5 comments about Juan Carlos: Steering Spain from Dictatorship to Democracy.

1. I made the mistake of thinking this was just a biography on Juan Carlos but instead its a complex read on Spain during the dictatorship and how it became a democrarcy again. It was a good book and well written but a little difficult to understand.



2. If I were rating this book on content alone, Preston would get 5 stars. However, his writing style hampers him somewhat. This unique biography traces what is supposedly the life of King Juan Carlos of Spain, a man for whom I have immense respect, from the fall of Alfonso XIII to the present, but it winds up being a historical analysis of the transition of Spain out of the Franco regime, similar to Preston's Triumph of Democracy in Spain, which I read for school, only longer and with more focus on Juan Carlos. I was initially disappointed because I wanted personal information about the king, [...]Or somehow get a copy of The King by Jose Luis de Vilallonga (good luck, I had to order it used from Australia). However, this book contains more information and analysis about Francoist and post-Francoist Spain than you will ever need in your entire life. Preston tells the tale largely with a mind for the role of Juan Carlos in it (the manipulation by his father, the restoration, the initial democratic difficulties, etc.) but this winds up being so complex that he constantly goes elsewhere. I liked the book but you need to read it in small chunks, because his writing is exhausting. It's very complex and dry and full of untranslated Spanish and acronyms, so don't read this while you're tired or you won't remember a thing. Preston obviously has a lot of enthusiasm for the subject, though, which comes across in his writing and the sheer volume of the work. Buy this book if you want a long, scholarly read!



3. The complete title of Paul Preston's book on the present Spanish monarch-- "Juan Carlos, Steering Spain from Dictatorship to Democracy"--says it all. If you want to read about the king and his love of fast cars and beautiful women, consult the tabloids. Several biographies of his wife, Queen Sofía, a woman admired and beloved by most Spaniards for her strength, humanity, and dignity, have been written in Spanish. There are also many magazine articles about her in both Spanish and English. The author does assume that the reader has some knowledge of Spanish history. For those who don't, he has written a number of other books on the subject ("The Coming of the Spanish Civil War", "The Points of Revenge", and "A Concise History of the Spanish Civil War").
   
   When I lived in Spain in the sixties, the prevailing opinion of most of my friends was that, when Franco died, the society would plunge in another civil war as Juan Carlos would never be able to stand up to the generals and lead the country toward becoming a democracy. Undoubtedly this is one of the reasons I found fascinating the abundance of details of how the king was able to do exactly that. Preston's book is a complete study of the process that does not cater to sensationalism. For that I also consider it a "masterpiece".



4. Royalty demands sycophancy from its subjects, and this is especially the case for royal biography. Notwithstanding that it doesn't take too much for people to realize that most monarchs are deeply unattractive people. Whether it is the selfish, irresponsible house of Savoy so acutely delineated in Denis Mack Smith's Italy and its Monarchy, or the houses of Hohenzollern and Romanov leading their countries to disaster, or the fundamentally mediocre British monarchy as seen in the essays of David Cannadine, or for that matter Juan Carlos' irresponsible, shallow brother-in-law, Constantine II, the last king of Greece, monarchs are people who believe the rest of the world owes them a living.
   
   In 1931 it seemed that the Spanish branch of the Bourbons had met its own well-deserved fate, as King Alfonso went into exile and his countrymen formed a democratic republic. As Preston puts it, the royal family does not take exile well. Hemophiliac uncles, morganatic marriages, adulterous affairs, a deaf and dumb uncle whose son will be used by Preston to make Juan Carlos' life even more miserable, it all looked most unpromising. One detail that comes to mind is a picture of a four year old Juan Carlos in military uniform. It was only after he had been standing in it for hours that people realized that his books were too small and his feet had been rubbed raw. But on the whole this is a picture of Juan Carlos that is fairly sympathetic to him. After he appears on the scene, there is little gossip of the Eurotrash aspect of things. (Although we do learn that Juan Carlos accidentally shot his brother to death.)
   
   Juan Carlos, born in 1938, and his father Don Juan had to find a way to restore the monarchy after the Spanish Civil war. The problem was simple. Franco at the time made monarchist sentiments and many monarchists were among his followers. The problem was that he had no desire of sharing power with anyone, and himself had little respect for the previous monarchy which had tolerated a limited parliamentarianism. He suspected Don Juan might try to reconcille his divided country, and remove it from Franco's regime of divine vindictiveness. The problem for Don Juan, who spent most of Franco's reign living in Portugal, was that he had little to offer and little power to use it. Although much of the Francoist elite would have prefered to see a monarchy, they were not going to risk their power trying to force the issue. And so for until 1968 Don Juan waited, endured Franco's condescension and lies, occasionally got angry, was separated from his son for long periods of time at considerable psychological stress for both of them, and ended up doing what Franco wanted. Franco got the idea that Juan Carlos might be more ameneable to Francoist propaganda and so in 1948 he was sent to Spain and educated under Falangist tuetalage. Finally after two decades of toying with them, Franco made Juan Carlos, not his father, his heir apparent.
   
   Juan Carlos' prospects were not promising. Being made heir was better than having to look over his shoulders at Carlist and other pretenders. But now he, although of generally liberal opinions, was stuck in a regime that was firmly reactionary. Franco had no desire to step down, and would remain in power almost until the very end. Consistently he and his entourage took the most reactionary path. Had his prime minister Carrero Blanco not been assassinated in 1973 by Basque separatists, the transition to democracy would have been much more difficult. And even when Franco grew less malevolent as old age, senility and death came upon him (the last a process that took months to complete) Juan Carlos still had to worry about the reactionary entourage of Franco's wife.
   
   And then Preston discusses how Juan Carlos managed to ease out the more reactionary Francoists from the cabinet, got the more moderate Suarez to make a transition to power, and, most dramatic of all, stopped the coup of February 1981 by making his clear his unconditional oppostion to it. For this transition to democracy Juan Carlos is beloved by his subjects and the Spanish monarchy appears as stable as Britain, Scandinavia and the Benelux countries. There are some points I would like to mention here. For a start, although there is new detail, much of the storyline can be seen in Preston's earlier books "Franco" and "The Triumph of Spanish Democracy." Second, one should point out that Juan Carlos was assisted by the Spanish Socialist and Communist parties, who agreed to let Juan Carlos remain, instead of pointing out that he had no popular mandate to do so. Third, it does seem unfair that the Spanish monarchy should get the credit for Juan Carlos' bravery, since the same crisis is not likely to be repeated again, and the absence of republicanism in contemporary Spain appears less as an act of gratitude than the whole post-socialist failure of imagination.



5. Fans of the usual kinds of biographies about kings and princes should be careful about this one. It's a very good book, but it's likely to be very far from the sort of thing you're expecting. But then, King Juan Carlos of Spain's life has been very different from that of most modern royals. In a sense, this book is hardly even "about" him at all. Rather, it's an in-depth look at a transitional era in Spanish history, as well as at the man who, in many ways, was the pivot on which that transition turned. People looking for that kind of book will be rewarded here.
   
