5 comments about Eisenhower: A Soldier's Life.

1. This is a very difficult book to properly evaluate. Well researched and certainly well written, it is definitely a worthwhile read for those interested in learning about Ike and his European command (ETO). However, one should take D'Este's work with a grain of salt. As a history teacher and a Vietnam veteran, I have studied WWII for the last thirty years and I just don't agree with many of his conclusions and opinions, especially his obviously pro-British attitude. Montgomery was a good general if he happened to outnumber his enemy by ten to one in men, tanks, and aircraft like he did against Rommel in N. Africa, but he wasn't a great one and he certainly wasn't a loyal subordinate. Moreover, I don't think Bradley, Hodges, and Ike were that inapt and out of their league, unless one happens to agree with the British viewpoint. Much like today's television news media, D'Este just doesn't tell the whole story, and what he does tell is rather slanted, misinterpreted, and apologetic.



2. This massive biography of Dwight Eisenhower, focusing on his life up until World War II's end (705 pages of text), is a major investment of time--but well worth it. A major strength of this work is the nuanced analysis of Ike, both his strengths and his weaknesses. He had many flaws, but he also had certain character traits that served the nation and the allies well.
   
   The author says of Eisenhower (page 5): "The path from the poverty of turn-of-the-century Abilene, Kansas, to supreme Allied commander was as improbable as it was spectacular." Eisenhower, in short, advanced far further in his military career than almost anyone could have guessed. This volume tries to explain that and to assess his work.
   
   The book is divided into several parts. The first examines the background of the family, from 1741-1909. Part II focuses on "The Accidental Soldier." Ike really had no clear career goals after high school. At the advice of family friends, he worked to get into the military. He finally was admitted to West Point. His career at West Point is outlined (not distinguished, not bad).
   
   During the years of World War I, he missed combat action. Instead, he was involved in training troops. During this time, he also became involved in the development of tanks as weapon systems. On page 137, D'Este notes that "During the rush to return soldiers to civilian life, an appeal was made to induce enough men to form the nucleus of a postwar tank corps to remain on active duty." Eisenhower was one of those.
   
   Part IV examines the interwar years and Eisenhower's role. General Fox Connor took Ike under his wing. Over this period, he became a valued staff officer. In 1933 he (page 217), ". . .commenced what would be nearly seven years as a staff officer and principal assistant to [General Douglas] MacArthur in Washington and Manila." It was not the best of times for Eisenhower, given MacArthur's and his disagreements. He returned to the United States.
   
   Part V focuses on the preparation for war, from 1940-1942. Ike's role was not to be what he desired--combat action. He was coveted for staff support. After seemingly improbable events, Eisenhower became the chief American army commander in North Africa (Part VI outlines his Mediterranean career). There were many frustrations--including working with a variety of prima donnas, from George Patton to Bernard Montgomery. Things started off dismally in North Africa for the American forces, although the troops grew with experience. Then, Sicily and the unfortunate showdown with Patton after his mistreatment of a soldier..
   
   Part VII examines the invasion of Europe and the immense toll that this took on Eisenhower. Part VIII considers the breakout from Normandy to victory.
   
   The book illustrates Ike's weaknesses--lack of command experience, poor record in a number of operations (Anzio and Arnhem, for example), having to spend much of his time trying to negotiate between different commanders with very different views and often letting politics determine the outcome (e.g., Patton versus Montgomery). On the other hand, his patience and diplomacy kept fractious generals working together.
   
   The book makes us aware of his failings--but also his successes. He was a complex person and his record is not an unalloyed success. But he may have been the right person to lead the Allied forces in the later years of World War II in Europe.
   
   All in all, a very strong biography.



3. Carlo D'Este's "Eisenhower: A Soldier's Life" is a serious tome, clocking in at 848 pp. But does size matter? In this case very little of the nearly 850 pages is at all wasted or squandered. D'Este's has contributed several significant works to the Second World War genre in his career and "Eisenhower" is not exception. While this reviewer picked up "Eisenhower" with the expressed purpose of seeing what D'Este's had to say about strategic controversies in which Ike was embroiled in NW Europe, mainly those surrounding the 'broad vs. narrow front' arguments between Ike and Monty. Unfortunately D'Este's provided little new insight into or interpretation of these topics. Fortunately, this reviewer was treated to a plethora of information as regards Ike as a man, family member, husband, soldier and commander.
   
   D'Este's breaks down his treatise into eight separate sections: I) The Eisenhowers, 1741-1909; II) The Accidental Soldier, 1910-16; III) World War I, 1917-19; IV) The Interwar Years, 1920-39; V) The United States Prepares for War, 1940-42; VI) A General's Education: The Mediterranean, 1942-43; VII) The Invasion of Europe, 1944; VIII) Crisis in Command: Normandy to the Elbe, 1944-45. As should be obvious from the title, section I discusses the familial history of Ike, and in many ways sets thee tone for the rest of the story - clearly Ike's upbringing and family 'baggage' influenced his outlook on life and war. Given what we learn about Ike and his immediate family (most notably the family lack of money and connection to allow Ike to attend college) it should not be surprising that, despite his mother's strong pacifist beliefs, that Ike chose to enter the US Armed Services in order to go to college? What was new information to this reviewer was the fact that Ike really wished to go to Annapolis rather than West Point, but attended the latter because that was the option open to him; certainly an 'accidental soldier' in more than one way! Sections III-V focus on the early military career of Ike, much of it spent in frustration at not being part of combat action, rather watching the years go by in various staff positions. What becomes clear to the reader is that these sundry of positions provided Ike with much of the necessary administrative 'schooling' that was later to pay dividends to the Allies when he took the reins as Supreme Commander. Section VI can be thought of as representing the critical turning point in Ike's illustrious career as a military commander. He got his first true taste of command of field troops and made his first set of mistakes that refined further his command style that would be employed in NW Europe (and of which he would take components to the White House). This section is also important in that it defines many of the important relationships Ike forged during the Second World War, especially those with our British allies. Sections VII and VIII represent the sections likely most familiar in content to the average WWII genre reader. Yet D'Este's provide enough flair and interpretation to these sections to make them important in their own right.
   
   "Eisenhower" is a massive piece of work that is not for the feint of heart - if long reads are not your thing "Eisenhower" will not be high on your list. If however such things are not bothersome to you and you wish to learn more about one of the most important figures of thee Second World War (a judgment made independent of whether one believes Ike was a great leader or not) this may be a book you should track down. D'Este's is a historian of some note and this work is of similar high quality as others he has penned. Recommended for the serious and curious alike. 4.5 stars.
   



4. I am a student of World War II having read scores of books on the subject and I discovered not only many interesting facts that were new to me about this man but also that his legend may be a bit larger than his life. Although I still think Eisenhower was a great leader who was probably the best man for the job of Supreme Allied Commander in the European theater, D'Este reveals him to be someone who struggled near the edge of breakdown to meet the horrendous challenges that were continually set before him. Like many acclaimed leaders of history, he seemed to be swept along by circumstances he was typically ill-equipped to handle. D'Este portrays him as an intrinsically good and moral man whose virtuous attributes may have helped him keep his job more than anything he actually did. Even the famous, though controversial, British Field Commander Bernard Montgomery genuinely liked him, although the feelings were probably not mutual.
   
   Eisenhower: A Soldier's Life recounts Eisenhower's life from birth to the end of WW II and gives insights to where and from whom he learned the things that would eventually aid him in his future life-defining role. D'Este's biography reads like a fast-paced novel and you find yourself disappointed at watching the unread side of the 700 plus pages dwindle. I highly recommend this book!



5. In 1939, Dwight Eisenhower was a field grade oficer with a career stuck essentially in neutral in the interwar U.S. Army. By 1945, Eisenhower was a five star general and commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force that liberated Western Europe and in conjunction with the Armies of the Soviet Union, brought about the final defeat of Nazi Germany. Carlo D'Este's highly readable biography describes that remarkable journey.
   
