2 comments about Guardian of the Presidency: The Legacy of Richard E. Neustadt.

1. Guardian of the Presidency is an outstanding book, which presents the perspectives of historians, journalists, academics, politicians, friends and family on the late Richard Neustadt. Neustadt's unique combination of practical experience and academic rigor underlies his noteworthy contributions to the study of presidential leadership and leadership generally. The book adds tremendous value in discussing the enduring lessons and implications of Neustadt's work. It's also marked by unmistakable affection for a generous man who educated many and continues to inspire. Guardian of the Presidency will be of particular interest as a new administration takes office in 2008-09.



2. Guardian of the Presidency: The Legacy of Richard E. Neustadt Richard Neustadt worked with 7 US presidents and his narration of the PBS documentary of the presidency made him familiar to many viewers. He was a well-loved professor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Gov't (which he helped to found) shaping the minds of many of this generation's leaders. The book is written by those who knew him well, from Al Gore to Jonathan Alter, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Arthur Schlesinger and many more. The chapters reveal as much about the lives of the writers and the times we live in. It's politics and the life of those who live and breathe it.

5 comments about Archibald Cox: Conscience Of A Nation.

1. I read this book for my Legal Profession class as a first year law student. I enjoyed the book very much. The details of Cox's life were very interesting in addition to what he was most famous for (Watergate). Cox is an excellent embodiment of ethics and professionalism and is a great person which all lawyers should look to as an example.



2. In a time curiously bereft of public heroes, the life and achievements of Professor Archibald Cox of Harvard University stands in bold relief as a reminder of what a man of singular dedication, an ethic of public service, and a lifetime of professional integrity can do to change the course of history. This wonderful biography by law professor Ken Gormley recounts the life and accomplishments of this extraordinary person, a man who stood face to face in opposition to one of the most popular and powerful Presidents of the 20th century and, to his undying credit, never blinked. It is a riveting tale of man whose allegiance was to the simple notion that our nation is one ruled by law and not by individual personality. It also tells the captivating story of man who spent a lifetime serving the American people, living by his principles, and passing them on so memorably as a law professor at Harvard University.

   Cox appears everywhere in the pantheon of modern American accomplishment during his more than sixty year career. He first clerked for the legendary Supreme Court Justice Learned Hand in the midst of the Depression before embarking on a course as a pioneer in public labor law, soon to be asked to serve the federal executive, first as a Special Assistant to the National Defense Mediation Board, and then with the Solicitor General's office. Finally, shortly after the end of the war, he accepted a teaching position with Harvard Law School, where he was destined to become a leading legal expert in labor law. It was in this capacity that he eventually became an advisor to John F. Kennedy, a Harvard graduate and the junior Senator from Massachusetts.

   When Kennedy won the Presidency in 1960, he appointed Cox the position of Solicitor General, giving Cox the opportunity to argue brilliantly before the Supreme Court as the Government's advocate for civil rights reform. He also worked behind the scenes as a mediator during Harvard's internal student troubles in the late 1960s, trying to mend the huge political, philosophical, and educational issues leading to such dynamic student unrest. Yet all of these accomplishments and lifetime enterprises pale in the face of his later involvement as the Justice Department's Special Prosecutor in that newly created post to independently investigate the troubling issues surrounding the Nixon administrations participation in a wide range of suspect activities.

   As such, he was a key figure in the unraveling of the Watergate scandal as well as the subsequent Congressional investigations and impeachment proceedings against Richard Nixon. Instructed to conform, heal to Nixon's dictates or else, to cease and desist from his pursuit of the White House tapes, Cox quite simply refused to be cowed. Of course, he was then fired in the infamous Saturday Night Massacre, in which both Attorney General and his assistant publically refused to fire Cox and themselves resigned from the Administration. Republican toady, Solicitor General Robert Bork had no such scruples or compunctions, and promptly fired Cox. It was this single event of firing Cox that awoke the Congress and the nation regarding Nixon's viability, and this subsequently changed the political equation that eventually led to Nixon's own resignation in August of 1974.

   This is an entertaining, absorbing, and quite literate book, one that takes a fond and pensive look at that most rare of human individuals, a man guided by his dedication to principles and the rule of law. It is also a wonderful up-close and personal look at life inside the confines of the well-furnished parlors of privilege Cox has habituated all his life, based on birth, wealth, and, of course, his extraordinary ability. It is a rare open and honest look at the realities of how America works, often on the quite undemocratic basis of where one happens to go to college and professional study, upon who one knows, and by how well one can rise to the expectations and rules of conduct prevailing in the power elite. This is a splendid book about a rare and admirable man, and one most people can learn from reading. I highly recommend it.




3. An outstanding insight into the life of Cox, which goes far beyond his Watergate notoriety, yet still provides a wealth of info about Watergate, as well.