   Let me expand a little on what this book isn't, because I think that's important. There's not really very much in these pages about Juan Carlos' life outside the political realm. For example, the author mentions in passing toward the end of the book the king's "obsession with speed and with expensive sports in which he risked his life and which frequently caused him serious accidents and injuries" (p. 511). In most royal biographies, those kinds of things would be central to the story. Here, they're barely an aside. Likewise, Queen Sophia hardly appears here except tangentially in a political context. The Infantas and Prince Felipe show up even less. Is this book a well-rounded look at Juan Carlos as a man? No.
   
   But then, it doesn't seem like it's intended to be. What this book is, as I said, is a look at the king's role in helping Spain move from the Francoist dictatorship to the current popular democracy. That role was a central one -- not only at key moments like dismantling the 1981 coup attempt, but also in slowly, quietly, and yet unrelentingly keeping in check the forces that wanted to maintain Francoism even after the Caudillo's death in 1975.
   
   In telling this story, Paul Preston has produced a well-researched and well-sourced book that at times is almost overwhelming with its depth and detail. This is a book thick with names, dates, meetings, quotations ... I frankly found it slow going at times. Around page 300, I found myself asking (as I'm sure the people of Spain asked at the time), "Isn't Franco dead YET?!" Preston's discussion of the controversy about legalizing the Communist Party of Spain similarly seemed to go on for a really long time. And how many times did he need to repeat that the adolescent Juan Carlos' wishes were not consulted in the high-level negotiations between his father and Franco over how he was to be educated?
   
   A bit of familiarity with Spanish history and government would be useful to the reader too. Perhaps Preston assumes his reader has already read his biography of Franco, since he's pretty thin on what exactly the Spanish Civil War was all about, why Alfonso XIII had to leave Spain, and what precisely the oft-mentioned principles of the *Movimiento* really were. Similarly, Preston is quick to throw out names, events, and acronyms without always taking the time to explain who or what they are, or why (or if) they matter.
   
   Yet ultimately, all the depth, all the detail, all the exhaustive documentation has produced a volume that may be, at least in English, the definitive look at King Juan Carlos and his role in the restoration of Spain's monarchy and democracy. Preston emphasizes the weight of the king's personal sacrifice throughout his life in order to put Spain back on a solid democratic footing, and the truly central role he did (and does) play in that process. As he notes on page 474, for example, if the king had chosen to support the 1981 coup, there's no question it would have succeeded. That he chose not to support it doomed it to failure.
   
   The world of royal biography -- especially biography of still-living or recently-deceased figures -- is filled with shallow puffery and fawning adulation. When something different comes along, fans of royalty as well as serious historians should snap it up. This volume definitely falls into that category -- not only for its value as a work of history, but also as proof of how monarchy can and ought to be a force for good, even in an era which has tended to turn its back on that form of government. As a noted political commentator wrote following the collapse of the 1981 coup attempt (quoted on page 488), "Whilst we Spaniards thought that we deserved something better than a king, it turns out that we have a king that we don't deserve."

5 comments about The Survivor: Bill Clinton in the White House.

1. Republicans blamed Bill Clinton for 9/11, saying he cut the military and weakened the intelligence community. It is just as valid to say the Republicans weakened the country by impeaching Clinton and trying to destroy his presidency. We have reached a point where each party puts itself ahead of the country. Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader, came on television and praised the Democrats for their greatness. Problem is, we can not have a democracy without two great parties. Reflecting on the Clinton presidency, it is hard to think of anything he did. He kept the peace. He said his goal was to have no major wars. His goal of universal health coverage failed. In retrospect, his 8 years were a series of scandals from Jennifer Flowers to Whitewater to Monica Lewinsky. Clinton learned from Nixon's mistake. He knew that if he hung on, the impeachment process would run its course. The country did not need another Watergate nor a second president resigning. Republicans ignored this, seeking revenge for Watergate. One thing about Clinton, he had charisma. His womanizing ruined Al Gore. And his bridge to the 21st century became a bridge back to the Bushes of Texas!



2. This is an excellent book that gives the reader lots of interesting, insightful information about President Clinton.



3. Remember the political nineties? I remember my own early enthusiasm for the New Democrat as political antidote. Bill Clinton's maddening foibles (sins?) have always in my mind had to be balanced with some real achievements like a balanced budget and welfare reform. If anything, Clinton personified a new kind of leader in that his private life and inner mind were exposed in ways Presidents had not been before. A President just simply wasn't supposed to feel our pain or twaddle with interns. I learned about "compartmentalization" watching Clinton as President on 24-hour news cycles.
   
   John Harris does an admirable job navigating partisan invective and still sore political wounds. Harris tells key stories well, weaving throughout the narrative an intriguing capsule of the political survivor. I give his work four stars as I don't know that I gained any new insights beyond what I observed living through the nineties. Survivor is an enjoyable series of linked essays vividly recapturing the political nineties from a view alongside Clinton.



4. If you feel Franken, M. Moore, Hannity or Rush are credible, than this book probably isn't for you. This is as close to fair and accurate as your going to get. While it's obvious the author is favorable to Clinton, he doesn't hesitate to point out his mistakes. Someone might complain the book doesn't mention every single incident, but what book can? Even "War and Peace" can't. I am very much enjoying the book. It's virtually impossible to find an unbiased book. Everyone has an opinion, just give me the information and let me decide. I despise Bush, I liked Reagan, and I don't believe either Nixon or Clinton should have been impeached. try it!



5. This is an excellent book, which gives a thorough a balanced account of the Clinton presidency. The author gives good details about all of the controversies of this period ("Travelgate", "Whitewater", the numerous guest stays at the White House, etc.), so that the reader can get the facts about these events. We also get good information about many of Clinton's advisors, staff, and cabinet and who was influential and why and what the Clintons thought of them (e.g., George Stephanopoulos, Dick Morris, Lloyd Bentsen, Robert Reich).

5 comments about Washington's God: Religion, Liberty, and the Father of Our Country.

1. I chose this book because I had been reading some shorter biographies on George Washington and I became interested in the "truth" about his faith. This book hits on some interesting points but the writing style is very choppy (the author constantly goes back and forth in time) and the style of narrative just didn't draw this reader in. David McCullough's epic volume on John Adams - as long and detailed as it is - proves that an author can provide tremendous detail and still keep the reader wanting to turn the page to learn more. Still, for some strong evidence that George Washington was no passive deist, but actually had a compelling Christian faith, one can turn to Washington's God as a good source of information.