   "Eisenhower: A Soldier's Life," after a brief prologue on Eisenhower's youth, focuses entirely on Eisenhower's long career in uniform. Eisenhower's progression defies easy description. He was afforded few opportunities to command early in his career, but often excelled as a staff officer, culminating in a long tenure with Douglas MacArthur during his time as Army Chief of Staff and in the pre-war Philippines. As the Second World War approached, Eisenhower began to step through a succession of tough jobs, including time on the Army Staff, as Commander in North Africa and Sicily, and finally as Commander at SHAEF.
   
   D'Este resists drawing large conclusions about Eisenhower's success, but it seems clear from the narrative that Eisenhower was not a classic battlefield general. Instead, he was a superbly talented organizer and manager, with the strategic depth of thought to plan the defeat of Germany and the personal and political skills to get a variety of generals and politicians to work together towards that end. Eisenhower was to a significant degree the public face of that effort, and his aw shucks public personna nicely matched that requirement. Most significantly, Eisenhower enjoyed the confidence of George Marshall, the Army Chief of Staff throughout the war.
   
   D'Este's narrative brings out the high price Eisenhower paid for success, repeatedly worn to exhaustion by long hours and by the requirement to sublimate his ego to get the most of often more experienced, egotistical, and competitive officers. We see Ike as a person, missing his wife and son, spending long hours on the job consuming too much coffee and too many cigarettes, carefully juggling all his responsibilities.
   
   D'Este declines to become decisively engaged in the many controversies of Eisenhower's career in Europe, whether over the broad front approach to Germany or the decision to cede the capture of Berlin to the Russians. D'Este does bring out the difficult circumstances and competing demands under which Eisenhower make those decisions.
   
   This book is highly recommended to those interested in a highly readable book about Eisenhower's military career.

4 comments about Madame Chiang Kai-shek: China's Eternal First Lady.

1. 
   Laura Tyson Li has assembled a spectacular bio. It's page turner with the authority and detail of an encyclopedia. LTL has managed to keep her opinions out of the text. It isn't until the last chapter when through an informed discussion on the Madame's possible motivations that LTL becomes subjective.
   
   While almost every aspect of this life is intriguing, certain people and episodes stand out. I had forgotten Zhang Xueliang until he emerged after a 50 year house arrest, after which he & his wife move to Hawaii. Apparently he was able to keep his pre-war fortune, or had been cared for financially; he is deemed a friend of the Madame. (Another 5 year house arrest of a physician who botches an operation of the General suggests house arrest is a common punishment for "friends" and other professionals.) Madame's war time US appeal for funds, with its cross country caravan of staff whom MCKS treats "as coolies" is certainly an episode worth a small volume. (The $800,000 she raises goes to her personal account.) While the Wendel Wilkie relationship (true or false) is intriguing, I fixed on the William H. Donald relationship, which may have been a professional friendship and refuge from her husband's authoritarianism, but her end of life treatment of him suggests something else.
   
   There are a host of issues worthy of their own books. Perhaps these books exist but I don't know about them. One issue is the "arrival" of 2 million mainlanders to the island of Formosa, who's 7 million citizens seemed to have some degree of prosperity under the Japanese. While the Chaings arrive with resources, others huddle in makeshift places and cry at night. "Invasion" appears to be a better word for this arrival (particularly after 2/28), but it is certainly not portrayed as such (or allowed to be portrayed as such) by the Nationalists who felt entitled to rule and had the resources to make it so. Even later, Madame objects to the appointment of Taiwanese to government posts.
   
   Another issue deserving its own book is Madame's money. Whether or not the NYC exterminators actually saw it, a closet of gold bars is not far fetched. For maybe 30 years, Madame's "charity" received a % of all imports to Taiwan. There were several "vacation" homes in Taiwan, one built at a cost of $2 million. Then, the resources brought from the mainland to Taiwan. This money provided Madame with luxury and a large staff until her death. How large was it? How was it acquired (any from the US war assistance?) and where did it go?
   
   MCKS can be noted for her longevity alone. There must be something Guinness-worthy about her survival despite many years in a war zone, continued medical treatments, operations including several for breast cancer, nervous afflictions, a late in life automobile accident, lifelong cigarette smoking (and potential drug abuse) and at least one assassination attempt. Any one of these factors would tend to predict an early demise, not a life of 103 years.
   
   If you read this book, it's riveting, so be prepared to give it time. Also, the level of detail might make continuity difficult if you have to make gaps in your reading time.



2. Reading "Madame Chiang Kai-shek: China's Eternal First Lady" was like going through everything in the attic and leaving nothing unexamined. Tyson-Li covers every aspect of Madame Chiang's life without ever letting us forget that life's relevance for today. The "Dragon Lady's" significance never disappears in the wealth of the personal, historical, political, psychological, medical, and religious dimensions of her complex life. Her fanatical anti-Communism calls to mind Richard Nixon's personal crusade. Her use of religion to define her and her husband's sense of destiny parallels certain leaders who employ religious language for similar ends. Her manipulation of people and events exceeds the ambitions of any demagogue who has come to believe his or her own public statements.
   
   All this and more the author achieves with vivid prose that takes you into private parlors where Madame Chiang herself has invited you to tea, but leaves you feeling that just maybe everything you've heard is really true and that your hostess is neither monster nor statesman, but an enigmatic individual using the world as a stage to work out her insecurities.



3. This is a book to dive into, and lose yourself for days. Madame Chiang Kai-Shek is that good a story, and this is that good an account of her life. Madame Chiang used her political cunning and legendary drive to seduce supporters to her side of China's epic civil war during the middle part of the 20th century.
   
   The Nationalist regime, headed by her husband, was hated by the Chinese people for its notorious brutality and corruption. But as portrayed by Madame Chiang, especially to American audiences, Chiang Kai-shek's government was a modern, educated bulwark of democracy and freedom for a country whose history had allowed little of either. Indeed, Madame Chiang personified the vaunted hopes, bitter disappointments and complex misunderstandings of the U.S.-China relationship, which vacillated wildly during her exceptional 105-year lifetime. Laura Tyson Li's incisive new biography, rises to the tall task of capturing this pivotal figure in all her splendor and humiliation, against a backdrop of war, revolution and unending political turmoil. Li, a journalist with a decade of experience in Asia, accurately portrays her as "beautiful, vain, witty, spirited, capricious, scheming, selfish, and driven."
   
   What a character. What a tale.
   
   The book opens in the waning days of China's second-to-last emperor in the late 1890s, when Mayling Olive Soong was born in Shanghai, the youngest daughter of a businessman who had made a fortune selling Bibles and presided over a family of savvy, idealistic and recklessly ambitious children. One married Sun Yat-sen, China's first president. Another became finance minister and acting prime minister of Nationalist China. Another became one of China's richest women. Mayling became Madame Chiang Kai-shek.
   
   In an era when few girls learned to read and fewer traveled, Mayling was schooled in Georgia, then graduated from Wellesley College, where she excelled at French, violin and religious studies. She returned to Shanghai in 1917 just as China lurched into a bloody warlord period, and soon she was courted by the most severe warlord of all, Chiang Kai-shek. He divorced one wife and sent another off to Columbia University before Mayling agreed to marry him.
   
   During World War II, Madame Chiang became a superb envoy to the United States, where her address to Congress in 1943 thrilled Washington, and her barnstorming across the country won renewed support and money to defeat the Japanese. In China, she was a poised partner to her husband, softening his imperiousness while sharpening his political machinations.
   
   In Li's telling, husband and wife (who shared a bedroom with a screen separating their beds) could not have differed more. He was an early riser; she stayed up late watching movies. He was ascetic; she insisted on luxury. Still, they called each other 'Dar' (short for 'darling') and for years collaborated to cement fragile political alliances and keep a shaky hold on power.
   
   The book has delicious tidbits, such as an affair with Republican presidential nominee Wendell Wilkie and her insistence on getting silk sheets when she stayed in President Franklin D. Roosevelt's White House.
   
   Overall, Li delivers a thoughtful portrait of a complex woman and resists the considerable temptation to crucify her. That is a refreshing contrast to the shock-and-awe approach seen in so many recent books on prominent figures in China's recent history. Li deconstructs critical historical events with skill: the Xian Incident, when Chiang Kai-shek was kidnapped by rebellious generals; the 50-year house-arrest of the leading kidnapper, with whom Madame Chiang developed a curious friendship; Madame Chiang's mysterious disappearances for months at a time, caused, Li thinks by physical and mental illnesses, including debilitating hives, breast cancer and nervous breakdown.
   
