5 comments about Ronnie and Nancy: Their Path to the White House--1911 to 1980.

1. I passed this book by many times before finally breaking down and buying it. Somehow, its title and dust cover just didn't grab me. Besides that, having already read several biographies of the Reagans and the Reagan family members, I was fairly well convinced that the book couldn't possibly contain much of anything new. Even after buying it, I still wasn't much inclined to read it. What finally convinced me to do so was when I read in the prologue that Colacello was a personal friend of Nancy Reagan and that Nancy had arranged for him to have unprecedented access to her personal files and to virtually all of the Reagan's living friends and associates and/or their children. How could I resist? This had to be a spectacular source of inside information. And it was!
   
   The early part of the book traces the lives of Nancy Davis and Ronald Reagan in parallel chapters. This section is interesting primarily for the light it sheds on Nancy's early life; her relationships with her mother, Edith Davis, and her adoptive father, Dr. Loyal Davis; and for the in-depth background provided concerning both Edith and Loyal.
   
   The book really takes off, however, in the mid-sections where it deals in depth with Reagan's and Nancy's film careers; Reagan's military service; his marriage to and divorce from Jane Wyman; his actions while president of the Screen Actors Guild (SAG), particularly in combating the Communist attempt to take over Hollywood's film industry; his, and other's, testimony before the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) - who was who and what was what; the members of "The Group" who induced Reagan into politics and the subsequent "Kitchen Cabinet" members (mostly wealthy, conservative, high-powered friends of Nancy or Edith) who guided, supported, and, it might be said with some degree of truth, made Reagan Governor of California and President of the United States; Reagan's abortive run for president in 1968; and the rationale for his run in 1976. From that point on, the book is hard to put down.
   
   In summary, this book contains inside information which can't be found anywhere else, making it a vital historical document. The information doesn't always reflect well on Ronald Reagan or Nancy, but it dispels a lot of myths and misinformation, and certainly provides a great deal of insight into what it takes for even a great leader, such as Ronald Reagan, to become President of the United States.
   
   The book certainly rates five stars for content. It loses something for readability, however, due largely to its repetitious descriptions of parties and dinners, including: who was invited; what foods and wines were served; what gowns the women wore and who made them; who were the women's hair stylists and what were their hair styles; etc. But that was a small price to pay. I give it four stars.



2. Some friends of ours in Australia started to read this on an Asian cruise last Fall and asked us to bring them a copy when we visited Cairns in August.
   
   They loved it and so did we, when we got to look at it prior to giving it to them.



3. As a Reagan supporter, I really wanted to love the Reagans and to see Nancy Reagan's reputation vindicated. Nancy, in her elder years, is very admirable. It is a bit creepy to read that Ronnie always called her Mommie, but no one can deny their mutual love. Bob Colacello is quite thorough in his research,fair and honest - no whitewashing here...the endless sniping and self-aggrandizement of Nancy's pals, like Betsey Bloomingdale et al? These women were all intimate friends, but were clawing at each other for primacy in the Reagan inner circle. Bloomingdale brags about her caviar parties and hobnobbing with the Paris set of sophisticates, but gets caught evading customs duties for lying about how much she paid for a new couture outfit in France. The other graceless, snobby chums of Nancy also seem like the idle, witless, rich that P. G. Wodehouse skewered in his books. The Kitchen Cabinet husbands are scary and only a tad less obnoxious. The book makes one feel queasy; Ronnie and Nancy seem bought and paid for by their cronies. Nancy herself comes off as self-deceiving and controlling - a shallow and manipulative social climber who rewrote her personal history;possibly she is portrayed as second only to Joan Crawford as Mommie Dearest. Ron takes up ballet as an adult. Patti has herself sterilized at 24 because she's afraid she'll be like her mother??!
   
   The book proves what most of us assume - being well-connected helps a lot with success and acts as a powerful "deodorant". Colacello is due to write a second volume on the Reagans. I will read it for the writing, the history and my belief in redemption.



4. Colacello deconstructs the Reagans like no other author has. He starts with the premise that their personal and social lives were inseparable from their political ambitions, and an essential factor in Ronald Reagan's rise to power. He goes on to explore how the couple's social milieu and interpersonal relationships influenced Reagan's political ideas and governing style.
   
   A fascinating portrait of Nancy emerges as well: Colacello sees her as supremely focused and determined to advance her husband's political career, but motivated by pure adoration of Ronnie rather than any overriding desire for control and power.
   
   The writing flows easily and is peppered with enough interesting anecdotes and revealing quotes to make the reader forget at times that this is, in fact, a serious political biography. A great read from cover to cover.



5. The perfect mix of gossip and history. Meticulously researched and carefully observed. You won't be able to put it down.

5 comments about Cigars, Whiskey and Winning: Leadership Lessons from General Ulysses S. Grant.

1. This book is a quick read. I particularly enjoyed the author's focus on Grant's ability to react, adjust and adapt. Staying away from Grant's presidency was a good idea until the end. Even then, the author contrasts Grant's leadership style as a General to President and why he failed (at least historically) as a politician. What I didn't like about the book was the lack of reference to God. I understand that not everyone is firmly rooted in "the Word", but its absence leads to more questions...at least for me. Overall, thought provoking, mildly insightful and interesting. I heartily recommend Lee's Leadership Lessons. It is the best book of this style I have ever read.



2. I've never been a fan of "lessons" books and here is yet another. There are some interesting and informative quotes of/from Grant, but the lessons are, at best, better than average for such a book. -- Louis J Sheehan



3. Grant may have been a poor President, but he was a great General. This book expounds the leadership principles of his war years. Grant was not only decisive, but he could also admit to mistakes. His treatment of his fellow officers shows he was a born leader. In three years, he rose from being a store clerk to a four star general. He did this using his courage, common sense, and good decision making. Lincoln may have saved the Union through his political leadership, but U.S. Grant saved it militarily with his good leadership.
   