4. The legal profession has been sinking ever lower in public opinion polls. Archibald Cox's life and character should serve as an aspirational role model for all lawyers. Cox was a participant in may of the major events of the middle third of the twentieth century, and through quiet integrity and commitment he helped shape the consequences of many of those events. Too often the biographies of quiet men have all the appeal of reading the phone directory, but Professor Gormley brings not only the events, but Cox and his character to life. I read this book as an attorney at mid-career, and it inspired me. We do have heros in the profession. There are those in the profession who find success in achievement rather than acquiring money or exploiting self-promotion. After reading this book, I think that this is a man I admire. To most of the public and to many lawyers, the television sterotype is the legal profession. It is not, but the profession would be improved by each of us learning from great lives. Perhaps as an adjunct to ethics courses and CLE lectures, law schools could include in the first year curriculum a legal biography class and state bar associations could require annually that each attorney read a selected legal biography. This book should be among the first to be read by attorneys, professors and students alike. [Unfortunately, there may be those who would promote the books by or about the hucksters and charlatans as "heros" of the profession].



5. This book is not just Watergate revisited. It spans the amazing career of a model lawyer. The book provides insight into important moments in labor, political and legal history, from Mr. Cox's clerkship with Learned Hand, through his service on Truman's Wage Stabilization Committee, to his role with Comman Cause -- and including, of course, Watergate. The book is extensively researched, and includes numerous interviews with key players in Mr. Cox's career. Mr. Cox is Atticus Finch in government. His work, brought out in this book, is a reminder to lawyers that carrying that JD implies a duty to serve.

No comments about Gullah Statesman: Robert Smalls from Slavery to Congress, 1839-1915.

2 comments about John Dewey and American Democracy (Cornell Paperbacks).

1. I don't think there is a better introduction to John Dewey available. This great book traces the intellectual development of every major aspect of Dewey's thought in thoughtful detail - his metaphysics, his psychology, his thought on education and democracy, his aesthetic theory. It gives a reader a full overview of Dewey's thought in their historical and intellectual context and leaves him with a sense of the greatness (and present relevance) of Dewey as a thinker. Ive gone on to read several of Dewey's works since because of the interest stirred by this book. I would get a copy soon before it goes out of print



2. Robert Westbrook's intellectual biography is one of the very best studies on Dewey's life and work. In my view, it's more balanced and carefully researched than Alan Ryan's "John Dewey and the High Tide of American Liberalism", the most obvious competing book. What Westbrook achieves is a happy combination of historical research and insightful theoretical analysis. And that's what any intellectual biography is all about, right? In a nutshell: this book is definitely worth buying if you are interested in expanding your knowledge on Dewey.

5 comments about George Washington's War: The Forging of a Revolutionary Leader and the American Presidency.

1. One of the better histories of Washington's role in the Revolutionary War. Convincingly argues that without Washington, we would very likely still be an English colony today. Absorbing read!



2. The title is misleading, I assumed a book titled George Washington's War, would be a book about the his military exploits,tactics, and descriptions of the battles fought.....right? Wrong.
   
   I should have realized that this wasn't a military/warfare book by the fact it didn't have any battle maps, actually there are no maps at all. By the 4th chapter I realized what I bought. An extremely comprehensive and detailed account on the struggles of the incredibly hard task Washington faced with everything from logistics, inflation, small pox, half naked soldiers, famines, lack of ammunition, Loyalist, greedy merchants, etc, etc....
   
   It does start off with promise. The detailed information was fascinating about life in the military camp and showcasing Washington's incredible genius to be an administrator and his perserverance in dealing with extreme adversity. Then it falls flat.
   
   At times I thought I was reading the same exact page word-for-word from a previous chapter. I expected him at some point to go back and describe in any detail at all, the battles of Lexington and Concord, Battle of Bunker's Hill, his retreat throughout New York, Battle Of Brandywine creek, etc,etc. But instead it is the same scenario over and over on the difficulties the soldiers faced, logistic nightmares, his numerous problems with Congress, lack of money, etc., chapter after chapter.
   
   The author is well informed and has a great depth of knowledge, but he loses the audience with the incredible amount of repetitive details and too many people who are irrelevant to the story. This book is not for those who want any type of military narrative or details on the battles that were actually fought. They are only talked about as a passing thought. There is no build up to anything, the detailed information becomes so repetitive it is hard to finish reading.



3. Every kid in high school should be REQUIRED to read this book, Our founding father went through pure hell to fight for our country, establish democracy, freedom, and break from the British tyrants. The soldiers went through starvation. Eating the bark off trees, eating their dogs-anything to stay alive. Many times the Continential Army were at the breaking point, but the steady determination of George Washington, Nathaniel Greene, and countless leaders were determine to have victory at any cost. I could not lay this book down. It is very well-written, and you feel drawn into the book as if you were a part of the action. The winter's at Valley Forge & Morristown were harsh, and the epidemic of small pox would have destroyed the army if not for General Washington's orders of quarantine.
   War is Hell, but the price of freedom is not cheap!



4. There are great overviews of the American Revolution: Angel in the Whirlwind, there are great analyses of critical moments: Washington's Crossing and there are many great biographies: John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, The First American. This tries to be all three fails miserably across the board. No insights, no new news and poor editing make this a real slog.