   More reporter than writer, Li assiduously draws on Madame Chiang's extensive personal correspondence, from archives around the world, to explain each stage of her drama. It's a spellbinding period of history. And it does not end well for the Chiangs. The Nationalist regime crumbled to the Communists in 1949. The Chiangs fled to Taiwan, admitting no fault, but blamed President Truman and vowed to retake the mainland. That dream faded gradually after Chiang Kai-shek died in 1975.
   
   Madame Chiang's antagonistic stepson, Chiang Ching-kuo, would oversee a murderous suppression of dissidents as head of Taiwan's intelligence network. Paradoxically, as president, he later paved the way for the launch of Taiwan's democracy just before his death in 1988. That year, at age 90, she tried to rally Taiwan's Old Guard and prevent the onset of democracy she once spoke of so often. She failed.
   
   Madame Chiang lived out her days in New York, watching China and Taiwan as one became capitalist and the other became a democracy. Despite her illnesses, she lived until 2003.
   
   Ultimately, Madame Chiang was "a deeply flawed heroine," Li writes, "that rare creature who stuck resolutely to her beliefs, however misguided some of them may have been, through the decades and the trials."



4. It's surprising to note that this is the first biography of one of the most politically influential women of modern times, but MADAME CHIANG KAI-SHEK: CHINA'S ETERNAL FIRST LADY remains the only title to provide the complete story of a woman who seized unofficial and official power during China's civil war. Her position against Chinese Communism and her diplomatic relations affected decades of Chinese-American relations, so this book is key to a thorough understanding of not just the woman, but Chinese politics and influences in particular.
   
   Diane C. Donovan
   California Bookwatch

5 comments about Profiles in Courage.

1. I bought this book and it's a nice read and very historical, of course. I just wanted to put it in context today. 07/31/08 The house voted 213-212 not to extend the session. The main reason it was brought up was to debate the issue of our nations energy future One vote mattered to keep Congress in session, it voted against that debate. I wonder if that can be pinpointed to a single Representative for that vote against and why they chose that. Probably not as they would not be viewed as a member or party of courage today! Then again why not? They come out on TV saying they want to save the earth (tell China, India and the rest of the world please and let me drive cheap, please), so lets get the debate going and cut the total BS. no courage on the Democrat side now a days or else you become Lieberman.



2. This book is well written, engaging and tells stories of courageous political leaders. Once you pick this book up you won't be able to put it down, and it will stick with you for years. He won the Pulitzer for a reason; we all need a reminder that doing what's right but unpopular leaves a far richer legacy than making decisions that win short term allies.



3. 
   I read this book quite a while back and found some great food for thought. One of my primary takeaways was that be careful when judging others motives.
   
   Kennedy (or whoever wrote the book) poses a primary question: Which is better...the man who will not compromise at all, or the man who bends but does not break?
   
   The argument is that the man who does not compromise may be considered true to his cause, but may get little done. The man who compromises to get things done may not be 100% true to his cause but is able to forward some of his ideas.
   
   The author(s) leave it up to the reader to decide (judge) if the path is right. Or, are both paths right? This is good food for thought for a critical thinker!
   
   What the author(s) is pointing at is that each man and woman must choose their own path in a situation according to their beliefs, values and morals, even if it may cause political and/or other ruin.
   
   The Re-Discovery of Common Sense: A Guide to: The Lost Art of Critical Thinking



4. John F. Kennedy makes an excellent contribution to history with this book. It describes the lives of several distinguished Americans who, in the course of history, have shaped the face of the United States. All these biographies are interesting. History becomes very much alive with this book, and Kennedy does an excellent job in showing how men can contribute to the life of a nation. What is even more noteworthy is that that is what he himself did. This new edition of the book has an excellent preface by Caroline Kennedy, herself an eminent legal scholar.



5. It's the 50th anniversary of the publication by John Kennedy of the book `Profiles In Courage' and its subsequent winning the Pulitzer Prize for Biography. The non-fiction political tome features Kennedy's interpretation of eight U.S. Senators who placed the interests of the country and what was morally right regarding some momentous decision over the wishes of their political party and own potential self-advancement to higher office.
   Is there anyone presently in the Senate with presidential aspirations who can offer the same courage and moral convictions to do what's right in the manner the eight figures from history the future 35th president chose to write about to further the public trust at the risk of their own political career?
   Kennedy began the book in 1954 while in his first term as a U.S. Senator but undergoing convalescence from a surgery on his back to relieve stress from the injuries he received in combat during World War Two. There's still debate on how much of the book was actually written by Kennedy or what part was researched and prepared by underlings of his staff. But most experts agree that the senator supervised the editing of the material and selected which of those who were to be profiled.
   The book was positively received and it helped place Kennedy into national prominence. The Massachusetts senator used that notoriety to offer his name as a vice-presidential candidate at the 1956 Democratic Party convention. He then became one of that party's frontrunners for the 1960 presidential election which he ultimately won.
   It's apparent that when JFK served in the Congress he had contempt for the workings of the political patronage system when trying to obtain a consensus to solve the nation's problems as a congressman, then as senator. Most historians agree that he disliked the `good ol' boy' networking that future running mate Lyndon Johnson used as the Senate Majority Leader in making deals to please all sides on a matter and wanted those in that legislative body to take the moral high ground when debating the issues facing the nation to get legislation passed. That's why Kennedy decided to write the book for the next generation of politicians who would come after him to feature those who had taken a courageous stand as an inspiration to the succeeding groups of leaders.
   Kennedy acknowledges the responsibilities felt on any politician, especially one who is a senator, to keep everybody happy. He cites three specific pressures put on all leaders, including himself, to keep everyone satisfied.
   He writes that all senators want to be liked by the voters, they have a desire to be re-elected and feel the enormous pull of special interest groups seeking legislation that is favorable to their specific cause that can adversely affect the tough decisions they must make.
   So who did Kennedy select as standing up for principles and not continuing the status quo that ultimately wrecked their own political aspirations for the betterment of the country?
   They were John Quincy Adams for breaking away from the Federalist Party, Daniel Webster for speaking in favor of the Compromise of 1850 that delayed the start of the Civil War, Thomas Hart Benton for staying in the Democratic Party despite his opposition to slavery and Sam Houston for opposing the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854.
   Also included were Edmund G. Ross for voting against the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, Lucius Lamar for his attempt to mend ties between the North and South during Reconstruction, George Norris for coming out against arming U.S. merchant ships before the U.S. officially entered World War One and Robert Taft for criticizing the Nuremberg Trials that prosecuted high-level Nazi war leaders under what he considered ex post facto laws that were forbidden by the U.S. Constitution.
   It's obvious the eight senators Kennedy selected decided to make a courageous, yet unpopular choice on an issue to put the interests of the nation and world over their own political aspirations at a time of crisis. How come we don't have any leaders like those eight today?
   The United States Senate is called the last great place for oration and debate as the issues facing the nation and world are discussed by one hundred of the nation's political elite. But can a U.S. Senator be elected from that office today directly to the presidency by taking a potential career-ending stance on today's hot button matters? No one has successfully done so since John Kennedy did in 1960.
   That doesn't bode well for Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John McCain, Barrack Obama and any other potential future candidates from that legislative body as we approach the 2008 presidential election. Many have tried since JFK's triumph and all have failed, the most recent being John Kerry in 2004.
   It's going to be extremely difficult for this current brood of senators, be they male or female; Republican, Democrat or independent; to exhibit the same virtuous characteristics of those Kennedy profiled to get elected as our next president under our current political structure of stalemate government gridlock that forces them to refrain from taking any courageous stand on the issues that need immediate resolution.
   That's a loss for all of us.

1 comments about Antonin Scalia's Jurisprudence: Text And Tradition.