   This is a easy to read book. The book is in excess of three hundred pages, but most of the pages are not full. Some two hundred and fifty principles are detailed in the leadership of U.S. Grant. Too bad Grant did not use some of these principles in his Presidency.



4. Kaltman has done the research for you and put it all in a great lesson by lesson format. Any leader can refer to this book for day to day operations.



5. Very good read for anyone in management.
   Uses the Civil War memoires of U.S. Grant to illustrate management skills and practices.
   Very interesting. Excellent gift for men.

5 comments about Franklin Delano Roosevelt (The American Presidents).

1. This abridged version is read by Richard Rohan & he even tries his hand at FDR inflections. This is a pretty good overview of FDR's life,but you wouldn't expect much depth with 3.5 hrs. running time on a CD. Roy Jenkins died shortly after or maybe a little before this was completed. Arthur Schlesinger jr. edited. But the tone gets more reveverential towards the end. Not really Jenkins style so maybe Mr. Schlesinger finished. But there is no doubt that FDR was the most influential president of the 20th century. His impact is still very much with us.



2. The New Deal, Social Security, World War II. FDR was the greatest president of the 20th century. He was a polio victim with braces on his legs. Perhaps America needed such a leader to get it through the Depression and the war with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. We have seen the video of FDR addressing Congress following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor: "December 7, 1941, a day which will live in infamy!" Americans volunteered for military service in droves. They fought the Japs island by island. Army engineers built the Alaska Highway, stretching 1500 miles from Dawson Creek, Canada to Fairbanks. After Pearl Harbor, the fear was that Japan might take Alaska. Japan bombed the two western-most Aleutian Islands. Roosevelt was president the same years Adolph Hitler was in power in Germany, 1933-45. Roosevelt and his staunch ally, Winston Churchill, proved tougher than Hitler. Roosevelt was elected 4 times as there was no two-term limit. Roosevelt's archrival, Hitler, was born in 1889 in the Austrian town of Braunau. In his youth, Hitler wanted to be an artist. He lived and struggled in Vienna. It was there that he came to hate Jews and Communists. He believed in an Aryan master race. He fought against Britain in World War I. He joined the Nazi Party and went to prison after a failed coup. Hitler dictated Mein Kampf (My Struggles) to Rudolf Hess in prison. After his release, he reorganized the Nazi Party and surrounded himself with men like Himmler, Goebbels and Goering. Hitler became German chancellor in 1933. World War II began when Germany invaded Poland in 1939. Germany occupied France, bombed London and attacked Russia. The United States entered the war after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Americans landed at Normandy Beach on the coast of France on D-Day, June 6, 1944, and drove the Germans back. They met their Russian allies, who poured in from the east to crush the Nazis. Hitler and his companion, Eva Braun, committed suicide. It came to light that 6 million Jews had been exterminated in what is now called the Holocaust. America helped to rebuild Europe with the Marshall plan. Donald Rumsfeld's "Old Europe" became a suburb of the U.S. in light of the Soviet threat. The time has come the United States to put itself first. If the U.S is going to police the world, the world must pay for that protection. Police cannot work for free. Government is about war and money. Too often, it is a gang of thugs terrorizing its own people. Government should exist to serve. Its best form is democratic, not totalitarian, neither fascist nor Communist. Government needs to foster education, promote arts and sciences and care for the aged and disabled. It must encourage agriculture and facilitate transportation and communication.



3. avoid books where the author's personality and florid prose obscure the subject. besides, what precisely does jenkins have against short sentences and one-dollar words?



4. The late Roy Jenkins, in assessing Roosevelt, rates him in the top three of all American Presidents, along with Washington and Lincoln. Whether you like FDR or whether you are one of his critics, it is hard to dispute Jenkins' conclusion. Jenkins believes that had FDR not run for a third term, he would have been one of the better, near great Presidents, but that it took WWII to make him the icon he became. Jenkins fails to point out that FDR did not create any appreciable number of private sector jobs prior to WWII and that, in fact, unemployment was almost as high as it was eight years earlier, when he took office. The reason may be that Jenkins had been a Labour Party member of the House of Commons, accordingly, his world view was that of a government interventionist. However, I ultimately agree that nontheless, FDR was, at least, a better than average President during the depression years, due to the great optimism that he conveyed.
   
   I believe that Jenkins is correct, that FDR became one of the greatest Presidents due to the war. He led the United States in a great mobilization effort. Certainly, responding to events can make one great and FDR's optimistic leadership during the war made him great. This does not mean that he is beyond criticism, and Jenkins offers very little of that. Again, as a Labour party menmber, he would not have been as staunchly anticommunist as a Conservative, such as Churchill or later, Thatcher. Therefore, he spares FDR of any criticism for Yalta. His view is that since the USSR already occupied Poland, there was nothing to give away.
   
   I must contrast this book with another book in the American Presidents series, Tom Wicker's biography of Eisenhower. Wicker could find almost nothing Ike did as President that did not deserve criticism. Jenkins, on the other hand, finds little, in FDR, to criticise. An example is his absolving FDR from any real criticism for not taking in more Jewish refugees during the holocaust.
   
   This series of books constitues short biographies, thus it is not possible for the authors to be comprehensive. However, Jenkins covers a lot of ground. He gives a lot of coverage to FDR's career prior to his presidency. This is something Wicker failed to do, in his biography of Eisenhower, regarding Eisenhower's prepresidential career. Still, there was much Jenkins could not cover. For example, FDR went to great legnths to hide his disability. In a television documentary, it was revealed that he always would hang on to the arm of either a secret service agent or one of his sons and, by pretty much thrusting his hips forward, would give the illusion of walking. The legnths FDR went to are certainly fascinating but, I recognize that this book was too short to cover it in depth.
   
