2 comments about Ronald Reagan and His Ranch: The Western White House, 1981-1989.

1. Hannaford's book is an excellent resource for anyone interested in knowing how the President lived (and worked) away from the White House. The pictures were also excellent.



2. Ronald Reagan And His Ranch: The Western White House 1981-1989 is a solidly written, vividly presented, behind-the-scenes insider look at the ranch owned by the Reagans during Ronald Reagan's tenure as President of the United States and which came to be nicknamed by the press as the "Western White House". From the security difficulties the ranch posed for the secret service, to humorous anecdotes, to visits by famous and powerful people, and enhanced with black-and-white as well as color photographs, Ronald Reagan And His Ranch is a unique contribution to school and community library American History, and a highly recommended study of the beloved personal retreat of one of America's most popular 20th Century presidents.

3 comments about Father Abraham: Lincoln's Relentless Struggle to End Slavery.

1. I picked this up in a general English language bookstore here in Bangkok, without any expectations, encouraged only by the fact that James McPherson strongly recommends it on the back cover. It's a beautifully researched, well-written, engaging, and convincing overview of Lincoln's attitudes to slavery and emancipation.
   
   The author has a strong thesis and a clear point of view, but whatever your views on Lincoln are at the start, you won't feel bullied (always my experience when I read anti-Lincoln books). The author demolishes all the old arguments for the view that Lincoln had no interest in ending slavery.
   
   The opening chapters were the best and clearest single summary of the build-up to the civil war that I have yet read.
   
   Let me mention two things that I did not understand before I read this book, that I now understand fully, and that most people still have serious misconceptions about.
   
   First, it is often claimed that the civil war was at least partly, and perhaps mostly, caused by an argument over 'tariffs' and only partly by the debate over slavery. Striner points out that John Calhoun, the most famous opponent of the tariffs, was at first very much in favor of them. He later reversed his position. Why? Because it dawned on him that federally funded projects might not just lead to things like roads and railroads (which he was in favor of), but also to publicly funded emancipation of slaves (which he was against). People like Calhoun also felt (and stated at the time) that the tariff issue was just a test case for blocking the power of central government in general, and that their only goal in blocking that power was to prevent any future constitutional interference with slavery.
   
   Second, I used to think that Lincoln 'only wanted to save the union' and saw emancipation as a means to that end. I now see that that was a very simplistic view. The threat to the union only arose in the first place because of the argument over slavery. Lincoln was against its expansion into new territories, because he (rightly) felt that its expansion meant its perpetuation, while its containment in the slave states held out the possibility of its extinction. Through his entire political career after the repeal of the Missouri compromise, he was driven by that desire to bring about the eventual extinction of slavery.
   
   Once his election had caused secession (because of his anti-slavery stance) he then insisted on saving the union, but not if that meant compromising his goal of extinguishing slavery, his original purpose in entering politics in the first place. His goal was to preserve a union still dedicated to what he considered its original principles of human equality and freedom. This account of his thinking seems to me to make far more overall sense.
   
   If you are cynical about Lincoln, or about politics in general, read this book and feel free to take a more positive view.



2. It has become fashionable in recent decades for historians and commentators from the extremes of the ideological spectrum to depict Lincoln as a cautious racial conservative, even a racist, only brought in the end to reluctantly embrace the destruction of slavery as a measure to win the Civil War. In such a view, Lincoln is far from the traditional "Great Emancipator"; instead he is limited to following in the wake of those persons more forward-looking, more morally courageous than Lincoln himself. Richard Striner's book persuasively demolishes such a picture and, on the contrary, portrays Lincoln as a dedicated enemy of slavery (and a friend to racial equality, at least in 19th century terms) who labored consistently and at great length to at last crush the hated institution. Striner does this with a careful survey of Lincoln's career from his earliest political days until his death. And Striner boldly takes on each of the quotes from Lincoln speeches and writings that are usually used to "reveal" Llncoln as a racial conservative who adopted emancipation much against his real will, showing those quotes in their broader contexts, describing not only what else was going on at the time and what else Lincoln was simultaneously doing, but also examining those quotes in context of what else was said in that particular speech or document. Lincoln was a politician of great skill, willing to publically advocate a course seemingly adverse to his real goals but, in the long run, laying down a pathway towards accomplishing those goals. And, perhaps more than any other American president, Lincoln was a master of language, sometimes crafting a phrase, a sentence, or a paragraph that superficially says one thing while meaning, upon close examination, something else.
   