2. Novak & daughter make repeated assumptions that are in no way indicated by the historical record, and at most, his and his fellow Christian Revisionist Historian's wishful thinking are the only basis for this tome. To conclude that a man that does not even USE the word Jesus, in one SINGLE instance in ANY of his known documents, or writings, is a Christian, is disingenuous, and has a political, rather than religious overtone. Save your money, would be my advice, and skip this as the pure propaganda that it most certainly is.



3. Was George Washington a deist or a Christian? It is an important question, as Washington was not only the first president but the most respected of all of America's founding fathers.
   
   In their book, "Washington's God," Michael and Jana Novak investigate Washington's public and private life to answer this question. The evidence is mixed:
   
   Toward the view that Washington was a deist: Washington rarely referred to Jesus Christ (although he did write a letter to the Delaware Indians and recommend the religion of Jesus Christ), but instead he preferred the term "Providence," or generic terms like "the Author of our Blessed Religion." Washington regularly refused to take communion at church. When asked point-blank if he believed in Jesus Christ, he would not answer the question. When he died, he did not ask for a minister, and simply said, "'Tis well."
   
   Toward the view that Washington was a Christian: Washington was a member of the Anglican church, which he attended regularly, including overseeing business of his local church. He agreed to be godfather to eight children, something the less religious Thomas Jefferson refused to do. He spoke of "Providence" in Christian terms, not deist terms. A deist believes God is like a watchmaker who makes the world and then is not involved; Washington instead spoke of divine Providence intervening and bringing together the events that led to his victory in the American Revolution. His reluctance to explicitly state his faith in Jesus Christ can be understood as typical for an Anglican who is more reserved about public expressions of faith. Nevertheless, there are reports of him privately praying during the war, and he insisted on having chaplains in the Continental Army. After his death, Martha Washington spoke of it as a Christian death.
   
   On balance, Novak concludes that while he was very private about his faith, George Washington was, indeed, a Christian. He notes that Washington believed in religious liberty and opposed a state church, but Washington supported an accomodationist view of church and state that allows for public expresssions of general faith in the public square, without an endorsement of any particular denomination.



4. The Novaks take on the tough question: Was George Washington a Christian or a Deist? With a thorough approach in an historical context, this work is a must read for anyone looking for this answer or who wants to explore an interesting side of our first President.



5. An outstanding book that shows clearly that the father of our country was a Christian and not the deist that revisionists would have us believe. For anyone interested in what made up the character of George Washington, this book is a must. Washington's own words and the words of those who knew him speak volumes.

5 comments about Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President.

1. If you have ever wondered about what (if anything) is rattling around in W's head, this is good insight!



2. A well written book that is fascinating, yet horrifying.
   
   Why the mainstream press kept all the animal cruelty and college torture incidences hush hush is the next book I would like to read.



3. Clearly I am not a Bush fan. I bought this book to shed some light on this madman's approach to politics. While the beginning was good the book gradually turned me against the author. The author goes on to state how he doesn't take anyone seriously that is not a member of AA, yet he also says it only has a 10% success rate. He goes on ad nauseum to state that AA is the only way out, and if you don't choose this route you are in for many problems even if you have stopped drinking for decades. In the next chapter the author contradicts himself because AA is based on believing in a Higher Power. In this chapter the author tells how Bush is using his religion as a "crutch". So what is it, belief in a higher power or not? I found the author had similar problems as Bush, in that he was very stubborn on his beliefs and made generalizations. I would not recommend this book to anyone as it is very biased with the author's beliefs. Perhaps author and Bush should be evaluated/analyzed by another person.



4. Although the author who clearly has impeccable credientials makes excellent points about the President and the entire Bush dynasty regarding the psychological motivations for all of their behaviors, particularly W's, this could have all been covered in a long article. The author did offer very intersting biographical information to flesh out the story but the end result was still very repetitious.



5. Like some Grimm's Fairy Tale, you know not to open the door - but you do anyway. And what you find behind it confirms your worst suspicions. To sum the book in one sentence: We, the United States of America, are George W Bush's extended family and we are getting the fatherhood from him that he got from his biological father. (Bush's father was never home and his mother was a cold disciplinarian.)
   
   Bush on the Couch is a well-written nicely paced read. The book could easily descend to becoming a hit piece, but it appears to retain a clinical objectivity throughout. While mildly ponderous with Freudian theory, for anyone unfamiliar with basic Freudian concepts that is a plus. The presence of such theory makes it plain, page after page, that Dr Frank is avoiding flights of imagination as far as possible and sticking close to theory and the facts at hand. The facts at hand are seven years of televised speeches, interviews, press conferences, and as much of the Bush family's biography as is known.
   
   The dramatis personae playing upon the psyche of the world's most powerful man, according to Dr Frank, read like a Who's Who from the Seven Deadly Vices of some medieval morality play: Lust (for power), Envy (due to lack of nurturing), Sloth (woeful academic and professional performance), Gluttony (alcoholism), Pride (political power combined with amoral behavior), Anger (sadism), and Greed. For good measure, ADHD, Religious Inflation, and False Witness make cameo appearances. Meantime, the brain that these Vices inhabit works out its childhood traumas on a global stage.
   
   "His behavior is what psychoanalysts call ego-syntonic, meaning that his actions - the lies he tells and the harm he inflicts on others - don't appear to cause him much conscious anxiety" (page 232).
   
   Dr Frank suggests that this steaming cauldron of psychological witch's brew overspills its edges in Bush's repeated Freudian slips: "I am a person who recognized the fallacy of humans".
   
   A good read that pulls together everything you ever wondered about the president - and leaves you wanting no more of it. Recommended.

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.

5 comments about Flawed Giant: Lyndon Johnson and His Times, 1961-1973.

1. Fine, scholarly biography of the Ph.D.-thesis type. Dallek relies mainly on documentary sources (which he reviewed copiously). The result is somewhat detached.
   
   You get little feel for the lengendary "Johnson treatment" that LBJ used to such great effect. There is, though, much quasi-psychological stuff. Johnson was poorly educated but intellectually brilliant. He was absolutely driven. He was Lincoln-like in his humor, his yarns, his frontier similes. But these gifts were often misdirected. He just had to be first, the best, at everything. He was frighteningly insecure, almost to the point of true paranoia. There are many stories of his abuse of subordinates.
   
   Dallek is a New Deal/Great Society liberal, and this viewpoint pervades. He is mostly enthusiastic about the Great Society and civil rights achievements, but scathing about Johnson's handling of Vietnam. The most revealing part is the recital of how Johnson felt forced to back into the war, and to try to do it almost surreptitiously. Reassuringly, Dallek presents Johnson as simply misguided and ill-advised. There is none of that Oliver Stone crap about being a tool of the military-industrial complex.
   
   Robert Caro's latest volume in his multi-volume opus, "The Master of The Senate", takes Johnson only up to 1960. Dallek's two volumes cover Johnson's whole life. Caro puts in ten years of research for every one that Dallek has put in, and Caro's doggedness is beyond herioc. Dallek is a solid, straightforward writer (unusual for an academic), but he has little of Caro's inspired literary style. Flesh, blood, and sinew pervade Caro's books. Dallek's sounds like a political science seminar.
   