   Perhaps this biography was a little too adoring. The fact that there is much to criticise does not detract from the fact, that ultimately, FDR was indeed one of the truly great Presidents. Still, Jenkins covers a lot of material and I highly recommend this short biography.



5. This is a very good brief introduction to Roosevelt, and I highly recommend it to anyone wanting a brief understanding of Roosevelt. It is very easy to read and suitable for high school students. Being written by a man from Britain, it also shows how the world views FDR - as one of the most important leaders in world history.
   
   You will not acquire a thorough understanding of FDR by reading this book. For that I would suggest the huge "Champion of Freedom" by Conrad Black.
   
   In response to Mister Syzek, my understanding the post-war settlement is that Stalin broke violated the Yalta agreement, which was quite favorable to the west. FDR achieved most of what he wanted, including the stipulation that Eastern Europe was to have elections. But Stalin broke his promises and controlled Poland despite the agreements that FDR was able to extract from Stalan. FDR got the deal in writing. Stalin did not abide by it.
   
   Stalin was determined to control Poland no matter what, so Poland was firmly in his grip, despite what the actual terms of the agreement said. Staling went so far as to say that it was "a matter of life or death."
   
   Franklin Roosevelt was a geopolitical realist, and the reality is that the Soviet armies controlled Eastern Europe and Poland, and the USSR would be willing to fight - and win - to stay. The American people had no enthusiasm for yet another world war againt Russia. They wanted their soldiers home. Maybe you should ask the American people why they were not willing to suffer 5 million killed for Poland. You see, in America you must deal with these pesky things called voters and democracy.
   
   To complicate the matter, the Soviet Union took the brunt of the war (17 million dead), and Stalin was rigidly determined to secure a buffer between Mother Russia and Western Europe. Stalin would not have budged on his goal.
   
   So what Roosevelt obtained from Stalin was the best he could obtain - firm promises from Stalin to hold elections. It was Stalin who broke his promises. That made the Soviet Union look like the bad guy.
   
   Truman then waged the Cold War (without the millions of dead from a hot war) leading to an eventual liberation of Eastern Europe. It's no surprise that Reagan was a huge fan of Roosevelt, voted for him four times, and attended his third inauguration (a moving event for Reagan). Reagan then brought an end to the Cold War without firing a shot.
   
   You may be able to criticize Truman for not liberating Eastern Europe while American had a monopoly on the atomic bomb... or Eisenhower. After all, USSR staged a coup in Czechoslovakia and then staged a brutal crushing of the revolt in Hunguary in which tens of thousands were killed. Clearly this was in violation of the agreement that FDR was able to extract from Stalin. It was the USSR that broke the agreement. FDR did not sell out anyone.
   
   Then again, maybe the path Truman took was wise. Maybe waging a long-term cold against USSR was better than a violent real war. Maybe FDR realized that no European-based power has ever conquered Russia. Remember Napolean? Remember Hitler? Could even USA have defeated USSR in 1945? Maybe Roosevelt would have done things differently. We will never know because he died.
   
   As this book says, FDR was clearly moving to a get-tough posture against USSR. Indeed, FDR moved closer to one of his advisors who was anti-USSR. I suggest you read this book.
   
   At the same time, Roosevelt was an idealist in the Wilsonian tradition when realistic. He believed in the free determination of free people, but he was also realistic. For example, he essentially pushed for an end to world colonialism in his design for the post-war world. Churchill opposed this but he could do nothing about it. The British empire was too weak.
   
   By the way, Poland was not even a country at the start of World War One and was viewed by some in a similar way to the Baltic States of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. Should American have gone to war over the Baltic States?
   
   This fine little book is a fine introduction to Roosevelt. It is the best brief book on Roosevelt. Read it if you want an easy introduction to FDR.
   
   If you want a more detailed study of Roosevelt's foreign policy then read Robert Dallek's Bancroft Prize-winning "Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy." My essay here pales in comparison. Or read Conrad Black's "Champion of Freedom."

1 comments about John Adams Movie Tie-In.

1. Don't get me wrong, this is a terrific book. David McCullough has written another winner. And Edward Herrmann is still my favorite narrator of audio books. But the engineers must have been on strike because all throughout this audio book you can hear Mr. Herrmann breathing through his nose, smacking his lips and exhaling.
   Still, I'm glad I purchased this audio book in spite of the strange recording. It's wonderful.

No comments about Tried by War: Abraham Lincoln as Commander in Chief.

5 comments about A Farewell to Justice: Jim Garrison, JFK's Assassination, and the Case That Should Have Changed History.

1. The book could use some editing (the writing is ponderous and repetitious at times) but the research supporting Garrison's "trail of assassins" is edifying and compelling.



2. Joan Mellen takes on the Jim Garrison/Clay Show trial in New Orleans in this highly frustrating book on the JFK Assassination. While she presents much worthwhile information and makes a very strong case that Shaw was a CIA employee involved in the assassination, her conclusions are dragged down in a morass of poor writing. Much is out-of-order chronologically, years are not given to orient the reader, aliases are used interchangeably with real names, etc. The organization at times seems random. All in all, combined with the vast amount of information presented, this ends up being extremely difficult to read.
   
   Troublesome also is that Mellen includes well over 100 pages of end notes but many, many quotes and other salient points have no citation listed.
   
   Worthwhile, but be prepared to put in a lot of work.



3. While the information contained in this book is very interesting, it is presented so poorly, I could not finish it. There is virtually no structure to the book. Follow a timeline, or a character or anything, but pick something and give me linear story. This book made me dizzy.



