that MacCulloch let his own opinions show through. (When he does, it is in parentheses with exclamation points!!) You can almost hear him chuckle at times.
   
   I read the book in 9 or 10 days, and never found it to be a chore; in fact, the most difficult thing was putting it down and going to bed! While the book is scholarly, and masterfully written, it is definitely not tedious or boring.
   
   I came to the end of the book with a deep respect for Cranmer. I have many points of disagreement with him, and yet a certain admiration for his eventual willingness to heroically stand where he believed the Gospel compelled him to stand. Fr. James DeKoven, an early Anglican theological hero in Wisconsin, once said "We live at a time when cowardice in matters of religion has been elevated to the status of virtue." Archbishop Thomas Cranmer proved, in the end, to be anything but a coward.
   
   I have corresponded several times now with Professor MacCulloch, and find him to be humble, dedicated, and helpful. I am now reading his "The Reformation: a history," and I plan to read everything else of his that I can get my hands on!



3. Many Anglican history books have an axe to grind. But not this masterful biography. The Thomas Cranmer of MacCulloch is very human, but no villian nor an unblemished hero.
   
   We see his theological evolution from a fairly orthodox Catholic to a stauch Protestant who went to the stake in defiance of Bloody Mary and the "Antichrist" Pope.
   
   MacCulloch also takes the reader into the historical sources and their reliability. These, along with his extensive footnotes will be of interest to any serious student of Anglican history.
   
   Yet this longish book is very readable and rarely gets bogged down, again unlike some other Anglican histories.
   
   If you want to learn about Thomas Cranmer or about early Anglicanism, this book is a must read.
   
   
   Mark Marshall is the author of God Knows What It's Like to be a Teenager.



4. MacCulloch's book provides access to the singularly foundational figure of the reformation in England. Most who recognize Cranmer's name at all know him only as the author of the first Prayer Book or the man who attained Henry VIII's annulment from Catherine. MacCullogh gives depth to Cranmer as a flawed yet faithful agent of the Church, one who sought with conviction the reformation of the Church of England but was also willing to slavishly follow his prince in order to achieve that reformation. The final chapter, chronicling Cranmer's fall and ultimate martyrdom, reads with the pace of a good novel. For Episcopalians and others with an affinity for the Anglican tradition, insight into Cranmer's life and thought is crucial, and MacCulloch presents that insight with skill.



5. MacCulloch seeks to present Archbishop Cranmer as a radical protestant with little scholarly interest or knowledge of the early church, and also that the "via media" of Anglicanism that resulted from the English Reformation was contrary to Cranmer's radical protestant beliefs and is a "myth." While MacCulloch may have written a biography he failed to examine the source of Cranmer's beliefs and theology. MacCulloch claims that Cranmer's eucharistic theology stems from the Swiss Reformed tradition: one had only to read Basil Hall's essay in "Thomas Cranmer: Churchman and Scholar" edited by Ayris and Selwyn to see that this is demonstrably false. Cranmer was heavily influenced by Lutheranism as well as by the "exposition of the most holy and learned fathers and martyrs" of "the holy catholic church of Christ from the beginning" (Cranmer's words) and as such his theology clearly stands in the same line as that of Richard Hooker and Lancelot Andrewes. This sort of "scholarship" with an obvious ax to grind is perhaps the worst sort. If you want to know Cranmer's views on the Sacraments (as most Anglicans or scholars of the Reformation do) please read him in his own words in "A Defense of the True and Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ" (if you can find a copy in the library) or in "Thomas Cranmer: Churchman and Scholar."