   Stiner also provides a valuable look at the very real fears that Lincoln and his associates had in the years leading up to the Civil War that slavery was on a road towards expansion, not extinction. Moreover, Striner shows that the South's leading spokespeople on the subject of tariffs (sometimes cited as the "real" underlying cause of Southern secession, instead of the uncomfortable issue of slavery) privately admitted that their real concern was slavery, with tariffs providing a convenient stalking horse at a particular moment. The shadow of slavery lay darkly over antebellum America, and Striner's book retores the portrait of Lincoln as a dedicated leader in bringing the country forward to the end of the "peculiar institution".



3. I met the author through a friend, and was intrigued at the wonderful conversations I had with Striner. As we discussed "Father Abraham," which at that point had not yet been released, I was very anxious to get ahold of it. Having finally acquired the book, I am nothing but impressed at the detailed information that backs every assertion made, and the very much conversational style writing that Striner uses. The book is an easy read and really gets the gears turning in your mind.

4 comments about Bill Clinton: Mastering the Presidency.

1. In the dozen or so books that I have read about Bill Clinton including his autobiography Nigel Hamilton's books always stand our. These are among the most balanced and well thought out books written on the presidency of Clinton. Hamilton takes time for painstaking research of not only presidential archives but newspapers and voluminous secondary sources. This book which follows Clinton's rise to the presidency and his time as governor focuses on the first term in office. It accurately and effectively assess the first years where Clinton learned how to be president. The book encompasses several areas from the scandals, the role of Hillary in the White House and of course domestic and foreign affairs.
   
   The start of his first term can only be described in one word: disaster. Clinton was unable to effectively set up a transition team which would plague him through his early years in office when many of his candidates particularly in the justice department would have to resign over various scandals. Clinton himself was plagued by the scandals of Troopergate and Paula Jones while fending off his wife's scandals in Whitewater and Travelgate. These early years and political naiveté of the president were mastered by the end. As Hamilton points out and Clinton admits in his autobiography the stonewalling tactics that were used in these early scandals only fanned the flames quicker and in many cases particularly with Whitewater dragged the case along further than necessary. These scandals followed several legislative failures and executive failures from universal healthcare reform to gays in the military. Despite this those first two years were not entirely dark. The passage of NAFTA and the Oslo Peace accords were triumphs that came out of these dark days of his early presidency and a tax cut package that saved the American economy proved viable.
   
   Hamilton argues that Bill Clinton finally began to master the presidency and appear presidential after two events. In his previous book Hamilton shows that Bill Clinton is at his finest when he is running for office. When Clinton decides to fight the contract of America and use Dick Morris triangulation arguments to reposition himself as a candidate he is given for the first time a solid position to run from since 1992. The bombing of the Oklahoma building was the second event that helped redefine his presidency. Here Clinton was able to be at his finest when empathizing with people and demonstrates leadership. He ends his co-presidentship with his wife and takes responsibility to lead the nation doing an impressive job for most people and his approval ratings soar. The Bosnian crisis gave President Clinton the best chance to showcase leadership and coupled with the republican shutdown of government he emerged on top of his republican opponents.
   
   In the final analysis of President ClintonÂ’s first term he is seen as a brilliant politician but a flawed man. The scandals and poor organization of the White House plagued Clinton and forced him to spend his first two years at a public relations disadvantage. HamiltonÂ’s work is one of the best accounts on Bill Clinton and one of the fairest. It is encompassing of a wide range of sources and fairly asses them to come to logical conclusions.



2. Nigel Hamilton chronicles the first Clinton term, covering all the (mostly) bad and good, including his reinvention after the 1994 mid-term elections. Its amazing that despite Bill and Hillary making so many major mistakes, Bill came back to win a second term (and make his biggest mistake of all - Monica).
   
   Hamilton has no reservation in identifying Clinton's transition into the Presidency as the worst ever - beginning with his failure to appoint an effective chief of staff. (This is a topic Hamilton repeatedly returns to, contributing to Clinton's early lack of focus and being victimized by weak members of his administration. It does not get resolved until almost two years later.) It is also interesting (and scary) to read of Hillary's temper tantrums, beginning even prior to the Inauguration - concerning her wanting to take over the traditional V.P. office in the West Wing. Her decision-making also was a problem - eg. her choice for Attorney General (Zoe Baird) and for Attorney General in charge of civil rights (Lani Guinier) - despite warnings to the contrary, both nominations went forward and both went down in flames.
   
   Then there was Clinton's early move to permit gays in the military (backed down, looking indecisive), Hillary's locking correspondents out of access to the White House press office, Hillary being appointed to reform health care in 131 days (she acerbated the problem with secrecy and refusing to even talk to industry insiders), the Waco fiasco, LAX "Hairgate,), Hillary's "Travelgate," the Vince Foster suicide (followed by Hillary's orders to remove her personal papers prior to any investigation), Black Hawk down in Somalia (Clinton expanded the mission while troops were cut 90% and Defense Sec. Aspin refused to send the requested armor), the troop-ship Harlan County carrying President Aristide being turned away by Haitians chanting "Somalia," "Troopergate" - allegedly procured and lied for Bill Clinton, Paula Jones, Watergate (no illegal Clinton action, by Hillary inflamed the issue by refusing to turn over documents), and Gennifer Flowers and Dolly Browning.
   