4. For J. Mellen, it is an open secret that US intelligence services were directly involved in JFK's assassination. For their deadly feud with JFK, the latter himself gave the reasons: he wanted to `curb activities of spook outfits' and `splinter them in thousand pieces and scatter them to the winds.' He put all local intelligence offices under control of the US ambassadors.
   Beside intelligence (`the clandestine arm of warfare interests in the US government'), the war machine corporations wanted in no way to attach their fortunes to the Kennedys.
   
   The only legal action against the alleged perpetrators of the assassination came from a courageous district attorney, Jim Garrison. That he was very near (part of ) the truth is proven by the frontal vicious attacks launched against him and his investigation by intelligence itself. All legal and illegal means were good enough to destroy him.
   But he was only near a part of the truth: the ground staff, not near those who ordered the murder, the upper level of the plotters.
   Joan Mellen shows profusely how Oswald was continuously surrounded by intelligence agents and how the latter shared their beds with the Mafia. J. Garrison knew that he fought against `a secret state of its own' and `a major menace to the democracy we live in'.
   The author reveals also that there was an alternative scapegoat in the wings, if the framing of Oswald would not succeed, and, more controversially, that Bob Kennedy was against Garrison's investigation, because he thought he needed `to gain the presidency to deal with the facts of his brother's death.'
   
   This book throws a shrill light on the Pravda-like media (C. Johnson) who are creating a Kafkaesque world which has nothing to do with this world's political and economic realities. Another example in this book: the U2 Powers incident in 1956 was a provocation to kill détente between Eisenhower and Khrushchev.
   This book is a must read for all those who are interested in the most important coup d'état of the 20th century and who want to understand the world we live in.



5. This is the book to read on JFK. Forget the disinformation campaign against Joan Mellen. The book is carefully referenced, fairly well-written, and details one of the most important history lessons of our day. Who killed JFK? Read this and find out how the CIA, FBI, and other government agencies conspired to eliminate a democratically elected president of the U.S.

5 comments about Makers of Rome: Nine Lives (Penguin Classics).

1. Plutarch is able to create a Roman collective past through her great heroes of the past. this book is less history than it is favorable moral making through reliving the "glory days" but this work is important and one of the best sources we have for early Rome.



2. Plutarch's biographies of 9 important political and military leaders give the reader an in depth insight into the workings of the Roman Empire. It is a gloomy picture of a world dominated by the wealthy patricians at home and by Roman generals and their foot folk at large.
   
   Rome's democratic system consisted of two parties: the patricians (the wealthy aristocrats and landowners) represented by the consuls and the plebeians represented by the tribunes. However, the tribunes had to be unanimous. If one defected to the other party, the patricians controlled completely the political scene.
   
   `Coriolanus' was a staunch defender of the ancient aristocratic laws.
   `Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus' were tribunes of the plebs. The former proposed agrarian (land distribution) and the latter political (shunting the aristocratic Senate) reforms. The former was clubbed to death and the latter decapitated by the patricians.
   A dictatorship, assuming all (life and death) powers, was heavily opposed by `Brutus'.
   A very important and stabilizing factor in Roman life was religion (`Fabius Maximus': `fix people's thoughts upon religious matters to strengthen their confidence'). The augurs occupied a cardinal function, being sometimes pressed to pronounce inauspicious omens (`Marcellus'). One respected oracular instruction imposed the burying alive of a Greek and a Gaul man and woman. For the author this was absolutely not superstition. Plutarch was in no way a Lucretius.
   Another important civil servant was the censor (`Cato the Elder"), who had the right to inquire into the lives and manners of all citizens.
   
   At large, Rome was first on the defensive during the Punic wars (`Fabius Maximus' and `Marcellus'). But later, it went on an offensive spree, conquering the whole Mediterranean world. The vanquished cities and their inhabitants were partly offered as salary to their soldiers. The generals, like `Sertorius', pocketed enormous wealth in land, precious metals and slaves. With their big armies, they plotted and fought among themselves to grab as much power as possible within the empire.
   A most appalling new low was reached with the agreement between the triumvirate `Mark Antony' - Lepidus - Octavius to put to death 300 senators and 2000 equites in order to seize their possessions and fill the war coffers of the triumvirs: `I can conceive of nothing more savage or vindictive than their trafficking in blood.'
   
   Plutarch's dramatic presentation of the creation and barbarous functioning of the first world empire is an essential read for all those interested in the history of mankind.



3. This collection from Plutarch's Lives covers the rise of the republic and the begining of its disintegration. Some of the best of his Roman biographies are included here including Fabius Maximus, Marcellus, and Mark Antony. The struggle with Hannibal created some of the most memorable moments in Roman history and the lives of Fabius and Marcellus are our only sources for some of the details of that period. These men were great human beings whose example has served Western Civilization for two thousand years thanks to Plutrach's memorialization. For those interested in ancient history this modern translation is indespensible, but I would recommend this volume in particular to high school students as a door to undertanding character in the development of Western civilization. Besides the military heroes, we have in this volume the lives of great statesmen who deeply inspired the founding fathers of the American colonies (the Grachi) and we also have an example in Mark Antony of how power mongers can erode the fabric of a republic. This is a great volume and a great translation.



4. Plutarch in his "Lives Of The Noble Grecians And Romans" written around 100 C.E., sheds new light on Greek and Roman history from their Bronze Age beginnings, shrouded in myth, down through Alexander and late Republican Rome. Plutarch is the lens that we use today to view the Greco-Roman past; his work has shaped our perceptions of that world for 2,000 years. Plutarch writes of the rise of Roman Empire while Gibbon uses his scholarship to advance the story to write about its decline. He was a proud Greek that was equally effected by Roman culture, a Delphic priest, a leading Platonist, a moralist, educator and philosopher with a deep commitment as a first rate writer. Being a Roman citizen, Plutarch was afforded the opportunity to become an intimate friend to prominent Roman citizens and a member of the literary elite in the court of Emperor Trajan.
   