5. This book was excellent, if for no other reason, because it showed the true bravery and heroism of not only General George Washington, but those who followed him faithfully into the very jaws of oblivion! Such men as Knox (Washington's artillery commander -- whom the famous fort is named after) and Greene followed Washington through the war and faced a terrible and bloody end if they were captured by the British. What drove these men to follow one man on a quest for such an unheard-of dream?
   
   "George Washington's War" chronicles the reasons why George Washington was so victorious not only in winning the American Revolution, but also in getting the men around him and those in the Continental Congress to put enough faith in him and grant him enough power to get the job done! As well, it shows how these very achievements were brought, by the glorified commander-in-chief, to the position of President of the United states several years later.
   
   If you are a fan of the Revolution, you will find this book entertaining. However, if you are interested in how our nation's most celebrated office formed, and what that office trully stands for and is intended for, this book will be both entertaining and enlightening. Indeed, it made me yearn for politicians who thought the way this brilliant man did!

5 comments about Wild Bill: The Legend and Life of William O. Douglas.

1. While I cannot comment on the factual accuracy of the book, as questioned by other reviewers, I found "Wild Bill" to be a delightful read. The book purports to be a biography, but has the ease of a novel.
   
   This is a lengthy book, but one that can be picked-up and read off-and-on, when time allows. It paints a wonderful picture of the early years and life of Justice William O. Douglas who grew up in Washington state.
   
   Whether perfectly factual or not, the book is a fun read.



2. As another reviewer has pointed out, the author is determined to debunk many of the Douglas myths. Yet this needs to be done. The 'polio' and 'WW1' veteran myths created by Douglas himself are as unsightly as they are unseemly, as was much of his personal life and relationship with others. This is not being overly negative however. This is telling the truth, and the author's sources and documentation on these scores is very good. Bill Douglas, as a person, was unquestionably an SOB to be around unless you were at least his peer. The author does present an admiring portrait of Douglas' jurisprudence, especially from the Rosenberg case forward, but this could/should have been done in much more detail. The book itself is well-written from a technical point of view, reads fast, and is (unlike too many recent publications) well-edited. I do believe, however, that this is a stepping stone book and that the definitive biography of this finest U.S. Justice has yet to be written--one with more scholarly emphasis on his jurisprudence. It will probably be a multi-volume work.



3. This book will probably stand as the definitive examination of William O. Douglas as a person. Having undertaken over a decade of research, Murphy has produced an exhaustive (though not exhausting) account of Douglas' personal life, from his boyhood in eastern Washington through his early years as a lawyer, law school professor, and New Deal administrator, to his years on the Court. While the basic details have been known for nearly a quarter century, thanks to James Simon's earlier biography of the justice, Independent journey: The life of William O. Douglas, Murphy provides many new details gleaned from his research in the Douglas papers (which were closed when Simon wrote his book) and his extensive interviews with people who knew the justice offer several illustrative anecdotes. The result is an important corrective to the idealized image Douglas constructed of himself in his many autobiographical accounts, recounting his womanizing, his politicking, and his terrible treatment of his staff with considerable thoroughness. Murphy's descriptions of Douglas's failed campaigns to become the Democratic nominee for president are particularly fascinating, and alone justify the price of the book.
   
   In his effort to debunk the Douglas myths, though, the author adopts an excessively negative interpretation of the facts. Murphy claims, for example, that contrary to Douglas's assertions he did not suffer polio as a child, yet without definitive medical evidence to the contrary, such a topic can only remain an open question at best. Murphy's charge that Douglas unjustifiably inflated his time in an officer's training unit in college into army service further demonstrates Murphy's assumption of the worst from Douglas and was subsequently refuted by other scholars, who argued that Douglas' interpretation of his service was a plausible one. Such matters call Murphy's overall judgment of the justice into question, as do the open questions that his book fails to address. If Douglas was such a jerk to his secretaries and his clerks, why did they continue to work for him? What was it about Douglas that led friends to continue to support him both personally and financially? Reading this book doesn't answer these questions, nor does it reveal (as a reviewer elsewhere has pointed out) that some of his clerks became and remained his friends - gaps which mar further Murphy's presentation of Douglas' personal life.
   
   The major problem with the book, however, lies in Murphy's episodic and superficial examination of Douglas' jurisprudence. Murphy's intriguing argument is that Douglas' initial opinions were written with an eye towards positioning the justice for a run for the presidency, yet he bases this contention on a selective examination of only a few decisions. Moreover, he offers no new philosophy behind Douglas' decisions once his hopes for the White House disappeared after the 1960 election, nor does he show the extent to which his jurisprudence - self interested or otherwise - played a role in shaping constitutional law. Many significant cases from his lengthy tenure on the Court are either barely referenced or even go completely unmentioned. Such flaws are glaring considering that it is Douglas' tenure on the Supreme Court which makes him historically significant to begin with, and ultimately diminish the contribution this book makes to the historiography of the Court.
   
   While these criticisms should not discourage people interested in Douglas from reading this enjoyable book, they should be taken into account in their assessment of Murphy's overall view of his subject. Though Wild Bill offers much new insight into the life of this fascinating man, this biography is not the last word on the justice or his impact in American constitutional history.