   Then came New Gingrich and his "Contract with America," vs. a public perception that Clinton had no agenda. After losing both the House and Senate to Republicans, Clinton then re-invented himself as he moved to the center, and became a successful President.



3. Obviously well-researched with fascinating, real-life detail, the book presents a considered, coherent and integrated contour of events and the personalities which shaped them. Penetrating where journalism so often founders. History will thank Nigel Hamilton for telling the truth. Though his timing may be inconvenient, the telling preserves the standards of Diogenes. Illuminating. A must read.



4. If you want to read a book by someone who worships Bill Clinton, who throws rose petals in his path, who feels he is the second coming of Christ and can do no wrong, then this is your book. If not, then wait for another.

5 comments about Time and Chance: Gerald Ford's Appointment With History.

1. I consider this book a very well written because in simple words the author goes straight to the point:giving the audience a deep sense of what honesty and integrity are for this great man who did not want to be Vice President, much less President of the United States of America. I do not know much about politics, but since I read this book I have more respect for most of the elected officials. But, for late President Gerald
   Ford this book has given me a great respect and admiration. We should have many more elected officials like him.



2. Cannon provides a fascinating account of how Gerald Ford went from planning in 1972 to retire from politics at the end of Nixon's term to becoming president of the United States. He covers Ford's childhood and life in the Navy and as a US representative in about 100 pages and spends most of the rest of the book discussing in amazing detail how he became vice-president and then president. The final chapter is a brief summary of Ford's presidential administration but nothing of life after politics.
   
   The book is well-written and well-researched and remarkably free of bias, given that Cannon was a senior advisor in the Ford administration. Ford's decent and humble character is one of the themes of the book, as well as the idea that these traits are what led him to become president. His naivete is also evident.
   
   As other reviewers have mentioned, the glaring weakness of the book is its brief coverage of Ford's administration, except for the issue of pardoning Nixon, which is covered in great detail.
   
   I recommend the book as a tool for understanding Ford the man, for its careful analyis of the Watergate mess, and for describing how such a decent man could prosper in the cutthroat world of American politics. However, if you want to understand the policies of the Ford administration, you should look elsewhere.



3. We as a country were extremely lucky and benefited greatly from the presidency of Gerald Ford. When he took over the presidency, this country was torn apart. Rather than appealing to the worst in American politics by pitting Americans against each other,(as has been done recently)he methodically and expertly began to bring us together.
   
   The Republican Party that I belonged to during those times and under President Ford's leadership was largely free of radical fundamentalism and extreme right-wing positions. There were no Rush Limbaughs or Michael Savages. There were no nationally known ministers claiming natural disasters were the wrath of God visited on an apostate nation. The Ford presidency and the Republican Party of that time actually had concern for social issues and was quite progressive.
   
   President Ford led by steady, common sense and a humble heart. I remember being so saddened by his loss to Jimmy Carter, knowing that we, as a nation, would lose such an able leader. After Carter's election, the Republican party decided to appeal to the fears, rather than the hopes and aspirations of America. Since that time there has never been an election where the American people were not thoroughly divided. Our political dialogue is absurdly partisan, and 'attack and spin' meisters are the order of the day on any news station. More than anything, I fondly wish we could return to civility and decency both in religion and politics.
   
   Get this book and read about a very able, and thoroughly decent man who was there to serve his country when he was most needed. The details are fascinating.



4. Over the last several years, I've read more than 35 presidential biographies. I've used Amazon reviewers as very reliable guides to help me pick the best available biography. Time and Chance is highly recommended with one gigantic reservation. Reeves' book is tightly written in an almost breezy style. More than half of the book is a retelling of Watergate, and it is the most balanced and readable version of Watergate I've read.
   
   Ford's difficult early childhood is covered as is his development into the all-American boy. His romance with a top model and his marriage to Betty are sympathetically explained. His service in World War II is well told, and we are given almost enough information about his years in the House of Representatives; however, I would have preferred more about Ford's responses to the many social issues that dominated the sixties.
   
   Ford comes off as the ultimate straight-arrow, average kind of guy. Completely decent, unimaginative, pretty boring, and not altogether courageous in terms of dealing with people.
   