   Plutarch's influence and enormous popularity during and after the Renaissance is legendary among classicist. Plutarch's "Lives", served as the sourcebook for Shakespeare's Roman Plays "Julius Caesar", "Antony and Cleopatra" and "Coriolanus". By the way Plutarch is even the only contemporary source of all the biographical information on Cleopatra, whom he writes about in his biographies of Julius Caesar, Mark Antony and Octavian. Thomas Jefferson wrote to his nephew that there were three books every gentleman had to have familiarity with; Plutarch's "Lives", Livy's "History of Rome" and Virgil's Aeneid. In fact all the founding fathers of note had read Plutarch and learned much from his fifty biographies of noble men of Greece and Rome. When Hamilton, Jay and Madison write "The Federalist Papers" they use many examples of good and bad leadership traits that they read in Plutarch's work. His biographies are a great study in human character and what motivates leaders to decide and act the way they do, this masterpiece has proven to be still prescient today.
   
   If you are truly interested in a classical education, put this book on the top of your list! I recommend this book to anyone who is interested in political philosophy, and history.



5. As a mother of a "tween" and teacher of Western Civ to jr. high aged kids, I think this should be required reading for all public schools. It is the perfect material for asking normative questions. Who cares what we are today; ask them what we *ought* to be!!

5 comments about The Kennedys: An American Drama.

1. I was pretty disappointed. I have read a lot on individual Kennedys, and was looking for something to tie them all together. This book is very surface level, and practically ignores the women in the family. I know it is more interesting to cover the successful politicians (all male at the time of first publishing in 1984) and the drug abusers (apparently also all male, but still not sure), but a word or two about some of the other Kennedys would have been nice. For example, Eunice Kennedy Shriver, who founded the special olympics, gets only passing mention. All in all an interesting read, but mostly because the family (faults and successes) is so compelling, not because of the writing.



2. Heard the taped version of THE KENNEDYS: AN AMERICAN
   DREAM by Peter Collier and David Horowitz.
   
   This was a controversial NEW YORK TIMES bestseller when
   it was published in 1984, and I can see why . . . it tells the
   story of a dysfunctional family over three generations, centering
   around the elder Joseph Kenney and his wife Rose Fitzgerald . . . it then
   moves on to tell how his sons Jack and Bobby moved into the
   limelight via their careers in elected politics . . . and the book
   concludes with an account of Teddy's troubles, as well as those
   of the younger Kennedy children.
   
   Along the way there was adultery, drug usage (particularly by
   Jack during his presidency), alcoholism, and a variety of characters
   who mostly come across as not very lovable . . . perhaps only Lem
   Billings, JFK's best friend and subsequent family advisor, comes
   across in any sort of favorable light.
   
   My main criticism of THE KENNEDYS had to do with the last
   part . . . many of the younger Kennedys were portrayed in a negative
   fashion and though they may have had their difficulties while in
   school, several settled down and went on to careers in public
   service . . . consequently, I could have done without some
   of the dirt that seems to have been found.
   
   Yet that is probably what gives this book its appeal, so I'd
   recommend it if you want both the good and the bad about the
   Kennedy family . . . in addition, the narration by Joseph
   Campanella was outstanding and added to my enjoyment
   of listening to this tale about a dynasty that had to face
   so much tragedy over the years.



3. I read this book in 1984 and found it quite relevant and enlightening at the time. I am glad that the third generation has gotten itself together and are doing good things.
   
   I have also notice that any books written after Jackie's death have a wealth of information! President Kennedy is a real person (not some far off statesman). Jackie's plus and minuses are explored and she becomes human too! The way she raised Caroline and John was amazing and they seemed to have avoided any of the pitfalls of their other cousins. Except the most devastating one of course and that was will always be a great tragedy of a young life unfinished.
   
   Another excellent book written at the same time is Doris Goodwin's: The Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys: An American Saga. John B. Davis, Jackie's first cousin has written serveral books on Jackie, Kennedy's and the Mafia. You will not be disappointed.



4. Well written and engaging, the book surveys three generations of Kennedys over four sections, beginning with how Joseph Patrick Kennedy shaped his family and gave his sons a calling (Architect of Their Lives) then moves on to how his sons Jack and Bobby developed their public careers following Joe, Jr.'s death in WWII (The Stand In) then moving to the peak Kennedy years of Jack's Presidency and Bobby's campaign (Brothers Within). The drama ends as both a sad farce describing Teddy's troubles and as a tragedy invading the lives of the lost generation of Kennedy children (The Lost Boys).
   
   The book centers, as did the family, around the elder Joseph Kennedy and his wife, the queenly Rose Fitzgerald. JPK's generosity and his sincerity surprise the reader given his raw ambition, his selfishness, his manipulation of people, his womanizing, and his incompetence as a diplomat. All this was equaled only by his talent as a business man and in the end surpassed by his devotion as a father. On the other hand, Rose comes off rather dry and unappealing, which is a little difficult to believe given that she had nine children.
   
   A disturbing revelation of the book was how high on drugs (usually prescribed) Jack was during his presidency. His awful health mandated pain killers and other drug therapies to allow him to function, but at the same time must have affected his judgment and his ability to work. Given the confrontational character of the Kennedys, one shudders to think of how badly the Cuban crisis could have turned out.
   
   I have two strong criticism of the book. First, not enough space is given to JPK's most important contribution to the United States: he created and established the Securities and Exchange Commission, which gave the USA for decades a virtual monopoly on fair and transparent financial markets. (President Roosevelt apparently responded to critics of this appointment that "it takes a crook to catch a crook".)
   