4. Murphy has done an excellent research and writing job to bring us the story of Justice William O. Douglas. Brilliant, misdirected, and insecure. Those three words sum up Douglas and his life and his accomplishments.



5. The author has done a good job researching the way a biographer should--he checks sources which some might find too tedious to dig out. So he has come up with information which shows that it is not wise to rely on autobiography for the facts in some csses. The legal analysis in regard to Douglas's work on the Court is not very profound, but I don't suppose most readers want the detail which a good law review would give to the very interesting work the Supreme Court did during Douglas' time on the bench. The unadmirable aspects of his personal life and character are set forth with devastating detail, though the author I think admires some of good work on the Court which his subject did. Anyone interested in the Supreme Court will find this book greatly absorbing, and anyone interested in the amazing events surrounding the selection of Truman as FDR's running mate in 1944 cannot omit reading this book--and looking at the photos! In this respect, if you have not read Choosing Truman: The Democratic Convention of 1944 by Robert H. Ferrell (read by me 17 May 2002) it might be wise to read it first, then read this book for new light on the events of July 1944. Reading this biography will be an event.

1 comments about Herndon's Lincoln (Knox College Lincoln Studies Center).

1. This is a reprint of the Lincoln biography published in the 1880s by his former law partner, Billy Herndon. Lincoln biographers have spent 95 years telling why Herndon was mistaken about this or that--until recently. Now they are beginning to say the earlier historians were wrong and Herndon was probably right. I had never read Herndon, but only had seen him quoted selectively. Billy comes through as a very honest man and a bit like Lincoln. One can see why the latter asked him to be his partner, and stuck it out in partnership with him for a good 20 years. The editors say Herndon was a better back-room lawyer than Lincoln, but Lincoln a much better courtroom lawyer, and the partnership complemented itself that way. Billy was better at research, and that suggests Billy did very good research on his Lincoln biography, too. Shortly after Lincoln was shot Herndon interviewed and corresponded with scores of people from Lincoln's family and his early life. It's easy to see why the law firm was successful, because Billy was a real bulldog. But his book was not well received in the 1880s when first published, largely because many thought it too crude in those days to point out Abe's mother's illegitmacy, etc. But Herndon was going to put down whatever the facts bore out. He adored Lincoln, and believed his greatness would be enhanced more by the truth than by lies... I now have a much higher regard for Herndon than formerly... On the other hand, the editors and publisher deserve low marks for the smallness of the type face, which goes down even smaller in the footnotes, making this important book more difficult to read than it should be. Don't be put off by the first Preface, either, which should be either buried at the end of the book or deleted.

5 comments about McCain: The Myth of a Maverick.

1. Anyone lucky enough to read this book before 11/04/08 had McCain's playbook in hand. Everything that undid McCain's candidacy is sketched here: McCain's belief in luck versus self-determination, his recklessness, his refusal to take counsel. Only the name "Palin" is missing.



2. This is probably the best and only insight we will have from the well-trained US press about the McCain/Palin ticket.
   
   Read it.
   
   Learn the slippery snake the professionally pious want to sell you as the Second Coming (like they did Boy George in 2004).
   
   All those extreme flip-flops in his politics? They were only due to deeper principles (read: pockets) . . .
   
   This is the best profile you can get of John W. McCain.
   Read before voting.



3. You don't have to be a libertarian, I think, to find something disturbing in the definitiveness with which John McCain declares (as Matt Welch quotes from the Senator's autobiography Worth the Fighting For: The Education of an American Maverick, and the Heroes Who Inspired Him), "I have no reluctance to subordinate my independence to a cause greater than my own self interest. But that cause is my country, first and last. ... Were I to believe otherwise, the independence I have prized all my life will have been nothing more than egotism" (p. 83). For voters or interested citizens of any political persuasion, "McCain: The Myth of a Maverick" performs a valuable service in showing just how much John McCain means what he says.
   
   Most voters, I would imagine, have some vague idea of John McCain's biography, particularly his years as a prisoner of the brutal Vietnamese communists. But Welch excels in showing how McCain's roots influence his world view and his sense of where he wants to lead this country. The author gives us many examples of McCain disparaging those who pursue self-interest or personal gain while honoring those who place "country" (which in practice means government service) before "self" (the productive sector). But given that McCain is a lifelong federal employee, the son and grandson of lifelong federal employees, this is really little more than *nostrism*, the egoism that extravagantly praises a collective of which he is himself a part.
   
   The greatest merit of Welch's "McCain," is his proof of how much McCain is driven by this idea of "a cause greater," and by his belief that, as again quoted from his autobiography, "the proper object of every American's citizenship" is "national greatness" (p. 94). Combine that with his stated preference that he "would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected, that has become corrupt" (p. 95), then ask not what you can do for your country because President McCain is going to tell you. (To be fair, President Obama and President Rodham possess this same urge to march at the head of a well-drilled body of citizens all subordinating their independence to "a cause greater" chosen for us by our Leader)
   
   It's probably "nothing more than egotism" to believe that while a man can subordinate his own life to whatever he wants, it is grossly immoral for him to make that decision about anyone else's life. Other people are not your property. Though it is sadly not getting the same degree of attention as some other McCain biographies out there, "McCain: The Myth of a Maverick" raises some pretty profound questions. We had better start answering them before we find they've all been answered for us



4. Author Matt Welch provides a warning that if John McCain becomes the next President of the United States we as a nation may well have jumped from the frying pan into the fire. In this book, he tells us where McCain has come from, what he does, what he thinks, and where he is going if he becomes the chief executive.
   