1. Accomplished scholar Prof. Ralph Rossum has penned a well-crafted book analyzing the legal opinions and writings of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. The result is a solid read about how Justice Scalia views the role of a judge and how he sees himself. At least, Rossum gives his own take on how Justice Scalia sees himself. Obviously, the only person who truly knows how he sees himself is Justice Scalia.
   
   One of the two most interesting chapters is Chapter 2: "Text and Tradition." It summarizes Justice Scalia's textualist approach to statutory and constitutional interpretation. In short, when deciding a given case, the plain meaning of the words contained in statutes or constitution provisions matters. Where the plain text is unclear, a jurist should consult the tradition behind the text to understand what the words mean to those who adopted it. The original understanding of the text rather than any original or even secret intent should be controlling. Justice Scalia's approach is tied to an emphasis upon the democratic decision-making process as the basis for legitimate exercise of governmental authority. Not judicial adventurism and second-guessing of democratic decision-making evidenced by statutes and constitutional provisions.
   
   This book is not lengthy. Nor is it written at a highly technical level. So although Rossum indicates on pg. 37 that Justice Scalia "simply has not developed a well-thought-out understanding of the principles of democracy," Rossum does not elaborate much on the point. One will just have to consult law review articles and the like for more in that regard.
   
   The other chapter making for the most interesting reading is Chapter 3: "Constitutional Structure and Separation of Powers." This portion transitions nicely from the previous chapter and underscores the importance that governmental structure plays in Justice Scalia's views of the constitution. During his SCOTUS confirmation hearings, then-Judge Scalia testified that our division of federal power into three branches with a system of checks and balances has been crucial to the defense of our liberties. Rossum proceeds to analyze important separation of powers opinions written by Justice Scalia, including his infamous, lone-ranger dissent in Morrison v. Olsen (1988) concerning the Ethics in Government Act's provision for an independent counsel. At issue was the constitutionality of vesting the independent counsel of executive power despite its detachment from the President. Also important is Rossum's analysis of Justice Scalia's majority opinion in Printz v. United States (1997). The case is typically known as an anti-commandeering decision, but Rossum highlights the separation of powers rationale that Justice Scalia includes in the opinion.
   
   Later chapters deal with Justice Scalia's approach to substantive individual rights and to individual procedural rights. Justice Scalia's textualist emphasis is to prevent "backsliding" or erosion of important freedoms by judicial re-interpretation of democratically-adopted protections.
   
   Some familiarity with Justice Scalia's opinions or his book, A Matter of Interpretation, makes Rossum's book more worthwhile. But it is not essential. One need not be a lawyer to follow Rossum's overview. Nor need one even agree with Justice Scalia's approach to law or decisions in the cases discussed in the book to benefit from reading this book. The book has a sympathetic tone towards its subject, but it is not an advocacy publication. Rossum even insists while Justice Scalia is remarkably consistent in his jurisprudence that he is nonetheless inconsistent in a few areas of law (e.g., state sovereign immunity.)
   
   Rossum set out to describe the jurisprudence of perhaps the most interesting and discussed jurist on SCOTUS today. The author succeeds and the product is an accessible, informative, and interesting read.

5 comments about Shooting Star: The Brief Arc of Joe McCarthy.

1. Good book, but more on the general atmosphere of the times, the results of McCarthy's hounding and the fear that stopped so many from standing up to him would have been welcome.



2. As the title suggests, this brief, (I read this book during a flight delay at O'Hare), but interesting book chronicles the meteoric rise and fall of Joe McCarthy from 1950-54, (from his West Virginia speech to his censure), and his controversial impact on US history during that time. Although there is a brief biographical sketch of the subject, (juxtaposing McCarthy's incredible and at times admirable drive to succeed with his carelessness with facts, the truth and people), there isn't much analysis or historical perspective here. This isn't a knock of the book - just a description. (For a more detailed analysis of communism in the US - Reds by Ted Morgan; for a more in depth bio of McCarthy - Thomas Reeves). If you are looking for an introduction or a refresher to McCarthy and the "ism" that bears his name, this very readable book will not disappoint.



3. Tom Wicker always had an ability to break down rather complex news into brief, but always incisive, articles and columns in his years at the New York Times. "Shooting Star: The Brief Arc of Joe McCarthy" proves no exception. I first became aware of this book in a terrific review done by Anthony Lewis in the June 8, 2006 New York Review of Books. As is often the case with that publication, if you don't have the time, or the inclination, for the full read the reviews are truly the finest in the publishing business. It is interesting that the review truly feels as "long" as Wickers entire book (not really unusual).
   
   What Wicker does that makes the book compelling is to demonstrate that while McCarthy was the "right" man for his abborant demagoguary, the time was ripe with the Soviet Union growing as a menace and a natural enemy after being an ally durine WWII. Wicker futher demonstrates in many ways how effectively no one, not even Eisenhower, was able to stand up to McCarthy and his outright lies. The press was not without its complicity as it eagerly sought his one line headlines but did not do its role, even a modicum of it, as a "watchdog" of our government. The citizenry - also guilty of allowing such a stain on our history.
   
   There is much to be learned from this short read. Not least of which is that our system of checks and balances AND the media and voters ability to question ALWAYS should go on without threats and retributions. Sound familiar? I would imagine if old Joe were still alive he would only grant interviews to Fox News.



4. The recent movie _Good Night and Good Luck_, about Edward R. Murrow, was the first introduction many young Americans had to the junior senator from Wisconsin of the 1950s, Joseph McCarthy. There are stories that say that test audiences reported they liked the movie, but thought that the performance by whoever was playing McCarthy was exaggerated and unbelievable. There was nothing the producers could do; they had decided that no one could play McCarthy but McCarthy, and his scenes were archival films of himself, saying his own lines with his own dramatic intonations. It is too bad for our nation that McCarthy was not just some movie monster, but was all too real. In _Shooting Star: The Brief Arc of Joe McCarthy_ (Harcourt), Tom Wicker has given a brief but engrossing biography of an amazing character who changed our nation. Wicker points out that no one speaks about such concepts as Trumanism or Hooverism or Nixonism, but McCarthyism (my spellchecker does not question this word) is an idea which remains in our history and may be activated again.
   
   Wicker shows that there was more to the man than just demagoguery or power-grabbing. He was "witty, intelligent, a scintillating conversationalist, and enterprising". When he started running for elections, he crisscrossed Wisconsin, emphasizing his (exaggerated) war record, and impressing young voters with his interpersonal skills; he had an almost perfect recollection of names and faces and could call by name people he had barely met on previous stumpings. He made little impression as a senator when he got to Washington in 1946, but then gave a fateful Lincoln Day address in Wheeling, West Virginia, in 1950. His speech simply reflected standing Republican horror of communists, fellow-travelers, reds, and pinks, and he "had nothing new or original to add to the campaign - save, crucially, the drama, hyperbole, and audacity of which he quickly showed himself a master." His style of presentation was impressive, and especially his assertion that "I hold here in my hand" a list of names of commies working in the state department. He angered and alienated even those who agreed with him, like J. Edgar Hoover, who could not abide McCarthy's wild accusations which did not have, as he put it, "preliminary spade work" to back them up. By the time of Murrow's _See It Now_ broadcast in 1954, McCarthy's approval rating was slipping, although he insisted that all attacks on him were attempts to force him to drop enquiries into commies all over the government. In April 1954, the famous Army-McCarthy hearings were broadcast in their entirety, and got a 68% share of the television audience. McCarthy violated a lawyerly agreement that he would not bring up the former membership in a possible communist front organization by a lawyer in the firm of the Army's lawyer Joseph Welch. Welch was thereby able to give his famous "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?" speech, and McCarthy was doomed.
   
   He descended even more into the alcoholism and ill-health that had bothered him all his life. He was baffled that America had rejected his anti-communist efforts and made him the butt of jokes, like Eisenhower's quip, "It's no longer McCarthyism. It's McCarthywasm." McCarthy did change national policy, did cause fretting over such issues as executive privilege, fifth amendment rights, and intellectual freedom, concerns which are still with us. He pursued, and encouraged our society to pursue, the communists the names of whom he always claimed to have in his hand, and he ruined lives, but he never uncovered a single communist, much less got one convicted. His brief arc was only from his Wheeling speech in 1950 to his disappearance on the political stage in 1954 (he died in 1957). Wicker describes him as "a victim of human aspiration who fought desperately and with uncommon success to achieve the wrong dream." The tragedy of the wrongheadedness of a brilliant man has rarely been so starkly depicted.