   Second, in the interest of protecting privacy, the material on the last Kennedy generation should have been left out. The book was published in 1984 when the lost Kennedys were still in their teens and twenties. The authors needlessly (though with sympathy) sensationalized sad stories, at too early a time in those lives to pass any sort of critical judgment.
   
   The most interesting discovery for me was Lem Billings. He basically followed all three generations: best friend to Jack Kennedy, reassuring JPK that his son had someone supporting him outside the family, and surrogate father to some of the young Kennedys after Bobby's assassination until his death in the early 80s. A short book on Billings would be welcome.



5. One of the first things you will see are family-trees at the beginning of every part, where you can see all the members of the family, their children and their birth- and deathdates. Unfortunately for the Kennedy family many died prematurely, as is well recognized.
   
   Most Kennedy books will be focused on John F and his brother Robert F who were both shot. But in this book they still play main parts, but not the only ones. The book starts when the Kennedy's, and Fitzgeralds, came to America and how they quickly rose in first Boston and later American society, even though they had one big disadvantage; they were Irish.
   
   JFK's grandfather Honey Fitz became mayor of Boston by using the Irish vote. Joe Kennedy Sr. started out selling newspapers but was soon a movie producer, even having an alleged affair with movie star Gloria Swanson, something his sons would later copy with Marylin Monroe of course.
   
   Then came the biggest move in Joe Kennedy's life; he became Ambassador in England under Roosevelt, with whom he had a somewhat strained relationship. He would ever since be referred to as the Ambassador, even in his own family.
   
   Collier and Horowitz make it clear that the Ambassador is the most important member of the Kennedy family and that every child's actions are in some way related to him. The story is sometimes a little TV-movie sentimental, but whould would you do if you lose 4 children when you are still alive. The oldest son Joe dies in a WWII plane crash, his oldest daughter marries but loses her noble husband soon and dies herself in a plane crash a few months later.
   
   And of course there are the deaths of JFK and RFK.
   
   It's certainly not a hagiography telling how great the Kennedy's were. Old Joe Kennedy is sometimes shown as a towering figure who completely dominated his family's life until his stroke. JFK got his last rites twice and was often very sick with pain in his back and Addisson's desease. His medication is mentioned in the book and also are his numorous flings with women in the White House, his own house, even Airforce One. RFK seems to have been the most moral person and I believe the authors feel that way too. They explain his religion, his fight against organized crime and Jimmy Hoffa and also his meetings with minorities all over the world. He seemed to have had the Kennedy promise even more than his brother Jack or later Ted.
   
   The last part of the book is devoted to the next generation who cannot seem to deal with their heritage and often get into trouble, it seems as if everyone in the family is doing drugs, the last Kennedy death in the old edition, even loses his life because of it.
   
   It's a gripping story that sometimes reads like a novel. I think it gave a balanced story of the family with the good but also the bad, which made them even more human. It's a lot clearer now why the family was so loved and hated at the same time.
   
   A must-read for Kennedy-admirer and Kennedy-hater alike.

5 comments about John Adams: The American Presidents Series.

1. Excellent read. A new appreciation for John Adams' contribution to the founding. Once again, Jefferson comes out as the original "conniving politician."



2. John Adams (1735 --1826) was rescued from relative obsurity by David McCullough's popular and accessible biography. Engaging as it is, McCullough's work has little on the thought and writings of John Adams and on the impact of his thinking on American government and on Adams's own presidency. John Patrick Diggins's short biography, written as part of the American Presidents series, helps remedy this lack. It provides a deeper picture of an American political philosopher and president. Diggins is a distinguished professor of American history at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. He has written widely on American intellectual history, including books on Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, pragmatism, and the American left.
   
   Adams was born to a family of modest means in Massachusetts. Following graduation from Harvard, he became a lawyer and married Abigail Smith. Adams early became involved in the Revolutionary movement and served in the Continental Congress. During the Revolutionary War, Adams was abroad where he made vital contributions to the war effort in France and Holland. He helped draft the treaty by which the United States secured its independence. Adams served restlessly as Washington's vice-president and then became the second president in a close election against Thomas Jefferson, who became vice-president. After his narrow defeat by Jefferson for reelection in 1800, Adams retired to his home in Quincy.
   
   More important than these external events, Adams was a writer and a thinker who wrote works in support of American independence in the 1770s and books expounding his political philosophy and his understanding of American constitutionalism in the late 1780s and continuing early into his tenure as vice-president. Adams continued his writings in his long retirement, particularly in a wonderful series of letters he exchanged with his former rival, Jefferson.
   
   Diggins gives a good overview of a complex body of thought. Adams was opposed to the French Revolution and to writers such as Thomas Paine whose works helped to spearhead the American Revolution. Adams developed a philosophy based upon the unreliable and depraved nature of the human heart and its ambitions for power, wealth and success. He argued that a diverse government structured to allow for the wealthy classes and the common people, headed by a strong executive, would be the best way to restrain human greed and folly and to channel these traits for the common good. He objected to the French Revolution for its levelling tendencies -- for its attempt to obliterate distinctions, which Adams thought, were ingrained in the human desire to compete and excel, and which could not be artifically supressed. Adams also objected to the French Revolution because it was not properly succeeded with a solid institutional form of government. The American Revolution, which unlike the French revolution, was not based upon classes within the United States, and the American Constitution, with its separation of powers and strong executive were, for Adams, the antithesis of the French Revolution.
   