   Read it by all means, if you are interested in Johnson. But wait for Caro's next volume is you want the definitive treatment.



2. I sped through last year reading all three mammoth books in Robert A. Caro's Pulitzer Prize-winning LBJ biography series, and found them an incredibly readable, detailed portrayal of a man who was half megalomaniac, half incredibly gifted politician, a complex American Shakespearean character whose presidency crumbled into self-induced tragedy. Caro hasn't written the final book in his series yet concentrating on LBJ's presidency, so I decided to check out a competing LBJ biography by Dallek focusing on those years. And it's solid history, with great insight into LBJ's character and the disastrous decisions he made in Vietnam that undermined all the powerful social changes he achieved in civil rights and Medicare. Yet "Flawed Giant" is also kind of a slog, which Caro's books weren't. I can't quite put my finger on it, but Dallek lacks the fluid prose, deft research into place and era, and storytelling talent that Caro brought to LBJ - I was able to read hundreds of pages about dry as toast subjects like congressional redistricting and vote tallies and found them compelling reading under Caro. Yet here, I ended up getting bored silly by Dallek's bland recitation of the ups and downs of Vietnam, which you think would be interesting stuff. Dallek is a bit more even-handed in his appreciation of LBJ than Caro, but it just all felt a little too much like work. Guess it goes to show that it's as much in the storyteller as it is in the story. I'll be eagerly awaiting Caro's take on this same era, whenever it comes out.



3. Robert Dallek completes his two volume biography of Lyndon B. Johnson with "Flawed Giant". Its a well written book that tells the story of a brilliant politician who is overwhelmed and outmatched by events he failed to anticipate.
   
   The book begins with Johnson in the unhappy position of serving as Vice President under John F. Kennedy. A most difficult place for a man of Johnson's ego and stature to find himself. Nevertheless, Johnson struggles and does the best he can with this job obtaining recognition in his efforts to further U.S. diplomacy abroad and advance the space program.
   
   On November 22, 1963, President Kennedy is assassinated and Johnson becomes President. No one could ever accuse Johnson of not seizing the moment and this he does masterfully. Within a year, he obtains passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and a number of domestic initiatives aimed at reducing poverty and improving quality of life for Americans that become known as the "Great Society". Johnson's accomplishments as President all took place during the first two years of his presidency. Some of those accomplishments include the Head Start Program for disadvantaged children, a federal student loan program for college students, the Job Corps program for kids who dropped out of school, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which enfranchised millions of blacks, the National Endowment for the Arts, and Medicare.
   
   Johnson proves his skill as a politician by defeating opponent Barry Goldwater with almost 62% of the vote in the 1964 election. Unfortunately, these same skills waned as time went on. By the end of 1965, the positive accomplishments of the Johnson Presidency had come to an end. Johnson inherited the Vietnam War from his predecessor, John F. Kennedy. However, he made a series of mistakes after doing so. First, he concluded that America had to hold onto South Vietnam and prevent a "take over" by the North. He never grasped that the conflict was not an attack by the communist world upon the free world, but simply a regional civil war that had gone for decades. Second, he failed to grasp early on that the conflict was not winnable by conventional means, so he committed 500,000 American soldiers. Third, he failed to understand that the American people wouldn't stand idly by for years supporting such a war with no measurable progress being made. Fourth, he failed to consider steps such as simply withdrawing when it did become apparent that the war was unwinnable.
   
   As the Johnson Presidency unfolds, the accomplishments of the Great Society are overwhelmed by the Vietnam War. Johnson finally realizes his mistake at the end of his presidency. He announces he won't run again and initiates peace talks with North Vietnam.
   
   One must look at Johnson carefully and not jump to conclusions. He was a complicated man who did much good during his presidency. Sadly, though, he will most likely be remembered for the Vietnam War which cost America 58,000 lives.



4. Over the last several years I've read more than 30 presidential biographies, usually letting Amazon reader's guide me to the best choice. While I would place Dallek's LBJ Volume 1 in the top five presidential biographies, Volume two is not quite in the same class. Dallek continues to write well, and I think he presents a complex man and a very difficult time in a balanced way. But over half of this biography details the morass of Viet Nam, and it is truly depressing to read as Johnson and his advisers relentlessly lead the country over the cliff.
   
   During the first two years of LBJ's presidency he led the US Congress to pass some of the most significant legislation in our history - Medicare, greatly increased low income housing, legal aid, increased funding for education and student loans, the most important civil rights legislation of the 20th Century, and the Great Society legislation, a muddled effort to end poverty.
   
   Then, slowly and inexorably LBJ took the US deeper and deeper into Viet Nam. Dallek argues that whatever other geo-political factors were involved, LBJ's drive to be a great president and his fear of failing made the Viet Nam catastrophe inevitable. Johnson simply could not admit to being the first president to lose a war, he couldn't cope with the reality of the corruption of Viet Nam's leadership, and he couldn't stand to be honest in telling the American people just how poorly the war was going. Dallek presents a president who was increasingly paranoid of a nonexistent communist menace influencing the anti-war movement and of Bobby Kennedy leading JFK's ghost to steal LBJ's legacy.
   
   Today, there are numerous editorials comparing the war in Iraq to Vietnam (or denying any comparison). I've yet to see an article comparing President Bush to LBJ, and in most ways they are polar opposites. Still, this biography is very timely. There are unmistakable similarities between America's descent into the two wars, Iraq and South Viet Nam's lack of resources to provide leadership to their own people, our leaders' reluctance to level with the US, the isolation each president sought to avoid criticism, and a society that was so polarized by other issues that it is somehow ok to not take an objective look at the facts of the war.