   OK the failing. Except for Ford's decision to pardon Nixon which is described thoroughly, the rest of his presidency is given something like 25 pages. This is simply not enough. While Watergate and Ford's role in Nixon's resignation will be more remembered than Ford's actual presidency, I would have liked at least a more detailed synopsis of his challenges while he was president (in this respect Nagel`s excellent biography of John Quincy Adams has precisely the same problem). Up until now I've avoided the presidential books that only covered the presidential years, but for Gerald Ford probably a combination of Time and Chance and an overview of his presidency would be the best way to go.



5. Very well written. Great background of the key players involved in Watergate. Wished that it had discussed more about Ford's term as president and less about Nixon and the so called "coverup". It shows Ford as a very honest, hard working public servant.

No comments about Lincoln's Youth: Indiana Years 1816-1830.

5 comments about First Ladies: The Saga of the Presidents Wives and Their Power 1789-1961.

1. This book is a joy to read. Other reviewers give excellent examples of the details in this book, so I will limit my remarks to say that I strongly recommend this book. It is well-written and a treasure. It is thorough and unbiased. I savored every page.



2. This is an extrmeley interesting, well-researched look at American politics and society through the history of America's first ladies. The author does an excellent job of having the women he chronicles truly become individuals, sometimes very different from their husbands. He finds ways to bring the early life of future first ladies into his narrative, and he provides clues to the roots of some American icons that I certainly didn't know about--like the reason for the name of the Baby Ruth candy bar, named after Frances and Grover Cleveland's first daughter.

   This is not a book that reads quickly. It is comprehensive and careful, and is meant to be savored as a work of history. I'm looking forward to reading the second volume of this.




3. This is an excellent, well-researched book. The author paints a dense, richly detailed portrait of each first lady and the social and political background of her time. I learned a lot--not just about the historical women, but about American cultural and social development. This is not a fast book to read, but it is a book to savor and learn from. It is also truly history--no attempt to sensationalize issues--and I appreciated that.



4. Anthony's treatise has several outstanding merits, not the least of which is its impressive scope. No other First Ladies scholar (known to the general public) has succeeded in furnishing so rich and abundant a collection of anecdotes and insights on the topic of the Presidents' wives, many of whom -- such as Rachel Jackson and Jane Appleton Pierce -- would have descended into utter obscurity. Anthony gives short shrift to no one [First Lady] and that is a rare, fair feature -- much to be commended!
   Over the years, authors / publishers of of First Ladies anthologies have shortchanged readers. All-inclusive Anthony must be credited with tastefully -- rather than sensationally -- putting forth the lesser known faces and facts, and despite his tendency to digress, presenting all sides of the picture.

   In each First Lady installment, the author's massive (and occasionally frustrating) tendency is to weave, albeit expertly, in and out of character, like one making a tapestry, ending ultimately where he started; naturally, that is scant consolation for the researcher with little or no time to waste. Said another way, whereas the the stated focus (if we go by chapter index) is a particular First Lady, the pattern is to be discursive within that chapter by taking divers detours into the lives of prior or subsequent First Ladies. For instance, what does a lengthy paragraph on the youthful Rosalyn Carter have to do with a chapter supposedly on Bess the Boss (Truman)? Why does Anthony ramble on about deployment of the Atomic Bomb if the topic was Edith Wilson's admiration of Bess's ladylike restraint? When dialogue segues into other First Ladies' opinions of the decision to drop the bomb (all because Bess allegedly influenced Harry in this regard), better, one thinks, if Anthony had not been so tempted to veer off course. The result is that decades seemingly overlap! But for all its overlapping, Anthony's style (storybook format) is plainly mesmerizing, utterly enticing despite the researcher's initial frustration. His motive, we would wager, is to convey a perpetual sense of the present by giving readers concurrent glimpses into a whole handful of highly personal lives -- in short, to pinpoint the whereabouts of any to-be or former First Lady whilst the other other actually occupied her station; hence, an aging Edith Wilson on the subject of the A Bomb. Ah, yes -- a second source of frustration for the researcher: the photos Anthony incorporates bear no -- at the very least, visible or readily accessible -- captions. But in this case, the eager researcher need not be the only serious reader. Furthermore, that we should care so much to read a caption hints at the caliber of these First Lady photos, so historically rare and captivating, even in the absence of certain identifying features.

   This first in a two-volume series on our nation's First Ladies is by far no cut and paste job (rather, a masterwork) for all its artful sculpturing, magnificent and painstaking authenticity. It is not simply the historian's job to neatly or conventionally classify, but to spark in his readers a genuine enthusiasm for his own beloved subject matter, and this is doubtless what Anthony achieves.