   During his presidency, Adams was excoriated by his fellow-Federalist Alexander Hamilton, who found Adams too weak and vacillating and by Thomas Jefferson, who attacked what he claimed were aristocratic and monarchical tendencies in Adams. Yet Adams worked carefully and delicately to avoid a war with France, the most significant accomplishment of his presidency. He established a tax system and pardoned a group of protesters who had been found guilty of treason by opposing it. Adams strengthened the military and left the budget with a surplus at the conclusion of his presidency. During his presidency, Congress enacted, and Adams enforced, the Alien and Sedition Acts, which Diggins somewhat downplays in his account.
   
   In 1800, under attack from both Hamilton and Jefferson, Adams came in a close third to Jefferson and Burr in the presidential race. Jefferson prevailed in the House of Representatives when Hamilton lent his influence and support. This hotly contested and little-known election marked a watershed in American politics as it marked a peaceful transition from Adams to a leader and a party with a far different stated political agenda. The American era of party politics, based upon images, perceptions, and the pursuit of power, had begun.
   
   Diggins is not afraid to state his own positions, and he shows a marked sympathy for John Adams over his rival, Jefferson. He sees Adams as a unique example of a president who tried to govern based upon principle rather than party or power. Together with Lincoln, Jefferson, Madison, and perhaps Theodore Roosevelt and Wilson, Diggins places Adams in a small group of American presidents who demonstrated intellectual leadership and accomplishment prior to and in the Executive Office.
   
   For Diggins, Adams's strengths as a thinker, together with his curmudgeonly disposition, led to the weaknesses of his presidency. He writes (p. 174) "At times the sin of pride cursed the Adams presidency. He often preferred to work alone, rarely sharing his thoughts or seeking the input of others as we was making up his mind. ... Adams was one of America's most solitary presidents, and the isolation of the mind, while healthy for poetry or phiosophy, is fatal in the sphere of politics.... politics dwells in the present, in bargains and distortions, naneuvers and manipulations, and other strategies of exigency that had no appeal to a thinker better at analyzing power than dealing with people."
   
   Diggins has written a thoughtful introduction to a thinker and president who remains incompletely understood. This short book should inspire reflection on Adams and on the nature of the political system which he helped bequeath to us.
   
   Robin Friedman



3. This isn't much of a biography. It gives just a quick history of Mr. Adams early life. It mainly focuses on his political and philosophical career and his feuds with Jefferson and Hamilton. It does a good job of reviewing his term as second president and the policies and precedents he initiated. This book may be a stepping stone to a more comprehensive analysis of Mr. Adams's personal and political life.



4. It hasn't been hard to notice that John Adams's reputation has been undergoing a serious rehabilitation in recent years. Joseph Ellis in particular has been dedicated to revising our understandings of both Adams and his nemesis/friend Thomas Jefferson. In his PASSIONATE SAGE: THE CHARACTER AND LEGACY OF JOHN ADAMS, FOUNDING BROTHERS: THE REVOLUTIONARY GENERATION, and AMERICAN SPHINX: THE CHARACTER OF THOMAS JEFFERSON, Ellis has been challenging a long established scenario in which the arch conservative John Adams was pitted against the populist liberal Thomas Jefferson for the political destiny of America, and the hero Jefferson triumphed over the mildly villainous Adams. Ellis has been questioning whether any part of this scenario makes any sense, whether Adams is at all a villain, and whether Jefferson is nearly as heroic. He has done this not by asserting the virtues of conservativism, but whether Adams has been correctly understood at all, both by his contemporaries and by subsequent generations. This reevaluation of Adams was continued by the spectacular and unanticipated mega-bestseller by David McCullough of 2001. This process of reassessment is clearly carried forward by John Patrick Diggins. For the record, I find the rehabilitation of Adams by these and other writers to be both welcome and highly convincing.
   
   For two hundred years, our view of Adams came very much through the lenses of his critics and opponents. The truism that history is written from the standpoint of the victors is perhaps truer of Adams than any other major political figure in United States history. Adams was said to be a closet monarchist, a favorer of aristocracy. In the face of this criticism, Adams explicitly challenged Jefferson to point to a single passage in any of his writings that endorses monarchy or aristocracy. In fact, if one reads extensively in Adams works, as argued by Ellis, Diggins, and McCullough, one finds instead a powerful and subtle critique of the dangers of the development and influence of an economic elite, placing him at the opposite extreme of Alexander Hamilton, whose ideal of government came very close to the espousal of plutocracy. Adams did hope for the emergence of natural elites, but this was based on ability and character, not on wealth. Contained in the reassessment of Adams is implied a questioning of whether Adams is the arch conservative he is often portrayed as being. The case for Adams's conservativism is based largely on his belief in monarchism, his favoring aristocracy, his support for a bicameral Congress, his looking to the past for guidance, and his opposition to the French Revolution. As these authors have shown, Adams transparently did not favor monarchy or the growth of an aristocratic class and a bicameral legislature in the United States has not resulted in the Senate being a sort of House of Lords. Today many leftist historians have found grounds for critiquing the French Revolution, and a host of leftist political figures have found inspiration for their beliefs in the past (not least Karl Marx, who was a student of the Greeks and Romans). Furthermore, Adams was hardly a passionate capitalist, and was suspicious of a life devoted to the acquisition of wealth. In fact, if you compare Adams and Jefferson to that modern conservative icon Ronald Reagan, it is hard to find many issues that Adams would not differ sharply on from Reagan, while one can see a number of points of contact between Adams and Reagan. Diggins, in fact, finds numerous points of contact between Adams's political writings and many French radical writers of the late 20th century. I will say that as a leftist myself, I find much to love in Adams's thought. I share his fear of the negative effects that economic elites have on the democratic process, his belief in the need for a strong central government to protect citizens from the pernicious influence of greed (Adams would understand my fear of deregulation), and his instincts that government rather than less or no government is a better safeguard of individual liberty. Diggins rightly states that the American president who would most closely incarnate Adams's principles would be Teddy Roosevelt, who envisioned government as the means of breaking trusts and promoting economic justice.
   