   McCain comes from a very long military tradition in which his father and grandfather served as admirals. Reared in and near the capital where he lived most of his life (!) with a heavy dose of paternal influence, and an education at an expensive preparatory school and the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, John McCain sees himself as the romantic and fatalistic warrior Robert Jordan from "For Whom the Bells Toll." He prides himself on being rebellious, yet principled.
   
   What he does is divorce his wife who kept the family together raising three children in spite of a bad automobile accident that gave her permanent injuries, while he was in captivity. Lieutenant Commander McCain is no sooner back in D. C. when he begins several extramarital affairs, and chases after a beer heiress seventeen years his junior. He decides to jump into politics declaring that Arizona, the headquarters of the distributorship, is to be his home state. Claiming to be in the tradition of Barry Goldwater and the representative of the common man, he is neither liked by Goldwater, nor ever found amongst the working or poorer classes of his constituency preferring the company of the wealthy.
   
   In the tradition of his alcoholic father, McCain believes that principles and honesty are the most important things even if the latter and the condition seem incompatible. Just as a twelve-stepper will do and as a military officer is trained to do, McCain will admit that he has made past mistakes and is willing to air them in public. This adds to his charm of honesty despite waffling, changing, and spinning on a number of issues throughout his career. Even though he "fesses up" in his latest book about the Keating Scandal, McCain makes it clear that he did it because of his principles and his obligation to help his constituents.
   
   According to the author, McCain is poised to raise flip-flopping and spinning to an art form to get elected. He is now for the Bush tax cuts despite having been against them three years ago. Why? Eliminating the tax breaks would mean a raise in taxes, and he doesn't want to raise taxes, so now he favors keeping the cuts. Uh-huh. He once referred to Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson as evil, but has actively sought their support. McCain has also accused Americans of not supporting our troops if they did not support the war. By this logic, he stands accused of the same thing in previous military involvements.
   
   And now, where is he going? McCain wants to emulate his heroes, Theodore Roosevelt and Robert Jordan. He believes that it is our destiny to be the strongest country in the world, and it is our right to wipe out terrorism and tyranny wherever it exists. For him, there is no returning to a Vietnam style conflict without victory. There is no negotiation. It will be our way or the highway.
   
   This short book reveals something about the man and the politician of John McCain. It is interesting and revealing, even if not powerful or riveting. The tone is matter-of-fact, and not vociferous. I had the impression that author-journalist simply wanted to reveal the man behind the public persona. I would recommend it highly for those who are politically involved, and want to learn more about their candidates.
   
   This book supplies plenty of evidence to the anecdotal question: "How can you tell if a politician is lying?"
   
   
   
   
   
   244 Days and a Wake-Up until one tyrant is gone.



5. I have had a very negative opinion of McCain for years, but I hoped to gain a greater depth of understanding of the man from this book.
   
   And indeed I did.
   
   
   I think one essential contribution of the book is that it identifies the key philosophical foundation of McCain's political views. Namely, his belief that maintaining the stature of the United States requires that the American people revere their governmental institutions.
   
   This leads to his dominant public policy thrust being the pursuit of "reform" legislation that purports to strengthen or restore the integrity of public institutions, often at the expense of societal values that many others consider important. (e.g. civil liberties)
   
   This reformist mentality is heavily imbued with a moralistic mindset, which undoubtedly is a big part of the explanation for McCain's massive ego and arrogant demeanor.
   
   Obvious examples are campaign finance "reform", steroids.
   
   Although the author doesn't discuss it much, I can see "comprehensive" immigration reform fitting into this mold as well. Immigration policy cannot be based on a rational evaluation of the benefits and costs of particular policies for the people of the United States, it must be based on the infinite moral superiority the United States establishes for itself by adopting an unlimited policy of open-borders, a policy that in my view, however, ironically leads to the guaranteed destruction of the American empire that is so near and dear to Mr. McCain's heart.
   
   
   Other aspects about McCain as a public figure that I was aware of, but that the book provided me more detail on, included:
   
   1). The establishment media's love affair with the media.
   2). The fact that McCain is fundamentally a hard core elitist, with little interest in the affairs of the "common folk". (related to this is his use of advocacy organizations to advance his own political career, something that is much at odds with his supposed committment to political reform)
   
   4). McCain's incredible aility to manipulate moralism to his own advantage. He has gained a great deal of political benefit by his self-proclaimed virtue ("straight talk", etc), and yet when he has failed to live up to such standards in a myriad of ways, he has been able to leverage his own misdeeds to his political advantage. This was one of the most powerful points made in the book. I think this skill on the part of McCain is a huge factor in his political success, and is one that those of us who believe McCain is a highly negative force in American public life have good reason to fear.
   