5. Joe McCarthy rose to public acclaim back in 1950 when his hunt for members of the Communist Party within the U.S. government itself resulted in a virtual witch hunt of political figures, then American citizens, who were members. While anticommunist was already a Republican Party cause, McCarthy took it a step further and elevated it to new levels - yet five years later he was condemned by his own party. SHOOTING STAR: THE BRIEF ARC OF JOE MCCARTHY explores his rapid rise and fall, with a journalist's eye to uncovering the underlying motivation to his actions. An impressive survey and biographical sketch emerges.
   
   Diane C. Donovan, Editor
   California Bookwatch

5 comments about Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics.

1. In "Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics," Frederic Spotts takes the pop-culture theme of "Hitler-as-frustrated-artist" and turns it into a learned and compelling narrative that goes a long way towards illuminating the intellectual background of many recurring themes in Hitler's thinking and in the growth of Nazism as a movement in general. Given that most works on Hitler understandably focus on political and military history, the importance of Hitler's background as an artist is often forgotten. For instance, as Spotts points out, Hitler dedicated an entire chapter of "Mein Kampf" to excoriating modernist trends in the visual arts and music, tying them in with what he perceived as an international conspiracy of cosmopolitan Jewish leftists. Spotts expertly traces out the ramifications of these preoccupations for Hitler's years in power, not just narrating such well-known incidents as the exhibitions of "degenerate art" staged by Joseph Goebels, in which modernist pictures were held up to public ridicule, but also detailing the politico-aesthetic ideals that Hitler proposed in opposition to modernism - in particular, an ultra-nationalist, "Aryan" art, whose main themes were the glorification of Germany, Germanic culture, and the so-called Thousand Year Reich. Showing the importance of these ideas to phenomena as diverse as Albert Speer's architecture, Leni Riefenstahl's films, and the carefully choreographed Nuremburg rallies, as well as the work of specific Nazi artists, photographers, and sculptors, Spotts makes a forceful and intelligent case for seeing the rise of Nazi ideology through the lens of aesthetics. This is a useful, well-written, and compelling book that could be read with interest by scholars and laypeople alike.



2. This is perhaps the best and most relevant book about aesthetics, and their potential to influence people and history.



3. One of the hardest things as historians is to try and get into someone's head. The Book Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics do this but in away that other people have not tried. The book looks at Hitler from artist view point and sees Hitler from a different view which people has not looked at before. The person who decides to read this book will also learn how Aesthesis and be a powerful tool used by man. The book is now being sold at a very good price and I give it my personal seal of approval!



4. There is an incomplete list of sources for photographs and sketches based on page numbers in the Acknowledgements section of this book. The photographs and sketches are not individually numbered. I also think the references are unsatisfactory. For example, the author makes a number of assertions about a boyhood friend of Hitler in the Introduction but there is no background material to support these 'facts'. The book is interesting for its shift in focus (aesthetics) but there is an impression of sloppiness that affects credibility in my opinion.



5. If there is any justice in the world, Spotts' book will go a long way toward eradicating from popular consciousness the facile descriptions of Hitler as not much more than a cross between a risible, Chaplin-esque, comic book character and an insane, incarnate demon.
   
   Part of the first notion of Hitler includes the idea that he ought to be dismissed as a failed, lousy artist. As Spott points out, the truth is that Nazism, like all self-styled utopianisms, was something like a gigantic project in aesthetics using people rather than pigments or plastics, and control and murder rather than downstrokes and glazing - and Hitler was the artist behind that (very popular for some years in Germany) project; he therefore must be taken seriously as an artist in this sense (obviously a grotesque, genocidal one).
   
   As Spotts notes, even his hatred of Jews emerges from this context: the Jews are "ruining all art" by embracing atonalism, cubism, jazz, dadaism, etc., as well as ruining all life by embracing "Bolshevism". But in his mind, there doesn't seem to be much difference there: Picasso, Marx, Alban Berg - all the same. Since, in Hitler's view, art can't be separated from culture, and culture can't be separated from the state, and the state can't be separated from life itself, the eradication of the Jews becomes, in Hitler's mind, nothing less than a matter of national survival, or, strangely, to say the same thing, the artistically appropriate choice.
   
   Spotts does a good job of underscoring another aspect of all this by calling attention to the seeming homoeroticism in Hitler's taste, particularly as it expresses itself toward the human being: at bottom (pun intended), Hitler preferred, aesthetically, buff blond males with blue eyes, i.e., "Nordic" types. The Jews, in addition to being greedy, "Bolsheviks", destroyers of art/culture/life, etc., just...looked "wrong". And so in this sense, in Hitler's mind, ridding the proper-looking race of these improper-looking portions of it was as obviously a necessary decision as would be getting rid of a "wrong" piece of furniture cluttering up an otherwise beautiful living room. (Spotts even includes a contemporary German cartoon caricaturing the physical features of a "typical" Jew).
   
   But what I started out to say was this. Spotts surveys how Hitler very consciously used colour, shape, rhetoric, size, proportion, angle, material, sound, light, symbol, rhythm, story, pageantry, texture, surprise, music, fire, sculpture, formation, etc., to, quite literally, achieve a truly terrifying degree of control over the minds of his subjects, even as a conversion tool over those who had resisted him. (Spotts describes how awed even American visitors were by the Nuremberg rallies.)
   
   And page by page, one begins increasingly to get a sense of what it would have been like, to be a human being, subject to all the mental and emotional strengths and weaknesses we are, living in a country (our world, for all purposes) which only a year or two before had been totally chaotic and depressed...and then to be stirred, roused, when that world around us begins to change, prompted to feel different, pleasurable things, think different, exciting thoughts, and in the end, perform different - and ultimately - indescribably horrific actions. In every way, we are preyed upon by the mesmeric, sick genius of a man who was rejected by the art school in Vienna, and who sought his revenge for this affront by dominating human psychology through all those elements I mentioned above more totally than perhaps any other "artist" of the 20th century.
   
   I saw a BBC documentary a couple of weeks ago, in which several elderly Germans candidly recalled with fondness Hitler's early years. What they said they missed most were the euphoric feelings they had, going to the pageants and rallies, seeing the flags, hearing the speeches and the music, those feelings of belonging, meaning, "specialness". And for the first time, reading Spotts' book, in a really disturbing way, I could imagine what that might have been like, imagine that I might have been just as susceptible to the manipulator as millions of Germans had been. For the first time, how the whole thing could have happened seemed imaginable. Scary.
   
   Bravo to Spotts for his brilliant and disturbing book. I would love to see him now do a documentary on this, using real footage.
   
   Highly recommended.

5 comments about Ulysses S. Grant (The American Presidents).

1. Ulysses S. Grant (born Hiram Ulysses Grant, but there's a story there, as summarized in this work) was to ascend to the highest ranks in the hearts of his countrymen--from commanding general of the Union forces to President of the United States.
   
   His rise to such positions seemed most unlikely to those who knew him in the years after the Mexican War. He grew up in Ohio and, through happenstance, ended up at West Point. He completed his studies, ranking in the middle of the pack in his class. He was noteworthy for his skills as a horseman and for his mathematical ability. His performance in the Mexican War was very strong. In the process of his tour of duty, he served under both Zachary Taylor and Winfield Scott, and learned considerably about what makes a general. Thereafter, he had a series of postings leaving him isolated and sometimes "on the bottle," where he developed a reputation as a drunk.
   
   There follows the familiar story of his departure from the army, failed effort after failed effort at creating a solid economic grounding h=for his family. As the Civil War opened, while he was working in the family store in Galena, Illinois, he served as an officer as civilian military units were formed.
   
   After that, his meteoric rise in the Army--from regiment command to commanding general of all Union forces. In between, he displayed the ability to win battles that often led other generals to retreat. In the process, Americans had come to respect him as the war closed.
   