   Of all the books in the Schlesinger series on the American presidents, this is probably the one that I found most provocative intellectually. It is a dense, rich book, in large part because Diggins focuses more on the thought of Adams than his life. Diggins is more intent on explaining Adams ideas than the various events in his life. In one sense this is a weakness as a biography, but because his discussion of Adams's ideas is so clear and interesting, it more than makes up for the lack of biographical detail. I do regret some of the sketchiness of the biographical narrative. For instance, he doesn't' deal in any detail on how Adams became either vice president or president. This contrasts sharply with the rather deep discussion of Adams's ideas. This is in line with Diggins's role as apologist for Adams. On the purely historical side, most of Diggins's effort is put into dispelling the myth that the election of 1800 represented the defeat of Federalism by Republicanism (that's Jeffersonian Republicanism, not what we associate today with the GOP). I personally found this section less interesting that the sections dealing with Adams's thought.
   
   I would strongly encourage anyone reading this volume to consider picking up the new volume THE PORTABLE JOHN ADAMS, edited by Diggins. I completely agree with Diggins that Adams's writings are more interesting than his presidency, and that he may be the most unjustly neglected political writer in American history. This new volume contains a wide ranging collection of his writings, not merely from his theoretical writings, but his diaries and letters as well.



5. To start with and to avoid disappointment for those looking for something other than what this is, some of the trade reviews are just plain wrong: this is not a biography focusing on Adams childhood and youth. In fact, it isn't really a biography at all. What it is is a short, to the point but nevertheless fairly deep analysis of Adams' political thought with a particular emphasis on the politics of his presidential administration. It is written from a very positive view point (one shared by David McCullough) and from a view point that is quite hostile to Thomas Jefferson. As such it is an invaluable read for anyone interested in the development of presidential politics in America as well as anyone seeking the "rest of the story" regarding Adams, Jefferson, and their relationship.

5 comments about Partners in Command: George Marshall and Dwight Eisenhower in War and Peace.

1. This book does a good job of giving us WWII and the Cold War at a high-level view, through the eyes of our two best military leaders. Mentored by Marshall, Eisenhower was the glue that held the Allies together during WWII. Buffeted by the incredibly large egos of such as Churchill, Patton, and Monty, Ike kept his cool, and with good counsel kept the Alliance together.
   
   I had no idea that Ike had such a hard job. Surprisingly (to me at least), the Brits were very hesitant to get behind Overlord, while the Russians were screaming for a second front as they were being pounded by the Axis during Barbarosa. Also, there was competition for resources from MacArthur in the Pacific War, which was given second-class status via the `Germany First' policy. Then there was the competition among the countries as well as among the different branches of the armed forces.
   
   Ike had some good things behind him. He had Marshall as an almost-father-figure and a very cool and wise military and political head. He had Roosevelt, who was the most powerful person in the world. Finally, he had great self-command; he was not one to fly off the handle when things got tough.
   
   I have no idea how he did it, or how they did it (Marshall and especially Ike). The motto of his presidential campaign works for me: I Like Ike!



2. This isn't actually a military book. This is about the politics of the military and the intellectual formation of Eisenhower (more so than Marshall). It is exemplary in terms of helping to understand the differences between the American and the British ways of war, the political motivations behind the North Africa campaign, Italy, and Normandy, and the relationship between personality and the level of command that one can attain.
   
   There are some passages in this book that bear deep study. I recommend it highly.



3. I was a small child during WWII and don't remember much about it. What I know I've read. This is an excellent book. I didn't know anything about George Marshall really except for the Marshall Plan. I'd like to do some more research on him.



4. 'Partners in Command' by Mark Perry
   
   Mr. Perry's book does a wonderful job of defining the relationship between Ike and General of the Army, George C. Marshall. Gain insight into the talents, and conversely, the weaknesses of these two tremendously important historic leaders. As much, if not more importantly, you'll recognize their conscious (or subconscious) self-realization of these internal characteristics and how they melded their personalities into an unshakable leadership duo.
   
   This book takes you into the White House as well as the battlefield command centers of WWII for an up close view of the highest levels of the machinations of warfare command. Experience the stress, exhilaration, support, comradeship and undying patriotism these two commanders had for each other. The jaw drops when considering the sacrifices these men, and millions others, made for their country and the effort they deemed paramount to the freedom of mankind.
   
   Mr. Perry provides us a detail-rich and very well written book, which is easily read yet difficult to put down. There are sections that will leave you wishing were expanded upon, however, on balance this is a one of a kind work that should be read my military historians and those just looking for a taste of WWII history and leadership. A very good book, indeed. I greatly look forward to Mr. Perry's next project.



5. Surprisingly, a great book on career development and problems in management, set in the context of the most trying of times. In the case of Eisenhower, it is an excellent case study on how to manage a coalition of varying team players and personalities and how to report up to your boss. In the case of Marshall, it is an excellent case study on how to be a boss, both by identifying and promoting talent, managing subordinates (by giving them real responsibility and the trust and support to make their own decisions, even when they make mistakes) and ultimately keeping the organization focused on the broad strategic objectives that will win the war. Plus history to boot. Revealing insofar as the extent to which Eisenhower deferred to Marshall and how Marshall managed Eisenhower and encouraged him. Also interesting how Marshall pulled Eisenhower from obscurity to put him in a position to become supreme commander of Europe, solely by dint of his talent and hard work. Great book for understanding the dynamics of successful leadership and delegation of duties, as well as the keys to personal career success, in the guise of a history book and biography. Touches on the key command issues and battlefield developments to give the story clear historical context. Enlightening in many ways.