   5). His famous temper. This one I was pretty aware of. However, although I had heard that there were POW families that disliked McCain for having given them short shrift on their claims that there might still be POW's in Vietnam, I wasn't aware of how harsh he had been toward the POW activists until reading the book.
   
   (by the way, it will be interesting to see whether Barack Obama can make use of McCain's temper in the general election in addressing the "who would you want answering the phone at 3AM issue. I think that could be a rather effective strategy. Do you want a guy with a tendency to fly off the handle like this guy answering a call from the head of a powerful foreign nation at 3 in the morning?)
   
   6). His pursuit of retribution to redress grudges (in some cases, to a frightening degree). (this I was not familiar with, but it certainly is in keeping with everything else about him)
   
   
   Another thing I learned is that McCain was the original political footsoldier for the neocon movement. I have seen comments by people left of center on the political spectrum that seem to have felt that McCain was not a neocon. I'm not sure where that comes from- his opposition to waterboarding is one thing that has led to that misperception.
   
   Obviously, philosophically on the big issues McCain is right in lockstep with the neocons, but I hadn't previously been aware that he was closely interwoven with the William Kristol/Weekly Standard crowd going into the 2000 election. After 9/11, of course, George W. Bush essentially morphed into John McCain, although, as is obvious by now, a much less competent one.
   
   
   Probably the most important lesson I learned from the book is that even though I consider McCain extremely misguided and downright dangerous on the issues, he is an extremely shrewd and capable politician, and anyone who underestimates him does so at their peril.
   
   
   As to the composition of the book, I found it extremely well arranged in the order in which the various topics were presented, and in the seamless transition from one topic to the next.
   
   
   (and by the way, although this is April 1, it should be obvious that this review is not intended as any sort of joke!)

2 comments about Rove Exposed: How Bush's Brain Fooled America.

1. Others have described Rove as "grooming Bush" (vs. a subordinate), shaping policy based on politics, co-president, and manager of a never-ending Bush campaign. However, Moore does not make it clear whether Bush is primarily following political advice to determine policy, or using political advice to implement desired policy - I suspect it is both.
   
   One of Rove's favorite models is Mark Hanna, businessman and counsel to President McKinley. Hanna resisted government efforts to break up giant corporate and mining trusts, thereby providing them with the ability to control labor and wages, while raising a very large amount (for those days) to elect McKinley. Not surprising, Bush (Rove?) has followed an analogous path, supporting business at almost every turn, while raising very large amounts for his campaigns. However, Bush (Rove?) did bend his devotion to free trade (NAFTA, CAFTA) to provide steel tariffs in an effort to boost voter support in W. Virginia and Pennsylvania.
   
   Moore also traces Rove's history of dirty tricks - including bugging his own office to boost his Republican client for governor (battery only had 10-hour life, was fresh when discovered, there was no evidence of a break-in, and Rove had shortly before seen a similar tactic used in a movie), working with an FBI henchman (later shown to have planted evidence in the Ruby Ridge murder trial) to pursue political enemies, having surrogates attack Gov. Anne Richards, Sen. John McCain, and Sen. John Kerry with vicious whisper campaigns (respectively - lesbian, fathering a black child and mentally unbalanced, and not the brave hero he appeared to be).
   
   Another interesting incident involved Rove campaigning for Chair of the College Republicans. Through "aggressive methods" (challenging as many opponent electors as possible through the flimsiest of reasons), the election became a tie that was appealed to George Bush ('41) when he was Chair of the Republican Party. Bush chose Rove based on his anger at Rove's opponent's exposing Rove's teaching of dirty tricks, then later asked Rove to help '43. (Loyalty over all - doesn't say much for Bush '41 either.)
   
   Finally, Moore suggests that Rove supported a strategy of expanding the War on Terror to Iraq, as Osama was not being caught and Iraq would provide a more attractive conventional opportunity. The Democrats then ended up between a rock and a hard place, per Rove's machinations - pressure for the Iraq resolution was intense as the War on Terror had already been declared, and the situation was acerbated by Bush's claim that "the greater the threat, the greater the risk of inaction" - setting up a scenario where searching for facts was viewed as counterproductive. In addition, talk against Iraq would have looked silly if it had been known that North Korea already had the bomb - so the White House (Rove?) kept this information under wraps for 12 days until after passage of the Iraq resolution.



2. Since I didn't read Bush's Brain, most of the material in this book was new to me, and fascinating. Ironically, the book made my impression of Rove somewhat more sympathetic than before: the "Revenge of the Nerd" theme resonated a bit, and I found myself thinking "Why can't the Democrats get more guys like this?". That this thought crossed my mind is a symptom of the sorry state that politics has reached in this country.

5 comments about Power and the Idealists: Or, the Passion of Joschka Fischer and Its Aftermath.

1. There are few books in English on contemporary European affairs; search for "Joschka Fischer" in Amazon.Com, and you'll find only this book in English (another, Joschka Fischer and the Making of the Berlin Republic: An Alternative History of Postwar Germany is not yet available).
   