5. Capt. Lance Sijan, USAF Medal of Honor winner, was tortured to death while a captive in a North Vietnam prison. Gerry Coyle, Army PFC, died in Tay Ninh . Bill Fahey, Marine PFC, died in Quang Tri . Leo Matylewicz, an Army Spec 4, had his body literally blown to pieces in Kontum. Dave Rozelle was killed in Quang Tri while a Marine Lance Corporal. Tom Malloy, Army Spec 4, died in Bien Hoa. Mike Turose's body was never recovered for a return home or even a burial when his F-4 was shot down over North Vietnam. Dick Christy was killed over Cambodia when his forward air control aircraft was shot down. Mike Bosiljevac's remains were not recovered until Vietnam opened up to allow forensic search teams years after the war was over - 20 years after he was shot down over North Vietnam. Mike Blassie's remains were placed in the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. in 1998 DNA testing identified the remains as Mike. He had been shot down over An Loc.
   Why do I list these men killed in Vietnam as the introduction to this review of Robert Dallek's biography of Lyndon Johnson - "Flawed Giant"? Because Lyndon Johnson as President of the United States from Jack Kennedy's assassination until 1968 might as well have pulled the trigger or pressed the button that sent them to their deaths. Jane Fonda may have posed on the North Vietnamese anti-aircraft weapons but Lyndon Johnson placed those men in harm's way - for no reason other than his fantastic ego. Let me quote Dallek's afterword:
   "Vietnam was a larger mistake. It was the worst foreign policy disaster in the country's history. Aside from the sacrifice of the many brave men and women who lost their lives or suffered because of the conflict, there seems nothing heroic about the struggle. ... Vietnam was a morass. The battlefield clashes and constant discussions in Washington and Saigon about the war were a confusion leading nowhere. ... the planning for Vietnam led to unproductive commitments in what came to seem like an open-ended conflict.
   ...
   "The principal products of administration discussions about the fighting were false hopes, self-generated illusions, and paranoid fears of domestic opponents, who were not the Communist dupes Johnson believed them to be but men and women devoted to the national security and well-being as anyone in the government and military."
   "Johnson knew from the first that he might be pursuing a losing case in Vietnam."
   "Even less flattering to LBJ is the reality that he also pursued the war for selfish motives. To admit failure on so big an issue as Vietnam would have been too jarring to Johnson's self-image as a can-do leader."
   During the 1964 presidential campaign when Johnson ran against Goldwater, one of the Democrat slogans was "If you vote for Goldwater your sons will be in Vietnam." Well, my parents voted for Goldwater and I ended up in Vietnam.
   This book covers the years from 1961 to Johnson's death in 1973. Of course there is more than Vietnam. Johnspn's outstanding record on civil rights is well covered. But, for me, I cannot help but think about being in the Boy Scouts with Mike Turose and wondering what our futures would be after we got out of engineering school. Fortunately for me. I ended up with a future. Thanks to Lyndon Johnson, Mike didn't.

1 comments about Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini: Totalitarianism in the Twentieth Century (European History Series (Arlington Heights, Ill.).).

1. This is a great overview of Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini. In this book Pauley takes the reader through the evolution of the totalitarian dictators. He starts of by defining the terms under which each ideology fell: Nazism, Marxism-Leninism, and Fascism. From here he shows the reader how each personality gained, maintained and relinquished power. The outline of the chapters adds to readability as well as allowing for comparison and contrast of the three previously mentioned persons. This is an important topic not only to learn about the absolute control that these three wielded, but how they managed to manipulate the masses into not only following them but in some cases actually loving them; as scary as that may seem. There are important lessons to be learned in this study and Pauley has some good insight to get one thinking about them.

5 comments about Theodore Roosevelt: (The American Presidents Series).

1. Want to know more about American presidents? The American Presidents series is one approach. This volume in the series focuses on the old Rough Rider himself, Theodore Roosevelt. First, a confession. I have read 2 of the 3 volume set by Edmund Morris. Obviously, I have an interest in depth (the second volume alone features 555 pages of text). But most people would welcome a shorter--but still good--view of TR. And this volume will meet the needs of such people.
   
   Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. has a standard Introduction to each volume. With respect to TR, some of his observations are apposite. On page xv, he says: "Great presidents possess, or are possessed by, a vision of an ideal America." Surely, that describes Roosevelt. At another point, Schlesinger says that (Page xv): "To succeed, presidents must not only have a port to seek but they must convince Congress and the electorate that it is a port worth seeking." Both observations seem to fit TR, where they did not fit Warren Harding or Chester Arthur or Rutherford Hayes or Benjamin Harrison or. . . .
   
   The book begins by describing TR's rather well off childhood. Some problems. His beloved father dies prematurely. He had physical ailments. To address the latter, he exercised and even spent time in the Wild West, building himself up physically.
   
   His public life began in rather exotic positions, such as president of New York City's Board of Police Commissioners. He was named as Assistant Secretary of the Navy after William McKinley's victory in the presidential campaign of 1896. After the Maine's destruction and the road to war with Spain, he resigned and, as we all know, became head of a group of troops named "The Rough Riders." After estimable service in Cuba, he returned as a war hero. The governorship of New York and then nomination as vice president to William McKinley (perhaps to get him out of New York?).
   
   He became an accidental president after McKinley's assassination. The book chronicles his views and actions as president, when he was known as a "trust buster" and as the advocate of a "Square Deal." He was known for many accomplishments (some of which might raise eyebrows), such as the construction of the Panama Canal (as some Senator said years later, "We stole it fair and square!"). He left the presidency, followed by his handpicked successor, William Howard Taft. Then, the tale of his disillusionment with Taft, his Bull Moose campaign, his disgust with Woodrow Wilson is depicted.
   
   Auchincloss is a fine writer, and this book reads well. For those who want a "quick and dirty" introduction to TR, this will fill the bill.



2. The short biographies that form the American Presidents series do an admirable job in capturing the heart of the accomplishments and characters of our country's leaders. Some of the volumes succeed further in offering, in addition to an introduction, challenging reassessments of their subject's place in history. Bunting's book on Grant and Diggins's study of John Adams are in this latter category. With a leader as complex and energetic as Theodore Roosevelt, (1858 - 1919), the task of a brief portrayal is daunting indeed. Louis Auchincloss has generally succeeded in offering a portrait of TR and his presidency that will serve for basic information. For a more complex and detailed view, the book should encourage the reader to explore further.
   
   The American composer Scott Joplin wrote a delightful ragtime called "The Strenuous Life" in honor of TR but with a hint of satire as well. The phrase aptly describes TR and his era. A sickly child born to great wealth, the twelve-year old TR took seriously his father's injunction to "make your body!" as well as his mind. TR became a dynamo, moving out west to become the owner of a cattle ranch in Dakota in the 1880s and leading the fabled charge of the Rough Riders up San Juan Hill in Cuba during the Spanish-American War. In the midst of a busy life, TR found time to write about 40 books, including his autobiography and innumerable letters.
   
   In his politics, TR developed a unique position as a Republican party regular and as a progressive. He served in the 1880s' as a New York State assemblyman and as Governor of New York, among other accomplishments, before being called to the vice-presidency. He became the 26th president upon the death of McKinley in 1901, and then was elected to a term of his own. TR famously declined to run for a second elected term, a decision he lived to regret.
   
   TR's presidency had many accomplishments, striking out in as many directions as the man himself. He was a trust-buster who believed in American capitalism, individualism and business. He was also a famous conservationist. In foreign policy, he was a mixture of calmness and bellicosity, acquiring the Panama Canal, expanding the Navy, and receiving the Nobel Peace Prize for settling a dispute between Russia and Japan.
   
   Following his term, TR took a lengthy safari as a big-game hunter in Africa and upon his return became disillusioned with the presidency of his chosen successor, William H. Taft. TR bolted the Republican party and, alas, took the progressives with him. The split in the GOP between its progressives and its conservatives has lasted to this day. The immediate result was the election of Woodrow Wilson to the presidency.
   