5. Mr Anthony has pulled together through obvious painstaking research a brilliant guidebook for all history lovers. Accounts of more recent first ladies with the advent of television, radio etc. may be familiar to some readers, but facts abound on the lesser knowns. Frances Cleveland, Julia Tyler etc. come alive before your very eyes as the stories unfold. The position of First Lady (we also learn how that name came about-a tribute to Dolley Madison at her funeral) was obscure in its development and graduated into the highly prominent position it is today. Anthony suggests that the earlier ladies were not as obscure and quiet as one might think. We learn as we delve into their lives, dressing habits, political views, nicknames, friends, lovers etc. A foreshadowing element is used throughout hinting at future events working quite qell as the stories weave around each other. Mr Anthony must be applauded for an exceptional piece of history. The wife of a president is not just that as he points out, but a character at times of strength, adversity, integrity, wit, fear, brilliance, insecurity etc. An intriguing page turner......

3 comments about Peter the Great: A Biography.

1. The best single volume biograghy of Russia's Westernizing Tsar. If you don't want to spend weeks Reading Robert Massie's "Massive" tome, this is the book for you!



2. This book is good for historians, no doubt, but probably not the the rest of the people, like me. I read paragraphs without knowing what I read, and it's hard to glean any interesting information. Consider, for example, this paragraph:
   
   "In an attempt to recover Russia's prestige, gain a stronger bargaining position with the allies and ward off Turkish attacks on Ukraine, in 1695 Peter reopened hostilities ina campaign against the Turkist coastal fort of Azov at the mouth of the River Don. He dispatched two armies, the joint force of Boris Petrovich Sheremetev and the Ukrainian hetman Ivan Mazepa to the Dnieper to delfect the Tartars from the mouth of the Don and a smaller unit consisting of the Preobrazhensky and Semenovsky guards and strel'tsy on river craft down the Don to Azov itself."
   
   I understand it, but I am not excited by all this information. The description is just too dry for my taste. I am very interested in Peter the Great because I know he went around Europe, and even worked as a carpenter. I'll find another biography elsewhere.



3. Overall a very nice, concise account of the life of Peter the Great. A very good introduction to those who wish to learn about this period of Russian history but have little starting background. I did think the last chapter which focuses on monuments to Peter since his death was a little dry and could easily have been edited out without affecting the overall quality of the book

5 comments about The Hunting of the President: The Ten-Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton.

1. Hate speech from a well known flack for the Dixie mafia. Incredible apologist for crime and corruption. Do your own research. Google keywords Clinton tainted blood and draw your own conclusions, to cite just one example.



2. Many of us get most of our "news" from the radio, the Internet, and the Pundit shoutfests on Cable. The inevitable connect-the-dots perception of things is further diminished by Talk Show hosts on interminable partison rants.
   With this book, we can discover many facts about this minor or major cabal or conspiracy and its' progenitors. The Starr-Goldberg-Coulter contingent is scrutinized at length, for example, and intentions aside, revealed to have spent a lot of air-time on issues really not warranting such time and money expenditures. Just as Ken Starr himself expressed: there's just not enough meat to the bone for the Grade-A inspectors. Ultimately, the Lucienne Goldberg transcript publishing dream proved a nightmare for the whole country.
   Conason and Lyons have given those of us who have less and less time to read books cover to cover a reason to do so...and to never again be swayed by any info-tainment puppeteers.



3. I wrote this review years ago. Nothing has come out since to make me change a word of it.
   
   Everybody laughed when Hillary Clinton complained that she and her husband Bill were targets of a "vast right-wing conspiracy" (VRWC). We know better now, thanks to Joe Conason and Gene Lyons, whose "The Hunting of the President" provides plenty of evidence for a real, criminal conspiracy.
   Even they dither about whether it was vast, but that it was powerful no one can doubt. The VRWC "perverted the law and debased the media," they write.
   Its small beginnings were not right-wing but personal. A couple of good ol' boys in Arkansas began slandering Bill Clinton as revenge and to make a few fast bucks. They were adopted by a devil's band of racists, Christian bigots, forgers, shysters, perjurers, shakedown artists, embezzlers, sob sisters, spies, trollops, busted speculators, libel publishers, spoiled rich boys, corrupt pols, sneaks, prudes, gullible reporters, publicity hounds, termagants, lunatics, unethical editors, forsworn judges, used-up groupies and pornographers, all eventually focused on the person of Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr, a common scold.
   In the whole sorry story, on both sides, only two people came out with credit.
   The only decent person involved was Arkansas state trooper Ronnie Anderson, who "had refused to answer the independent counsel's questions about Clinton's alleged extramarital liaisons. 'I said,' "If he's done something illegal, I will tell you. But I'm not going to answer a question about women that he knew because I just don't feel like it's anybody's business.""'
   To their credit, the overwhelming majority of the American public was as decent as Anderson, or perhaps nervous that a powerful cabal of sex perverts backed by a free-spending rightwing kook (Richard Mellon Scaife) might decide to examine their bedroom habits, too.
   The only hero was Susan McDougal, who preferred prison to selling out to Starr.
   While "Hunting" is not the last word on the subject -- for one thing, it stops short of the impeachment -- it is the best place to start.
   The outlines of this "J'accuse" statement were revealed earlier by Conason, Lyons and Murray Waas in the Internet magazine Salon ([...]), to general lack of interest.
   .