   While books about continental politics are few and far between, "Power and the Idealists" belong to another genre, of which there are many recent specimens. These are about the challenges of the Left in the modern world: with the collapse of the USSR -even before it - traditional leftist found themselves in a new world, where traditional orientations and slogans (Imperialism, Colonialism) seem increasingly irrelevant, and new realities and concepts (Islamism, Humanitarian Intervention) make some of them into uncomfortable bedfellows of those who "only yesterday" were the enemies - the US, Capitalists, NATO.
   
   Various books deal with different Leftists or former leftists and these kinds of challenges: James Naughtie's The Accidental American is about Tony Blair and his strange alliance with Bush. Nick Cohen's What's Left? argues that the Left is lost in cynicism and moral relativism. The early parts of George Packer's The Assassins' Gate: America in Iraq deal with Leftist illusions and disillusions past and present; From the Neo-Conservatives to the Liberal Hawks. Paul Berman's is probably the most compelling of the bunch.
   
   Berman's heroes, like the subjects of these other books, follow roughly the same path, typified by Joschka Fischer's. They start as Leftist radicals (to a greater or lesser extent), with extreme and not always coherent views of justice and goodness and equality. They want to transform society, they dream of resistance to Fascism, Imperialism, and their earthly champion, America. They adore Che Guevara, and while they do not support the violence of the Baader Meinhoff gang, they are not too concerned with it; All are fighting the good fight, after all, even if some are misguided, even terribly misguided, in how they do it. Fischer even went as far as beating a policeman, and getting caught on camera, leading to a scandal when the pictures surfaced some thirty years later.
   
   Somewhere along the line comes disillusionment. For Fischer, it was Entebbe, when Palestinian terrorists and their German allies not only abducted a plane and threatened to kill its passengers; they also divided them into Jews and Gentiles, releasing the latter while keeping the former captive. For a Leftist like Fischer, the echoes of the Holocaust were too eerie.
   
   Disillusionment had many triggers. For some it was the events in Vietnam, where the North Vietnamese, after vanquishing America, turned against their own people in massacres far worse than My Lai. It might have been watching Che Guevara a little bit too close for comfort; the revolutionary hero was far from what most Leftists made of him.
   
   The realization that the West was not invariably wrong, and that its power could be used for good was dramatic. Berman's heroes (he calls them the 68ers, for a generation shaped by the events of the late 60s and early 70s), as they grew and as some of them came to power, brought their ideals into actions, including military action. They wanted to defend human rights and prevent atrocities, by gunpoint if necessary. The Kosovo War had arguably been their finest hour - a humanitarian effort in which NATO soldiers fought not to further traditional realpolitik ends, but to stop the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo.
   
   ... And the war came. The Iraq war confronted the 68ers with a dilemma. They liked George W. Bush not one bit. Everything about the vulgar American rubbed them the wrong way. They disliked and distrusted his justification for war. But they abhorred Saddam Hussein. Thus the Iraq War saw a fault line in the 68 generation, when the unity of this New Left was shattered: some of them supported the US administrations -while others tried to find a path that would allow them to oppose the war and the administration without supporting its enemies.
   
   Berman presents the failure of the Iraq adventure as a consequence of the supreme incompetence of the American administration, and of lack of support from European nation, especially France (p.257). Nowhere does Berman consider the possibility that the task was too onerous. The Law of Unintentional Consequences has no place in Berman's account, nor does he have any doubt of the capacity of an effective policy to solve Iraq's (and the world's) problems. Berman and his heroes have had many disillusions, but they were not disillusioned of the power of technocracy. The idea that there may be limits to the statist policies doesn't seem to have crossed Berman's mind.
   
   A related problem: the treatment of Islam. The chapter of Islam is viewed through the writing of Azar Nafisi (Reading Lolita in Tehran: A Memoir in Books) and of course Kanan Makiya (author of the anti-Baath Republic of Fear: The Politics of Modern Iraq, Updated Edition; No book of this genre is complete without him). When Berman looks at extreme Islam, all he sees is a Totalitarian system, a western ideology in eastern clothing. I think this is an important insight, but a very partial one; there's something seriously wrong with a discussion of radical Islam that pays more attention to Hannah Arendt then to the prophet Muhammad.
   
   This is a general problem with Berman's humanitarians: how little these would be saviors know about the world they would save! Berman's account of Western thought and politics is deep and insightful; His commentary on the rest of the world is shallow and clichéd.
   
   And Berman hardly reflects on how familiar the Interventionist Left seems to those who remember the past. Berman's history starts in the 1940s, but the Leftist quest reminds one of a much older tradition, an earlier generation of Westerners who sought to save the rest of humanity. "Take up the White Man's burden" Kipling wrote in 1899 "The Savage Wars of Peace/Fill Full the Mouth of Famine/and bid the sickness cease ... "
   
   And yet... the Kosovo War did stop the ethnic cleansing of its Muslim population, and did dispose of Slobodan Milosevic, didn't it? And so, perhaps...?