   The book chronicles his disagreements with Andrew Johnson's policies after Lincoln's assassination. Then, in 1868, Grant was nominated by the Republicans for president. This book takes a hard look at his presidency--the good, the bad, and the ugly. There were some important contributions--despite faltering, he did try to support the newly won rights of former slaves; he also supported humane treatment of Indians (even against the wishes of his top lieutenants--William Sherman and Phil Sheridan). But his economic policy contributed to the Panic that engulfed his second administration. His blind eye toward corruption of some of his colleagues does him no honor in history. There were also some foreign policy successes, to round out the picture.
   
   And, his final years, in which he courageously tried to provide for his families' economic security.
   
   All in all, another good entry in this series of brief biographies (155 pages of text, with a useful chronology following the text). As always, if one wishes a quick and accessible view of this American president, this book will do nicely. And, even though this book is brief, the author pouts Grant's performance as president in a nice context.



2. While Bunting does a creditable job of presenting an accurate chronology of Grant's career, the concise format leaves minimal opportunity to examine motivations and nuance of the many facets of the general and president. Those interested in Grant and the Civil War /post-war reconstruction will find this a worthy starting point only - for a more insightful examination the next step would be Grant's autobiography itself. Do not choose this text for coverage of the Civil War engagements to any extent. Bunting has delivered a well-written but terse overview of an impossibly complex character and time in American history.



3. The short volumes in the American Presidents series offer an outstanding way for readers to get reacquainted with American history and with our Nation's leaders. Each volume is written by a scholar who brings his or her own perspective to the subject, focusing on the factors that make the president in question worth knowing and remembering. In this volume of the series, Josiah Bunting III offers an admirable and challenging portrait of U.S. Grant (1822 -- 1885) who served as the eighteenth president of the United States (1869 -- 1877). Bunting is a former army officer who served as the superintendant of the Virginia Military Institute for many years. He offers a reappraisal of the Grant presidency in this volume, in company with some other contemporary scholarly reassessments.
   
   As Bunting emphasizes, Grant has suffered from cliches both as General and as President. He is frequently castigated as a "drunk" (Grant did indeed have problems with alcohol early in his career) and as a "butcher", in spite of the extraordinary strategic skill he displayed in the Vicksburg campaign, at Fort Donelson, in crossing the James River en route to Petersburg, and elsewhere (and in spite of the relatively low casualty rates, overall, of the armies under his command). In his presidency, Grant is often found at the bottome of the various rankings, primarily due to the corruption that ensued during his administration.
   
   Bunting's book offers a brief portrait of Grant's early life and a good brief summary of his accomplishments during the Civil War. He also offers a brisk account of Grant's activities during the four years between Appomattox and Grant's own election to the presidency, focusing on his increasingly strained relationship with Andrew Johnson and his eventual rejection of Johnson's lenient policy of Reconstruction. This pivotal period of Grant's career is frequently overlooked.
   
   But the focus of the book is on Grant's presidency. Bunting properly points out that with the exception of Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt, no person faced greater challenges than did Grant in assuming the executive office. The country was seriously divided over Reconstruction, with the seemingly intractable goals of restoring the Union on the one hand and protecting the rights of African Americans on the other hand. Bunting praises Grant for the efforts he made to protect the rights of the freed people. With substantial justification, Bunting says that Grant's efforts were the strongest made by an American president until the mid-20th Century. Bunting also praises Grant for pursuing a relatively humane policy towards the Indians, for his courageous veto of inflationary paper money legislation in 1874, and for his calm and principled stance during the Hayes-Tilden controversy in the presidential election of 1876.
   
   Bunting does not overlook Grant's deficiencies as president, but I think he tends to downplay them. He acknowledges a substantial degree of moral obtuseness in Grant, if not personal culpability, in the manner in which the President responded to the scandals which plagued his administration. Grant showed a high degree of cronyism while in office and a tendency, derived from his success as a general, to be peremptory in has actions and judgments. On several occasions, Grant's policies and inactions led to economic difficulties, including the severe depression of 1873. Even in the area of Reconstruction and civil rights, Grant frequently compromised his efforts due to political considerations. And he was aware that the military presence in the South and the agressive Federal efforts to protect the rights of the freed people would need to end, due to lack of support in the nation, if not during his administration, then in the administration of his successor.
   
   Grant remained a revered figure during his lifetime. He probably could have been elected to a third term in 1876, had he wished, and he narrowly missed a renomination for president in 1880. Grant's Memoirs of his Civil War and Mexican War experiences, which he wrote towards the end of his life, is a classic of American literature.
   
   I think historians will debate the extent to which Bunting's work, and similar studies, serve to rehabilitate the presidency of Grant. But clearly, Bunting offers a fresh and thoughtful approach which will serve to modify the stereotypes that many informed Americans carry about him. Bunting's book offers a good introduction to a great, if enigmatic, American and to his difficult presidency.
   
   Robin Friedman



4. Ulysses S. Grant was a simple man (a "guy's guy" if you will) whose quiet, dignified leadership and composure helped the nation through some of the worst days of the Civil War. It seems odd really to think of a military commander (or a military man of any rank or position) to possess the qualities that Grant did. Humble. Straightforward. Sensitive. And yet he was all these things.
   
   He had to contend with the same horrors that Lincoln had to face: the most disruptive and bloody years the nation ever suffered through. And following the war (rather than accept retirement after having served) he accepted a call to the presidency, and with it, the challenges of Reconstruction. The simple statement, "Let us have peace," still echo down as a strong reminder to us, to those who never had the chance to meet him... Grant really was the right person for the times in which he passed.
   
   The author, Josiah Bunting III, deserves credit and our thanks for having written a very good book. It's language is engaging. As a reader, I never thought I'd be able to sit through pages of descriptive narration of battles, army movements and strategy. It was never really something I could stomach in any of my history classes, and yet Mr. Bunting had me at every move. I was fascinated and along for every moment of the ride.
   
   One can't help but be struck with the haunting realization that the Civil War was never a thing written in stone: it was avoidable. As with any other historical moment, it was something that came, something that followed the actions of other leaders (Franklin Pierce, Stephen Douglas, James Buchanan all spring to mind) who couldn't see that they were walking down a dangerous path. And yet, the war also lifted some men into national prominence: men of great character... men like U. S. Grant.



5. 
   This is one of two brief biographies of Grant (1822-1885) I recently read, the other written by Michael Korda and included among the volumes which comprise the Atlas Books/HarperCollins' "Eminent Lives" series, with James Atlas serving as general editor. Although both cover much of the same material, there are significant differences between their authors' respective approaches to the18th president of the United States.
   
   For example, Korda duly acknowledges the problems which awaited Grant after he was elected to his first term in 1869. "What did Grant's reputation as a president in, however, (and continues to do so today whenever journalists and historians are drawing up lists of the best presidents vs. the worst ones), was the depression of 1873, which ushered in a long period of unemployment and distress, made politically more damaging by accusations that the president's wealthy friends were making money out of it." Given that the United States was growing too fast, in too many different directions at once, and the inevitable consequence was corruption and an unstable economy, it would have taken a more astute man than Grant to slow things down or clean them up."
   
   It is soon obvious in this volume that Bunting disagrees with, indeed resents the fact that Grant is generally remembered "as a general, not a president, [which] explains in part the condescension - there is no better word for it -- from which pundits and historians have tended to write of him." Bunting asserts that if judged by the consequences of Grant's common sense, judgment, and intuition, his presidency, "so far from being one of the nation's worst, may yet be seen as one of the best."
   
   Korda indicates no inclination to view Grant's presidency as "one of the best." He duly acknowledges the problems which awaited Grant after he was elected to his first term in 1869. "What did Grant's reputation as a president in, however, (and continues to do so today whenever journalists and historians are drawing up lists of the best presidents vs. the worst ones), was the depression of 1873, which ushered in a long period of unemployment and distress, made politically more damaging by accusations that the president's wealthy friends were making money out of it." Given that the United States was growing too fast, in too many different directions at once, and the inevitable consequence was corruption and an unstable economy, "it would have taken a more astute man than Grant to slow things down or clean them up."
   