4. If you love this country and have an iota of critical thinking skills, you must read this book. The reporting, analysis, and documentation are first rate, and solid. This is not a book for Democrats or liberals, but all Americans. Regardless of your political orientation, you should be disturbed by what you read here. Of course, my review assumes you believe that Enlightenment ideals were the foundation of this country, and that institutions are only as good as the integrity and intellectual honesty of the people that compose them.



5. This book lays out the attacks on the Clinton in full detail. While you could probably guess the things done by Falwell, Starr and the unrepentant segregationists in Arkansas; it was illuminating to see the machinations of Tripp, Isikoff and others I never could have named before this book.
   The many 4-5 star reviews tell a lot but the one star reviews are also illuminating. None of those come from people who appear to have read the book. In a just world, they would have to and, if they still were unmoved, they would have to fact check every detail.

5 comments about President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination.

1. The purpose of any book review is to give the reader enough information to decide if they want to invest the time and money in reading the book in its entirety. Richard Reeves, a distinguished former reporter for "The New York Times," has tackled a difficult subject in writing a biography of a politician who still engenders strong emotions in people of a positive and negative nature. You need not share Ronald Reagan's politics (Reeves does not), to find this an interesting and enjoyable read.
   
   From the subtitle, Reeves makes his interpretation clear. Reagan was not "a tired old man we elected king," but rather a bold, dynamic politician who left behind a strong and powerful legacy. This book is revisionist in that it challenges the idea that Reagan was often "absent without leave" while in office. Reeves has done a good job of developing Reagan's voice, using notes, letters, and other records that the President left behind. Much of what he uses is new.
   
   Reagan was, according to Reeves, a big idea man. He thought up new ideas and left the details to others. In comparison, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill thought up big, creative ideas and had a good sense of strategy, but also liked to interject himself into the implementation of these ideas. Jimmy Carter, who was at the White House just before Reagan, had little vision and tended to interject himself into the implementation of policy even when he had a limited understanding of the topic. Reagan was often faulted in office for being detached from his job--like when no one on his staff woke him up to inform him of a dog fight between U.S. and Libyan fighter planes--but given the number of issues that one address in the Oval Office, his interest in the big picture looks pretty sound to Reeves.
   
   This book has its limits, though. This is not a full-fledged biography. Reeves looks just at the presidential years. Readers wanting to know about Reagan's background will be disappointed. Reflecting his training as a political reporter, Reeves shows a preference for the political process rather than policy. He skips some of the weightier issue that Presidents address like international finance, commerce, and trade policy. These topics get at best only superficial coverage. Reeves does focuses on tax and budget issues, which were of great interest to Reagan. Like many Presidents, Reagan often had enormous influence on areas that were of little personal interest to him and by ignoring these topics, Reeves does not do full justice to his subject.
   
   Still, as a first draft of history, this ain't too bad.



2. Historian Richard Reeves, who has made a literary career exploring the White House years of many of the more recent occupants of the Oval Office wrote last year's best selling non-fiction book `President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination,' a biographical examination of America's 40th president.
   
   This work on Reagan's time in Washington is Reeves' eleventh book and his third biography of a chief executive's tenure solely in the White House. He previously wrote about the presidential reign of Richard Nixon and John Kennedy. He is currently the Senior Lecturer at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Southern California and a syndicated columnist whose column has appeared in more than 100 newspapers since 1979.
   
   Reeves published his first book, `A Ford, not a Lincoln' in 1975. His tome `President Kennedy: Profile of Power' is considered the authoritative work on the 35th president and won several national awards including being named the Best Non-Fiction Book of 1993 by Time Magazine and Book of the Year by the Washington Monthly.
   
   Twenty-six years after Ronald Reagan became president and changed the course of America, Reeves has written a surprising and revealing portrait of one of the most important leaders of the twentieth century. As he did in his bestselling books `President Kennedy: Profile of Power' and `President Nixon: Alone in the White House,' Reeves used newly declassified documents and hundreds of interviews to show a president at work day by day, sometimes minute by minute over the 40th president's two terms by selecting certain highlights in his eight years in office.
   
   'President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination' is the story
   of an accomplished politician, a bold, sometimes reckless leader, a gambler of what he believed to be right, a man who imagined an American past and an American future and made them real.
   