2. In Berman's lucid and wonderfully written account, they were people who were animated by the burning question: Would they have been collaborators or resisters in Nazi Germany and Occupied Europe? They were a generation for whom the question of totalitarianism (be it the totalitarianism that "had survived Nazism" in Western society or the totalitarianism that threatened to murder the Vietnamese Boat People) was a real issue; an issue of foreign policy. A Big Issue, rather than a rhetorical gesture to show that our cause is just. It is not an accident that Jimmy Carter (influenced by the 68ers) established the office of the Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights; that Jimmy Carter "sent the Sixth Fleet into action scooping up the [Vietnamese] Boat People" (who were called such because a `68er who founded Doctors without Borders, Bernard Kouchner, rented a Boat for Vietnam to rescue the Vietnamese who were fleeing the Communists. Nor is it an accident that this same Kouchner became, under Mitterand, France's secretary of State for Humanitarian Action. A title that allowed him to send "humanitarian actions under the tricolor of France" into Africa.
   
   For this generation then, the question of Yugoslavia, was not a question of real politik, not a sideline question but a question of central importance. And it is not an accident that this generation (of people who were leaders of the world by then) united (finally and too late some might say but united) and chose to intervene in Yugoslavia on humanitarian grounds. Because "everyone had the right to D-Day".
   
   But it was also this generation that, by and large, failed to ask the right questions about Iraq. For no matter how one feels about the Iraq war (and Berman points out some of the more lucid arguments for and against military intervention in Iraq) it is hard to deny that the generation of '68 did not make the humanitarian argument for war against Saddam as it had done for war against Milosevic. It was this generation that kept silent while the "bad US government" went to war for the wrong reasons (with disastrous results for this generation and perhaps the world).
   
   It is a generation not without its flaws then; a genuinely human generation. And this is the beautifully-written story about who they were and are and what, in the end, it was all about.
   
   I strongly recommend this book.



3. Paul Berman is an unusually fair minded observer of the world political scene. That allows him to do justice both to the idealism of the generation that made the 1968 student "revolutions" and its failings. He charts the development of 1968 street fighter Joschka Fischer to becoming the first Green to be a Minister in the German government. Fischer endorsed NATO's intervention in Kosovo against all his earlier principles. Yet he refused to endorse the intervention in Iraq.
   
   Dr.Bernard Kouchner,founder of Doctors Without Borders and another of the '68 radicals,did approve the Iraq intervention, although not how it was carried out. Why did they differ?
   
   Berman tells us about many of the characters of the generation of '68, with the whole history of those times and subsequent developments converging on the Iraq question. I wish Fischer's warning that Iraq was a terrorist trap for America had received more consideration from the author.
   
   For all those who were young in '68 this book is a must-read. And for other generations too it is highly instructive. Warm, witty and with plenty of narrative, it's compulsive reading whether you agree with its implications or not.



4. Paul Berman has written two interesting books in recent years. The first was the excellent TERROR AND LIBERALISM which looked at jihadic violence, its underpinnings in Islamic and Western philosophy and history, and the possibility of a humane, hawkish, antitotalitarian, liberal response to it. POWER AND THE IDEALISTS is an equally engrossing read that looks at the generation of 1968 (anti-Vietnam, anti-authority, anti-capitalist, very often anti-American protesters) and their evolution over time, especially in reaction to Entebbe, Kosovo, and 9/11. Suprisingly, many 1968ers evolved quite far. The emphasis here is on Germany, as the central figure under consideration is former German foreign minister and Green leader Joshka Fischer. This is an excellent, journalistic account of many arguments very pressing in today's political environment. All arguments are treated fairly and in more than just a single dimension.



5. This book is about idealists on the political Left, with a focus on Germany's Joschka Fischer. In the first chapter, Berman shows that the late 1970s brought home to many people just what the New Left had become: it had supported what became genocide in Cambodia and (roughly speaking) National Socialist policies by Arabs in the Levant. These were exactly the policies the Left had opposed so strongly in the 1930s and 1940s.
   
   Of course, in the case of Zionism, the Left had switched sides in the past, supporting it in the early part of the twentieth century, opposing it in the 1920s and 1930s, supporting it in the 1940s, and opposing it once again in the 1950s and 1960s. But that's not the point. The Left had generally been against right-wing irredentism, racism, and genocide in the past. And some of it clearly went over to it in the 1970s.
   
   In the next chapter, the author discusses some of the ideas of the European Left that "crossed the ocean," such as the Kyoto Protocols and the International Criminal Court. During the Clinton administration, Berman explains that there was an appearance of cooperation between the United States and Europe on these issues. But that fell apart in the present Bush administration. Next, Berman discusses a little about the American Left and the Muslim world. Do those who plead for human rights in the Muslim world get support from American Left? Not all that much.
   
   We also discover how much support such rights get in Europe, and in France. How many on the Left in France preferred an American victory over Saddam Hussein to an American defeat?
   
   Berman indicates that the ideas of the "generation of 1968," which opposed the Vietnam war and intended to be activists in supporting human rights are not those of this generation. The activists of 1968 wanted to be interventionists. They wanted to oppose oppression. But the ideas of today, on both the Left and Right, are a little different.
   
   I think this is a fascinating book, and I recommend it.