   Auchincloss tells the story of TR simply and well. But I came away from this book curious to know more. In particular, I would have liked to learn more about TR's writings, some of which are available in a two-volume set published by the Library of America. Auchincloss evidences a certain skepticism about TR, pointing out ways in which TR's America, as well as TR's values, differ from contemporary America and from the choices of many contemporary Americans. As explained by Auchincloss, these values, which seem closely interrelated, center upon TR's elevation of the worth of toughness -- "machismo", -- his sexual restraint and even prudery, and his views on the relationship between men and women, which today would commonly be regarded as sexist. I remain fascinated with TR's strength, vigor, and sense of purpose, combined with his high powers of intellect. His forcefulness and belief in our country, tempered as it usually was with prudence, still has much to teach us.
   
   Robin Friedman



3. A nice concise summary of the life of Teddy Roosevelt. Auchincloss does a good job of detailing the essentials of his life. Roosevelt was a Republican with a progressive bent. The author showed how his policies were often at odds with the pro business Republican party. However, TR managed to compromise and get a program through Congress that was progressive. He also used power overtly as in the Panama Crisis, even though it was for the good of the country and world.
   
   The American Presidents series are all nice reads. Although some presidents do not merit the full book, TR certainly deserves more space and attention. He was truly one of the better presidents as the author points out.



4. This book serves as a good introduction to Theodore Roosevelt to either satisfy or stimulate one's curiosity before indulging in a lengthier biography. This is a "short" bio, and not meant to be a treatise on T.R. The author was better with his Penguin Lives book on Woodrow Wilson, but he seemed to have more fun with Roosevelt.
   As a subject T.R. is especially enjoyable, but more for his forceful character than for any of his objective accomplishments (for which the author notes several, e.g., negotiating the peace between Japan and Russia, and his national conservationist orders, etc.).
   The author addresses Roosevelt's sense that his presidency was relatively unspectacular, and since war time presidents receive the most historical attention (e.g., leading to positive evaluations for Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, but negative for Wilson due to his post war failures), Roosevelt felt himself cheated from his place of greatness due to being a peacetime president.
   As this author notes, many of T.R.'s beliefs had long lasting value (especially, I feel, his beliefs on the limitations of capitalism as spoken by a pro-business chief executive). Those who followed him, though, soon abandoned these attitudes. The reason for this seems to rest with T.R. He accomplished much emphasizing the forcefulness of his personality and took credit for improvements as being uniquely his. Since he can be the only T.R., his philosophy could not be transmitted to others. When out of office, he was no longer "T.R." and his so-called system collapsed as with a deck of cards. He was ultimately left a shell of his former self.
   What if Roosevelt had toned down some of his tendencies? Might he have extended his influence over the next administrations and the country? If so, might this have led to a different result in how America influenced the developing European disputes that resulted in the First World War? These are some of the questions that remained with me from reading this book.



5. This is the second volume in the new American Presidents series edited by Arthur M. Schlessinger, and like the first on James Madison, provides excellent, although brief insight into one of America's most fascinating characters. The prime focus of this book is on TR's presidential and post-presidential years. Limited space does not allow for anything more than a brief summary of Roosevelt's early life, which may actually be his most interesting period. Still there is enough to give the reader a basis for understanding Roosevelt's revolutionary power-expanding actions as President. Auchincloss does a wonderful job of filling this short volume with all of the important events of Roosevelt's life while keeping to a very enjoyable and readable style. It is a good introduction to Roosevelt and will leave you wanting to learn more.

5 comments about Ronald Reagan: Fate, Freedom, and the Making of History.

1. "Ronald Reagan: Fate, Freedom and the Making of History" is a philosophical study of Ronald Reagan and his place in history. It is not a true biography but employs biographical details to support its points.
   
   Through much of this book I was unsure whether its purpose was to praise Reagan or to debunk his myth. Author John Patrick Diggins cites facts about Reagan to dispute many of the conventional wisdoms about him. He claims that Reagan was not as conservative or as hawkish as is widely believed. He delves into Reagan's days with General Electric, his confrontations with campus radicals in Sacramento, negotiations with Gorbachev, his flirtations with Nicaraguan Contras and Jonas Savimbi of Angola. He presents Reagan as an Emersonian idealist whose distrust of big government guided his political career. At times it is not clear whether Diggins is concluding that Reagan is a hero or a failure. Ultimately he finds Lincolnesque qualities in his subject.
   
   This is not a first book for one searching for the Reagan lore. For biographies, look elsewhere. After you have absorbed those, look here for a deeper dip into the philosophical underpinnings of the Reagan Revolution.



2. For the most part, the biographies that have been written about Ronald Reagan in the years since he left office have suffered from one of two defects. Either they have been overly critical and dismissive and failed to grasp the truly revolutionary aspects of the Reagan Presidency, or they have been overly worshipful, something more akin to adulation than real scholarship. In both cases, the differing interpretations of Reagan have likely been based on ideological differences and political resentments of the 1980s and beyond.In Ronald Reagan: Fate, Freedom, and the Making of History, John Patrick Diggins takes a worthy first step toward moving beyond either the worshipful or the hate-filled evaluations of the Reagan Presidency and gives America's 40th President the respectful, if not always positive, evaluation that he deserves.
   
   Reagan's singular achievement, Diggins argues, was the role he played in bringing a peaceful end to the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. Though he came into the White House with a promise to rebuild the American military and confronted what his advisers contended were Soviet-sponsored regimes in nations ranging from Nicaragua to Angola, it's clear that, very early in his Administration, if not before then, Reagan became committed to the idea of drastically reducing, if not eliminating, nuclear weapons.
   
   Much to the consternation of his neo-conservative foreign policy team, Reagan made overtures to the Soviets as early as April 1981, when he wrote a letter to Leonid Brezhnev while recovering from an assassination attempt. The Brezhnev dialog never went anywhere, largely because Brezhnev was apparently too stubborn and too ill to actually pursue serious negotiations. Similarly, the short-lived reigns of his two immediate successors made pursuing peace impossible. As Reagan himself once quipped, "They keep dying on me."
   
   It was only with the rise to power of Mikhail Gorbachev, who required reduced tensions with the U.S. to pursue his ultimately doomed strategy of reforming Communism, that Reagan was able to pursue his desire to bring both countries out of the horrifying doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction.
   
   One interesting thing that Diggins' book brings out is the extent to which many of Reagan's conservative supporters became convinced in the late 1980s that their leader had sold America down the river. Many of the same people who, on the occasion of his funeral in 2004, lionized him as the man who had "won" the Cold War. Among the critics were William F. Buckley, Jr., George Will, and Henry Kissinger, all of whom seemed convinced at the time that the Cold War and the tensions with the USSR were a permanent and irreversible fact (Jeane Kirkpatrick had in fact said as much in her writings prior to being named U.N. Ambassador).
   