   This last observation by Korda is consistent with a contemporary assessment of Grant by the Edinburgh Review, one which Brooks Simpson quotes in his own study (Let Us Have Peace: Ulysses S. Grant and the Politics of War and Reconstruction 1861-1868), and which Bunting also cites: "To bind up the wounds left by the war, to restore concord to the still distracted Union, to ensure real freedom to the Southern Negro, and full justice to the southern white; these are indeed tasks which might tax the powers of Washington himself or a greater than Washington, if such a man is to be found."
   
   With all due respect to Grant's admirable personal qualities, I remain unconvinced by Bunting's eloquent but - in my judgment - problematic endorsement of Grant's
   leadership as president. The same "buck" that stops on a desk on a battlefield in Virginia also stops on a desk in the Oval Office.
   
   Those who share my high regard for this volume are urged to check out Korda's biography as well as Grant's Personal Memoirs. Both Korda and Bunting cite a number of other sources worthy of consideration.

5 comments about RN: The Memoirs of Richard Nixon.

1. I must first warn the reader that this book is 1000 page plus. Second, the 1000 plus pages are a great read. I won't write a very long review- 1) because I read this book over 2 years ago, and 2) I'll just go right to the main reasons why this book is great, 3) previous reviewers have good insight into the book for people who are considering reading this book and I've found their reviews well written.
   
   This book, unlike a few of the other presidential memoirs, begin with Nixon's birth to the end of his presidency. It spans his entire life before the Presidency, and his entire political career, not just his life in the White House. (Nixon begins the first chapter by saying "I was born in the house that my father built" or something to that effect). While Nixon wrote his first autobiography, Six Crisis, after losing his first bid for the White House to John F Kennedy- he repeats much of his explanations on the 6 crisis in this book as well.
   
   It is pretty fun following Nixon's career from Congress to the Vice Presidency to his bid for the White House, losing it, losing the California Gubnatorial (spelling?) race, his thoughts on the 1964 election and his life in the wilderness and then finally to the Presidency. I don't know if a ghost writer was used, but the book is very fluent and flows really well. It is not a tough read and reading it makes time pass well.
   
   Nixon doesnt spend too much time in great detail on unimportant aspects or policies, unlike some other presidential memoirs. His writing on the foreign policies that he took is great: the China trip is the highlight of this book. His discussions on the Vietnam War and the actions he took is extremely interesting. I am sure historians had great fun reading this book.
   
   Nixon goes on to describe very well why he started taping his own conversations on the phone and in the Oval Room. He begins by explaning how Lyndon Johnson showed him all the recording devices he kept.
   
   The book takes a downturn when Nixon begins to describe how he was completely innocent during and after the Watergate break-in. He goes onto extremely minute details to describe how he had absolutely no idea about the break-in and how he was in the dark for a long time after the fiasco. While Bill Clinton takes the blame full on to himself for the Monica Lewinsky scandal and admits guilt in his book, MY LIFE, Nixon uses various tactics and scenarios to indicate how he knew nothing. The descriptions go on and on, confusing the reader as to what the hell is happenning. But even when he goes on to begin describing the incident(s), it becomes obviously clear that he knew and was involved in the cover-up and the illegal actions that he took. He quickly skips over the part where the 23 minute (was it 23?I cant remember) is deleted and blames it on his secretary. Reading this book proved to me that Nixon was guilty.
   
   After I read the book, I was very fascinated by President Nixon. I watched Oliver Stone's movie 4 times in over 5 years. Nixon was definitely a complex character. He indeed was a man who could easily have been a great man. I do feel sorry for him; and am happy that by the time he passed away, he regained much of his stature - although as Nixon himself admitted, he will always be remembered for Watergate. As I mentioned above, after reading this book, I've become very interested in all things Nixon, like his movie, his other books, articles about him, his relationship to other Presidents, other world leaders and Henry Kissinger- and also on what they thought about him (Gerald Ford - "Sometimes I don't know why I pardoned the bastard"). For the political geek- this book is definitely a must read.



2. It was risky business for Nixon to write an autobiography for at least a couple of reasons. First, his many detractors would clearly be quick to jump on any discrepancies in the work. Second, as more and more classified information is released by the government, Nixon stood to become a well-documented liar, assuming that there were a few stretchers herein -- and Nixon would have known that such information would be forthcoming someday. Still, he had the brass to write it, and it's a darn fine book.
   
   This autobiography is somewhat unusual in that, not only did Nixon write the book, he also wrote IN to the book, even though he, himself, may not have realized this. In other words, we can tell a LOT about Nixon just by reading between the lines of this one. We can detect when he felt adversarial about someone (the media, for example), and we get a clear feel for some of his well-known (and often well-deserved) paranoia.
   
   Some will bluntly say that Nixon was a crook. Perhaps this is correct but he was an incredibly intelligent and complex man and many positive initiatives were achieved during his long tenure as U.S. President. Of course, he covers all these events in the book and we get a feeling of having the inside scoop for having read about them in this work. So, really, this volume is an excellent "history book" for the era that it covers (essentially, the period from Nixon's birth up through the Watergate affair).
   
   Probably the most profound facet of "R.N." that I picked up on was that Nixon was a huge patriot. He fostered incredibly strong beliefs in manifesting his visions for a great America -- of course, his facilitation of some of those ideas is what got him into trouble.
   
   Nixon remained necessarily vague in certain details of the Watergate scandal and a few cracks in his story have already emerged as a direct result of Privacy Act releases. No doubt, a few more will be forthcoming. But honestly, many of these "events" are simply a matter of perspective, Nixon's paradign versus that of his enemies. In these cases, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
   
   I most enjoyed reading about Nixon and his family as he grew up which is a large portion of the book. Nixon was a hard worker and, frankly, I admire his achievement of becoming President, since he was one of the few who made this life-leap, absent a silver spoon.
   
   I read MANY books (3 a week for years) and "R.N." is one of the top 20 books I've ever read and it's in the top 5 of my non-fiction list. Don't be put off by politics in this instance -- this tome of an autobiography is a real page-turner and well-done.



3. what this man did was wrong in terms of his involvement and his support of bullying in the whitehouse. This man was seen as one of the most liberal presidents and founded the Environmental Protection agengy as well as food stamps and strove to implement far reaching welfare reforms. He did many things we equivocate with democratic setbacks, and we have to wonder how much the nation suffered. He tried to protect himself under the presidency: Was he attacked? The FBI tried to sheild us from this man, and we have to wonder where the balance lies. Surely this man did great things perhaps as no president has done after him for social reform. Much to ponder. In later years, he confessed to wrongdoing and advised several presidents without want of attention or credit.I tend to like Mr. Nixon, but tend also to grieve his past actions against the war demonstrators in terms of actions he could not implement as he did not have the support of the FBI. The problem was the wire tapping of journalists, and the breaking into a psychiatrists office to try to get info on one of the journalists who oppose Nixon. Yes,much to think about. Am I bothered by racial remarks he's made on tape when he tried to institute the largest welfare program since FDR saved us from the depression? Save for perhaps Kennedy..No. I think his actions counterbalance the remarks he's made. The wiretapping and the break in are his shame, more so the wiretapping as I'm not sure about the extent of the involvement he had in that. I enjoy Mr. Nixon's attempt to guide the nation via advice of succeeding presidents and look forward to reading thE progressive social policy that's in his seven books.



4. I read it twenty-five years ago and just read it again. Fast paced until he gets bogged down in justifying his actions in Watergate. Nixon was an excellent writer, but his self-justification requires you to read other bios of the 37th President. From Jerry Vorhis to Alger Hiss to John Dean, a great take on postwar American history by someone who was there.



5. Nixon became president the month I was born and had left the scene before I became politically aware. Nobody spoke of him during the 70's, or of Johnson for that matter - they belonged to a past era which nobody much wanted to revisit, and so I knew very little about either of them as a kid or teen.
   
   By resigning Nixon had admitted at least some guilt in the vast number of things he was accused of and his abdication was a political cataclysm. Through my childhood years he lived out his old age as a pariah off in San Clemente, California, the personification of the period of enormous turbulence during the height of the Vietnam war. He was the living embodiment of the dark heart and excess of the GOP, and everyone, especially in Democratic Massachusetts, considered him a cancer on the body politic and was happy he was gone.
   