   Reagan is revealed to be a man of ideas who changed the world for better or worse with his own vision of good and right, a leader who understood that words are often more important than deeds in dealing with others, whether they be aides, the public, politicians with opposing viewpoints or world leaders. Reeves shows a man who understood how to be the president, who realized that the job is not to manage the government but to lead the nation. Reeves writes that in many ways, especially in the conservative movement of today a quarter of a century later, Reagan is still leading the charge.
   
   As his vice president, George H. W. Bush, said after Reagan was shot in an assassination attempt and hospitalized in March, 1981, "We will act as if he were here."
   
   Reeves shows Reagan to be a heroic figure if not always a hero. He did not destroy communism, as his champions claim, but knew it would self-destruct and hastened the collapse by the build-up of America's military might in the 1980's. He believed the Soviet Union was evil and had contempt for the established American policies of containment and détente that was advocated by his many contemporaries and prior presidential officeholders. Asked about his own Cold War strategy, he answered, "We win. They lose!"
   
   Like one of his own personal heroes, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Reagan became larger than life. But as Roosevelt became an icon central to American liberalism, Reagan was the nucleus holding together American conservatism. He is the only president whose name became a political creed, a noun not an adjective: `Reaganism.'
   
   Reeves claims through his liberal bias that Reagan's ideas were so old they seemed new. He preached individualism that many found to be inspiring yet also cruel. He dumbed-down America, brilliantly blending fact and fiction, transforming political debate into emotion-driven entertainment. He recklessly mortgaged America with uncontrolled military spending, less taxation, and more debt.
   
   In focusing on the key moments of the Reagan presidency, Reeves recounts the amazing resiliency of Reagan as the real `comeback kid,' long before the term was used on Bill Clinton. Here is a seventy-year-old man coming back from a near-fatal gunshot wound, from cancer, from the worst recession in American history. Then, in personal despair as his administration was shredded by the lying and secrets of hidden wars and double-dealing, he was able to forge one of history's amazing relationships with the leader of `the Evil Empire.' That story is told for the first time using the transcripts of the Reagan-Gorbachev meetings, the climax of an epic story, as if he were here to tell us in how own unique style.
   
   After Dwight Eisenhower's two full terms, we had five presidents in a row who didn't complete eight years in office until Reagan did so twenty-eight years later. Now we're going to have two chief executives in a row who will have served two terms. Is this now considered to be a new trend started again by Reagan or a continuance of what once was the norm of presidential politics that was maintained by George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and others in the course of American history?



3. I have to admit that I was not a fan of President Reagan's during his presidency. In my own words, I thought that "the Iran-Contra affair was the biggest threat to our democracy since Nixon trying to hold on to the presidency after Watergate". I have since changed my mind, at least on President Reagan, and even on Oliver North, who I have had the pleasure of meeting at a book signing.
   
   I have to admit that I find Reeves' rehashing of the Reagan years enlightening in that I had forgotten so much of what had gone on, and it was interesting to read some of the behind the scenes details, although I had to wonder where some of the information came from. There were times when Reeves just could not avoid the backhanded remark, which was irritating at times. I also felt that he was struggling when he had to say something that might be construed as positive about Reagan. Be that as it may, it wasn't a bad read if you take into account the writer's view.
   
   Ronald Reagan certainly had his flaws. Everyone does. Great people are not always great people behind closed doors. This does not diminish the fact that they rose to the occasion when it presented itself, and one way or the other made the right decision. After reading Reeves' book, I came to the conclusion that the United States would be a much lesser county without Ronald Reagan.
   
   Reeves' book also convinced me that we need a great leader, much like Ronald Reagan, again. We need a leader who not only has the courage to make the tough, unpopular, decisions, but who can also communicate their beliefs in such a way that inspires the Nation, and the world, to do great things.
   
   If you can filter the author's bias, then I would recommend the book. The advantage of the author's bias is that what may have been glossed over, ignored, or buried under the apologetics of a completely pro-Reagan author, comes out in the raw with maybe some opinionated remarks. The reader can then weed out the remarks and come to their own conclusion.



4. Richard Reeves frequently lets his personal liberal bias get in the way of recognizing Reagan's greatness as a leader. He makes many insinuations that Reagan is lazy. Reeves has difficulty recognizing that Reagan had a plan to rebuild the United States from the Carter negatives to the Reagan positives. Still, in all, the biography of his presidency allows the Regan personality and magnetism to shine through Reeves' negativism.