   Reagan, Diggins, argued, never accepted the neo-conservative view of history and rejected the idea that the Cold War was a permanent fact of life that could only end with an exchange of nuclear missiles that would destroy both nations, if not most of the civilized world. In fact, rather than being a true conservative, Diggins persuasively argues that Reagan was really more of a traditional old-style liberal, what we would today call a libertarian, and that his ideas were influenced more by the libertarianism of Thomas Paine and the romanticism of Ralph Waldo Emerson than conservative hero Edmund Burke. While Reagan courted social conservatives and neo-cons, he did not share their views on the inherent sinfulness and fallibility of man.
   
   Diggins goes criticize some aspects of Reagan's record, most notably, in the domestic sphere, and he rightly criticizes him for the mis-handling of the Iran Contra affair. But, like I said, this is a biography not a hagiography. On the whole, though, Diggins does an excellent job of rescuing our 40th President from his detractors and his worshipers. Hopefully, other historians will follow suit.



3. There is already a vast amount of literature on the life of Ronald Reagan, and it shows no sign of abating. The 40th President of the United States is a continuing subject of fascination as the man who reasserted his country's superpower dominance, engineering the fall of communism and the end of the Cold War.
   
   His domestic policies, dominated by his passionate belief in small government and the ability of individuals to shape their own destinies, earned him the enmity of liberals, yet even on his own side of politics he is not the unquestioned hero as for example his contemporary, Margaret Thatcher, is among British conservatives.
   
   I recall a conversation with a retired American diplomat who preferred the unsuccessful 1964 Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater as the true founder of the modern conservative movement in the US, dismissing Reagan as an opportunist, a former Democrat who could see the way the wind was blowing, jumping on the bandwagon in the right place at the right time.
   
   John Patrick Diggins seeks to dismiss this argument. For him Reagan deserves to be rated alongside George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt as one of the greatest presidents of all time. He believes history will vindicate Reagan in the same way it did Lincoln, whose reputation was besmirched for many decades after his death, but more about that relationship later.
   
   The problem that Diggins and any other biographer of Reagan face is proximity. As the author states with some exasperation in the bibliographical notes, more than 80 per cent of the material in the presidential library remains classified and can be obtained only through the laborious and often unsuccessful method of applying under the Freedom of Information Act.
   
   Undeterred, he turns to other sources, notably the evidence emerging from Soviet archives of the relationship with the Soviet Union's last President, Mikhail Gorbachev, as well as the burgeoning amount of literature discussing the origins behind the sudden collapse of the Soviet Union two years after Reagan left office.
   
   The result is a scholarly, meticulously-researched book that seeks to understand not just the president of the 1980s, but the film actor of the 30s, 40s and 50s, the California Governor of the 60s and 70s and the man who passionately believed in a new beginning for his country - a rebirth that came to be called "Morning in America".
   
   For Diggins, the man who took office in January 1981 had three dragons to slay: the nuclear arms race that threatened the world with extinction; the expanding welfare state that increased dependency and lowered self-esteem and the third, most controversially "a joyless religious inheritance that told people their kingdom was not of this world and they needed to be careful about pursuing happiness in case they enjoyed it".
   
   This was hardly the language that the increasingly influential religious right would have wanted to hear but Reagan could see no conflict in embracing the rewards of this world - after all, it was what trade unions had been advocating for their members for half a century. He may have been ushering in the decade of Wall Street and `Greed is Good', but it is the author's insistence that the president wanted Americans to enjoy the pursuit of wealth and not be ashamed of the bounty they accumulated. It was, Diggins asserts, a necessary step in order to restore Americans' confidence in themselves after the debacle of the Vietnam War, Watergate, the Iran hostages humiliation and a decade of economic malaise.
   
   Diggins does not hold back on the obvious black marks of the Reagan presidency, most notably the Iran Contra scandal, occurring deep into Reagan's second term and at least partially resorting from the arrogance that comes from years of unbroken power.
   
   As with the Nixon presidency 15 years previously, there had been the subtle growth of a macho `can do' culture with little regard for moral or ethical objections. The difference being that Reagan quickly shouldered the blame in a televised mea culpa address in which the Great Communicator was at his best: "A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not...what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated in its implementation into trading arms for hostages."
   
   I take issue with the final chapter in which the author seeks to link Reagan even closer to Lincoln by likening Reagan's battle against communism to Lincoln's struggle to free the slaves. It is for readers to follow Diggin's closely argued reasoning and come to their conclusions, but the fact is Lincoln went to war not to free slaves but to save the Union and that the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 was a ploy to turn foreign opinion against the Confederacy and disrupt it internally at a time when the conflict was going badly for the North.
   
   However, it is certainly worth noting that the Cold War was won bloodlessly while the Civil War resulted in the deaths of more Americans than have been killed in all conflicts combined in the century-and-a-half since.
   
   There are times when this book stumbles into academic denseness, and I am unconvinced that Diggins has made his case for Reagan to be elevated to the heights of the presidential pantheon, but for those seeking an insight into the mind of the man who radically altered the face of American politics, it is to be recommended.



4. The dust jacket of this biography claims that John Patrick Diggins is one of America's "most interesting intellectual historians". This description gets two things right - Mr. Diggins is interesting, and Mr. Diggins is undoubtedly a historian. Whether he is much of an intellectual is another matter.
   
   Mr. Diggins' thesis is a peculiar and engaging one - that Reagan is one of the greatest Presidents of our nation, and also one of the most Emersonian, classically liberal Presidents of our time. Diggins, however, does not quite manage to provide definitive proof for either claim, though he does a better job of proving Reagan's intellectual roots than of proving his greatness. The reason for this failure, unfortunately, is not a problem with Diggins' scholarship, but rather an unfortunate case of self-sabotage which begins to show in the latter half of the book. During this section, one wonders if Diggins himself doubts his own thesis. In fact, one wonders if Diggins actually wanted to write a book with said thesis, or if the original argument he wanted to make was as follows: "Ronald Reagan is not a conservative, but even if he was, conservatives can't beat communism in the long run, anyway. Ha ha ha. Neener neener neener."
   
   To this end, many passages within the book are unabashedly, obnoxiously didactic. In fact, one often feels as though one is reading a philosophical essay meant to impugn the purity of American conservatism, rather than a biography of a conservative figure. One of the more absurd of these moments comes near the very end, when Diggins tries to impugn Reagan's conservatism by contrasting his vision with that of Edmund Burke. There are two problems with this analysis - firstly, Diggins misinterprets Burke's quote about the necessity of restraint for rights as implying that a paternalistic government is required to stop people from being greedy. What Burke was actually talking about, of course, was the tendency of people to believe they have a right to everything they want - a dangerous tendency, which often leads to things like the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which contradicts itself numerous times). The second problem with this analysis, however, is that Mr. Diggins is assuming that conservatism's nature has not changed at all since Edmund Burke. It is not as though Burke sat down and wrote out a "Constitution of Conservatism". Many conservative thinkers, in fact, believe that deriving a contemporary position from Edmund Burke's writings is impossible. It doesn't help, of course, that Burke was from England, and the conservative tradition in England is almost completely non-applicable to America.
   