   But his resignation was sincere and he was mostly contrite. In retirement he was a sad old giant in exile and after a while the Press which had hounded him out of office allowed him some dignity as an elder statesman and left him alone.
   
   He's nothing like the caricature I expected. I have to say - I really like him. He's very thoughtful, well spoken, modest, with good intentions towards the country and had a warm, respectful dialogue with the major statesmen and characters of the day.
   
   It's a beautifully written book. It was easy to see how he had become a leader. He had the air of solid, calm composure and reasonableness which I admire. As for doublespeak tendencies, the clues are missing for someone who didn't live through that time period.
   
   The contrast with Bush could not be more clear. Maybe the candor came from Nixon's retirement, but I can't imagine Bush being this straight and honest with his audience. POTUS 43 isn't smart or eloquent enough to write this kind of book, and he's too secretive to make that leap of trust with the little people to allow them into his mind.
   
   Of course Nixon was at least as bad as Bush - he was famous for having a blind-spot as big as a barn, which one can see in his writing. Despite the resignation, he wasn't entirely remorseful - he saw himself as the victim of many media conspiracies and other antagonists, both real and imagined. But Nixon has the breadth of worldview and honesty with himself, and by extension the reader, to allow us into his world.
   
   His dark tendencies had other origins. In an era when 30 soldiers were being killed in Vietnam every single day - over ten times the volume of Iraq - and the world convulsing in protest and chaos around them, Nixon's lieutenants and were just brutalized by their environment and lost their sense of direction and fought back with every realpolotik' weapon and dirty trick they could imagine.
   
   Nixon himself is much too close to the action to see how complicit he was - and as the leader he was de-facto fully culpable. But he did take responsibility resign over it - so if it is noble to forgive, then he deserves some rest.
   
   My folks on the other hand strongly disliked Nixon because they thought the GOP machine had sabotaged all the moderate Democratic primary candidates, leaving only Muskie and worse, McGovern, who were far too weak and radical. So he had effectively dismantled the American democratic process - even aside from the Watergate bugging and coverup. Nixon's Southern Strategy of making the GOP a safe place for whites upset by the Civil Rights movement, is still the dominant fault-line in American politics.
   
   Now, after the cancer has been lanced and we have survived him, Nixon's transgressions feel like water long past under the bridge. I'm only sad and sorry that he passed away. He was a wise, complex man and this book shows that his shadow is still very large.

3 comments about Churchill at War 1940-45.

1. I don't think anyone with an interest in Winston Churchill can afford to pass this book by. It's a warts-n-all portrait (a very thorough and fair one), and certainly is a breath of fresh, unsentimental air when it comes to trying to pin down the character of Churchill and his conduct as a leader during WWII.
   
   I especially admired the author's almost conversational, easy writing style, which just flows across the pages, and, the way he reveals much about himself, as well as Winston Churchill (but without thrusting himself or his POV on the reader).
   
   I found this book fascinating and am looking for a copy of its sequel, which takes Churchill from 1945 to 1965.



2. This book is a reprinted excerpt of Lord Moran's diary who was Churchill's personal physician from May 1940 to his death. As his doctor Moran accompanied him to all major conferences. The diaries provide, therefore, fascinating glimpses into the lives of the people who have shaped the twentieth century. Although only the war years are covered here the interested reader might want to look up the complete diaries in libraries because they are no longer in print.
   Nevertheless, even the book under discussion shows that the Churchill who is so admired today also had his darker side and that by 1943 the Atlantic Alliance was no longer as firm as we are led to believe. At the time of the Teheran and Yalta conferences, which shaped the post-war world, Churchill had lost all influence over Roosevelt, who had gravitated instead to Stalin. Lord Moran also shows clearly that Roosevelt was no longer capable of understanding what he was up against and at Yalta it was apparent that the man was dying. He should never have run for re-election in 1944.
   The insights which Lord Moran brings to our understanding of the tragic twentieth century should be seriously considered because the fate of the world hangs on the physical and mental health of a handful of leading politicans.



3. Those who share my high regard for Martin Gilbert's and then Roy Jenkins' comprehensive biographies as well as John Keegan's brief but insightful biography of Winston Churchill (within the "Penguin Lives" series) will gratefully welcome Lord Moran's discussion of Churchill during World War Two. His access was direct and unlimited, serving as Churchill's personal physician until his death on January 24, 1965. According to Lord Moran, shortly after the war ended, G.M. Trevelyan strongly encouraged him to record his thoughts and feelings about Churchill as well as anecdotes which otherwise would have been lost. Thus began a process which continued until 1966, a year after Churchill's death, when Lord Moran published an 850-page memoir. Much of that volume has been reprinted in this new edition.

   Having read and then re-read the three previously cited biographies, I already knew a great deal about Churchill's life and career. Of greatest interest to me in this volume are the anecdotes, dozens and dozens of them, which reveal Churchill the man in ways and to an extent not previously indicated by other authors. Many of these anecdotes suggest that the Churchill was an especially "difficult" patient, one almost totally lacking in patience. Over time, he had several health problems which even his epic will power could not overcome: a number of heart attacks, three pneumonias, two strokes, one abdominal operation, a hernia, deafness, and a virulent skin disease as well as countless minor ailments. Refusing to reduce (much less eliminate) his daily consumption of cigars and alcohol certainly didn't help, nor did the quick cures of quacks whom Churchill insisted on retaining. Because of quite legitimate concerns about Churchill's health, therefore, Lord Moran accompanied him on numerous trips, recording his own opinions of dozens of contemporaries such as Roosevelt, Stalin, Atlee, Eden, and Truman. These comments leave no doubt that Lord Moran was a keen observer and a shrewd judge of other people.

   Alistair Cooke once said of Churchill that he "told a listless nation it was heroic, and it became so." Perhaps you are already familiar with Churchill the public figure. In this lively and informative volume, Lord Moran enables you to take Churchill's measure as (in Cooke's words) a "magnetic, monstrous, oddly lovable man."

5 comments about Rise of Theodore Roosevelt.

1. I could not put it down. A wonderfully written book about an exciting president, with great photos included. I enjoyed it so much, that I started the sequel, Theodore Rex, immediately after finishing. I recommend it highly.



2. What a tremendous biography, or actually one third of a biography, as this is the first of a projected three volumne work. It is hard to imagine someone having a career like this today, although to be fair to our own times, Teddy Roosevelt was a dynamo by the standards of his own era as well.
   
   The books only covers Roosevelt's life up until he becomes president, but because of Roosevelt's statue, drive and intellect, and Morris' thorough research, expert analysis and superb writing, it is also a very exciting view into America in the second half of the 19th century. A total of 700 pages and at the end I could not wait to start the next volume, Theodore Rex (Modern Library Paperbacks)



3. I knew little of TR's life prior to reading this book, but having read it, I feel like I have a very good understanding of the man. In this thoroughly researched book, you are treated to every struggle TR had, starting with his battle with asthma and continuing through his political battles. The man loved a challenge and if he didn't have one, he created one. Love him or hate him, he was a fascinating man, and this biography does justice to his life. Once I started the book, I couldn't put it down.



4. Excellent and highly entertaining book. Arguably the greatest President in US history. Reading this makes you realize some people are truly born to do great things and make a true and profound difference in this world....Theodore Roosevelt without a doubt is one of these people. If there was any way we can make TR reappear today and take over the country I'd do it in a heartbeat. We need someone like him today...unfortunately we don't and it's painfully obvious there's no one like him on the horizon either. I know this book pertains to his life before he takes office, but the seeds of those years are sewn here..A++++



5. While the debate over the who the best president was, you could put Theodore Roosevelt on the top of the list. Genuine, Respected, Hard Working and an inteltual. One of the smartest to hold the office next to Thomas Jefferson.
   
   His talent far out way what he did in office and he only wanted the best for the country. After the book was writen, he earned the Medal of Honor and has been give many tributes such as his likeness at Mount Rushmore along the other great presidents.
   
   This book shows Roosevelts life in it's entirety and with great passion. One of the best biographies I have experienced in many years.