5. I'm not sure what book some of the reviewers here are reading, but it cannot be the same tome. Some claim this book is contemptuous towards Reagan, but I cannot detect a hint of that so-called "contempt" in this book, and this is coming from someone who believes that Reagan was the best President of the past fifty years, though obviously that is not saying much. Rather, what I see is a revealing, fair account of Reagan and his legacy. Certainly, many sections of the book do not give Reagan as much credit as I feel he deserves, but that is the great beauty of an unbiased biography, rather than an overly sycophantic or critical one - you get to see Reagan not as a God, but as the wrinkled, tired and yet majestic lion in winter that he really was. In all honesty, the book is so scrupulously fair to Reagan that though there were times when I believed the author was a closet conservative and still other times when I thought he must be a flaming liberal, those moments were so fleeting as to be mere flashes of consciousness - now here, now gone. In the capacity of being balanced, Mr. Reeves' biography is an enviable achievement. My one complaint is that the biography only covers Reagan's presidency, without his earlier years as context, but perhaps that is to desire too much of a good thing. Ultimately, whether you like Reagan or not, you will find something to enjoy in this book, though you may also find yourself occasionally shifting uncomfortably in your seat as the reality of his Presidency gently intrudes on your mind.

5 comments about A Texan Looks at Lyndon: A Study in Illegitimate Power.

1. While I was a pre flight student aviator in Pensacola, Fl trying to ultimately earn my Navy Wings of Gold I saw this small tome on the Navy Exchange bookshelves for sale. About a week later all copies were removed and none ever were for sale again in any branch of the military. The year, 1964.
   
   I decided to investigate and my father, being a Navy Admiral, had access to information in high places. I was told that LBJ had demanded the book be pulled and not allowed to be either sold or kept in a military library. My father's opinion was it was truthful and too damaging to LBJ while he started his presidency.
   
   Verification of this would be very interesting if someone is willing to do the research.
   
   Hank Miller, Jr.



2. A very well written history of Lyndon Baines Johnson and his effect on the U.S.A..



3. This book is primarily known as one of the early attack books that have become so common today. The book is held in low regard by historians. Readers interested in Johnson should consider reading Dallek or Caro's work.



4. This not-too-well organized or written condemnation of Lyndon Johnson represented the first documented gathering of serious charges about LBJ's ethics and practices. Dismissed as angry ranting by a fawning Texas public when first published, this little book outlines broadly the subject areas later explored in detail by Robert Caro in his superlative "The Years of Lyndon Johnson" series. This brief paperback does not read smoothly -- and it helps a great deal to have read Caro's books before reading it -- but you will see that at least one person was fully onto Lyndon Johnson's supernatural self-interest and pragmatic willingness to do whatever was necessary for advancing Lyndon Johnson. My grandparents worshipped Lyndon -- and showing this book to them, when it first came out, was like tossing holy water on a demon. They did not want to have ANYTHING to do with it. Lyndon had completely won their hearts and minds.



5. It would be an understatement to say that author Haley does not like Lyndon Baines Johnson. And despite the fact that his book is an unrelenting tirade against all things Lyndon, it provides a useful service in reminding the reader of how Johnson trampled and double-crossed friend and foe alike in his single-minded lust for power.
   I am fairly conservative politically, but I am open-minded enough to recognize and oppose corruption whether practiced by liberals or conservatives. In my lifetime, Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton have been shining examples of the worst impulses in American presidential politics in which greed and lust for either power or money ended up overshadowing any of their real achievements.
   Haley shows that Johnson was a man of few real principles, neither liberal nor conservative, but rather a man who usually always wanted to know which way the wind was blowing before taking a stand on any important issue. Johnson was a man who used all his powers of persuasion and veiled threats to get what he wanted and woe unto anyone who stood in his way. He was a man who knew and used the old adage "It's not what you know, but who you know" to Machiavellian extremes. But he was also a man of sometimes great political courage who would rarely give an inch once he took a stand. He hated those who opposed him, nursed resentments, and wreaked revenge on those who crossed him in the least as most of his enemies and many of his friends learned to their sorrow. From the earliest days, he was involved with corrupt Texas politicians from the local to the state level and swam in the seas of corporate corruption with the likes of the infamous swindler Billy Sol Estes and others of his stripe.
   Admittedly, the conservatism of the author is the conservatism of a bygone age and the reader will recognize that the book is meant to be a partisan attack on Johnson. Some of the attacks on Johnson are made solely for political reasons as Johnson was clever enough to outmaneuver Haley's ideological brothers and sisters. But Johnson surrounded himself with enough scummy characters and got involved in so many underhanded political AND business deals that he deserves the rough treatment given him in Haley's devastating diatribe.
   No matter your political leanings, your eyes will be opened when you read A Texan Looks At Lyndon. The book is well-written and often riveting in its allegations and revelations, but it loses one star for occasional hysteria. If US or Texas politics interests you, then I highly recommend this.