   Furthermore, Diggins seems determined to convince his audience that Reagan was not really all that religious, as though there is something shameful in one of our greatest presidents being religious. Diggins also seems fixated on Reagan's fiscal policy, which he often links with the words "greed" and "selfishness." Finally, though Diggins initially credits Reagan with ending the cold war, he later throws in backhanded implications that it had more to do with Gorbachev than Reagan. It is as though Diggins wrote his thesis that Reagan was one of our greatest Presidents and then choked on it and had to go back and assure his readers that while Reagan was one of our greatest Presidents, he was still the selfish, shortsighted clod that Academics envision him to be.
   
   The existence of these flaws is unfortunate, because the book is historically excellent and so readable that it almost rivals a Harry Potter novel. Ultimately, I must recommend the book, with reservation. I give Mr. Diggins three stars for interesting history, and no stars for his intellectual pretensions. It is a pity. If Mr. Diggins had the courage to stick to his original thesis rather than frantically reassure his audience that he was not one of those awful Reagan-loving freaks, we might be reading the best Reagan biography yet.



5. Dr. Diggins seems to be an erudite, intelligent man who put some serious time into researching his book. The other reviewers have rightly praised his efforts to look at Reagan through the lense of history and not idealogy, and for his ranking of Reagan with Roosevelt and Lincoln among our greatest presidents.
   
   At the same time, I must confess that having recently read the Reagan Diaries as well as other books dealing with the Reagan legacy like Victory, Bill Bennett's recent second history volume, Reagan "In His Own Hand" etc., I must find that some of the conclusions drawn in this book diverge from the facts and tread familiar academic paths of thought about our great President.
   
   The final negotiations that ended the Cold War occured PRECISELY because Reagan worked on every front to thwart the Soviets. This included Bill Casey flying all over the world covertly, actions to stop Soviet technology acquisition, efforts to make them spend money they didn't have on defense, and a lot more. Reagan mentions anti-communist efforts on a daily basis in the diaries. Also, the preposterous comment that Reagan did nothing to support Solidarity is false on its face - not making speeches about something (even though he did) does not mean inaction. Again, his diaries reveal many efforts on behalf of Solidarity, and Walesa himself gives Reagan great credit for his support. The fact remains that Reagan didn't alter or change his demands on the Soviets when Gorbachev came to power - the final agreement reached was the US STARTING POSITION on disarmement years earlier. His strong stance in negotiations and the arms build up (laughably described as starting under the Carter administration in the book - are you kidding?) drove the Soviets to the table because they literally could not afford to fight anymore. Fighting them on every front was intended from the beginning to realize this result. It is as Reagan described before he became President - his view of the cold war was "we win and they lose".
   
   On a philosophical point, Diggins rightly remarks that Reagan often acted against the conservatives of his time's wishes. This does not make him somehow "less" conservative - just proven right in the argument. All idealogies are constantly in these debates, and Reagan comments on his reviews on the right constantly in his diaries as well, since he was such an avid reader of their writings. Just because the greatest conservative of the last fifty years didn't agree with every midget wonk at National Review or in congress is a comment on the midgets, not him. The line between "classical" and contemporary liberalism also seems to blur in his discussions. Yes, many current conservative thoughts on freedom and liberty are classicly liberal views (as many liberal statist views are classicly conservative), the modern distinctions are all that really matter in current discussion.
   
   I started to read this book with great enthusiasm, as its take on Reagan seemed fresh and interesting, but as I saw conclusion after conclusion follow other tired academic views on Reagan and contradict what I had read him say in his own hand were his views and thoughts, I found it ultimately unhelpful.

5 comments about Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty-Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism.

1. Reagan's War is an EXCELLENT non-fiction book. The background info is filled with fascinating facts - many of which I did not know. It arrived faster than anticipated.



2. This is typical Reaganaut triumphalism, but at least it's one of the better attempts. Its central thesis, that Reagan had an agenda to "tear down that wall," is essentially correct. But missing here is a sense of what "Communism" meant in Ronald Reagan's world: not just the USSR or Marxism-Leninism, but anything to the left of the white good-old-boy cocktail and country-club crowd, from unions to feminism to affirmative action, with real Communism as the handy lever to pry at them all. "Constructive engagement" with South Africa and Nicaragua's Somoza as "friends of the Free World" says much about the limitations of his agenda, and that of his worshippers.
   
   Also in question is the author's thesis that Reagan the warrior slew the Red dragon with his own lone sword. Communism did "work," in its sphere - despite the author's sweeping statement to the contrary - but globalization increasingly left its model in the dust. No doubt Reagan's specific policies - economic embargoes and guerrilla proxy wars - helped, but could not have without the larger systemic isolation of the USSR already underway throughout the global market.
   
   There are interesting tidbits of info culled from Soviet files. But the contention that the USSR funded the Peace Movement is overhyped as was Reagan's original accusation, while the greater dependency of Solidarity, Charter 77 and other East European dissidents on Reagan's largesse is of course seen as totally praiseworthy. The betrayal of Solidarity's working class roots after 1989, in favor of free-market neoliberalism, doubtless comes from the NED funding of the Reagan years.
   
   All in all, a good attempt at lauding Reagan as the victorious cold warrior, but in the end he still comes across as a blinkered ideologue in perfect counterpoint to nemeses like Fidel Castro or Ayatollah Khomeini.



3. Well documented and supported. A great aide for any serious student or lover of history who wants to know not just what but why. Made me realize that Americans were fortunate to have this man at that time much as they could never have what they have without George Washington. Two great patriots 200 years apart.



4. I owned this book for 2 years before finally deciding to read it. Why? Because I thought it would be a bit boring. Boy was I wrong.
   
   Using our adversaries' own words through recently-released Soviet archives, etc., Schweizer's work is so thorough that the book reads almost like a spy novel. If you're a red-blooded American you'll smile and cheer as you read the account of one of America's great patriots and his life-long stand against the tyranny of communism.
   
   From Hollywood to Moscow, President Reagan's stand for freedom is inspiring. Highly entertaining and historically educational, I recommend this book to all.



5. I just finished this excellent book by Peter Schweizer about Ronald Reagan's battle with communists from his Hollywood days until the fall of the Berlin Wall. It was an excellent read, and I HIGHLY recommend it to general readers.
   
   When your leftist professors tell you that he was a dunce, or that the Soviets were not a real threat, this book will provide you with the intellectual ammo to take them on.