5 comments about Konrad Adenauer: The Father of the New Germany.

1. Charles Williams has written a biography almost like none I have ever read before. I am stating this because I grew up in West Germany when Konrad Adenauer was chancellor there, and remember Adenauer very vividly. Still, it was not until I read Mr. Williams' book that I learned a lot about Adenauer's life before 1945. Williams describes Adenauer's life virtually from the beginning to the end, covering every episode in equal detail, and the reader learns a lot about Adenauer who, after all, was a great statesman. It is interesting to read about Adenauer as a family man, his contacts with the Maria Laach abbey (whose abbot was a school friend of Adenauer's), his rise through the ranks of Cologne city government until he became mayor in 1917, his tenure as mayor from 1917 until 1933, his ouster by the Hitler regime, and his being in hiding from 1933 until 1945. Prior to reading that book, I had not learned a lot about Adenauer before 1945, except for a few fragments. Adenauer himself wrote memoirs after he stepped down as West German chancellor in 1963, but they begin with his return to Cologne in 1945, his being re-appointed mayor of that city by the Americans that same year, and his being dismissed by the British later that same year. The memoirs go on with his being made chancellor in 1949 and his experiences afterwards; unfortunately, they were not fully completed because Adenauer died before they could be completed. Even in that aspect, Charles Williams fills a lot of gaps with his book that Adenauer left with his memoirs. The book has since been translated into German.



2. This biography recounts the public and private life of Konrad Adenauer, the first chancellor of Germany after WW II. Adenauer was certainly one of the great men of the 20th century, carefully crafting policies to rebuild Germany after the war and to ensure that West Germany remained free from Soviet domination. As Williams states in his introduction, Adenauer lived three very different lives. He was the mayor of Cologne (and a powerful force in the Zentrum party) until the Nazis came to power in the early 30s. He spent the next 15 years or so trying to lie low and avoid too much attention from the Gestapo. He had several close calls, particularly after the failed assasination attempt on Hitler in July of 1944, but he and his family managed to survive the war. Adenauer really came into his own after the war though. He was again appointed mayor of Cologne by the occupying powers, but was relieved of this position. Difficult at the time, it allowed him to become the undisputed leader of the newly formed Christian Democrat Party (CDP) and to guide Germany through a very difficult time.
   
   This is a wonderful biography in my view. Williams has done a great job capturing Adenauer, both in his private and his public persona. I don't think that Adenauer personally was a particularly likable man. He had few friends, was domineering with his family, and certainly neither outgoing nor personable. We was, however, a great politician who was guided by a strong moral (Catholic) compass. As a political fighter, there were probably few men of any era that were as shrewed as Adenauer. His (mostly successful) 50 years as a politician are proof of that. He knew how to maneuver situations and opponents to benefit himself personally as well as acheive his larger political goals.
   
   This book is divided into four sections. The first covers KA's life as a youth and student, the other three roughly correspond to his time as mayor of Cologne, avoiding the attention of the Nazis, and as Chancellor. I think that Williams has wonderfully captured many of the nuances of the political life of a complex, and in some ways enigmatic, man. This is not a hagiography, Adenauer certainly had his share of human weaknesses and these are not glossed over. He was also somewhat of a street fighter when it came to politics and I got the sense that Adenauer actually enjoyed the rough and tumble of the political world (particularly since he usually came out on top).
   
   One other aspect of this book really intrigued me. This book is a wonderful vignette on the Cold War from a German perspective. When reading about the 50s and the Cold War, most American readers will be intimately familiar with the Korean War, McCarthyism, and the atomic bomb. The German perspective was somewhat different, and the issues facing Adenauer give the reader an interesting perspective on the events of this era. The Soviet threat loomed right over the border, not 5000 miles away over the Arctic Circle. Other issues of great import to Germany (and Adenauer) include rearmament, sovreignity, and re-unification with the East.
   
   Overall, I thought this was a wonderful biography. I knew very little about Adenauer and the events described in this book, and it has certainly filled my gaps in my knowledge. There isn't a whole lot about Adenauer written in English, so I would highly recommend this to anyone with even moderate interest. I agree with one of the other reviewers that the last section is a little light. It occupies over 200 pages in the book, but the events and details surrounding the treaties, reforms, and political machinations of Adenaeur's tenure as chancellor could have been expanded.



3. This book is the biography of the great Konrad Adenauer, the long serving German Kanzeller charged with rebuilding a shattered Germany following WW2. His childhood, education, and involvement in the Köln government are all described in detail. He is shown in an honest light and at times comes across as egotistical, greedy, and unfaithful. But he was also very determined, highly competent, and utterly committed to seeing Germany reunited under a peaceful, democratic government.

   Overall, the book is a worthwhile read but tended to be a bit dry and sometimes got bogged down in detail. The complex issues facing him after the war and how he dealt with them are really the most important parts of this book and I would have liked to have seen this covered in a bit more detail. For those looking for an informative and comprehensive history of Herr Adenauer, this should do.




4. When I bought this book I had high expections. The cover photograph is awesome! The book however, turned out to be a disapointment. In terms of research, it's similar to an undergraduate paper. Williams uses very few primary sources, relying instead on the work of others. It's kind of a cut and past job. An examination of the citations will confirm this.
   I was especially looking forward to a discussion of what many consider Adenauer's finest hour. His decision, despite intense opposition, to push for reparations for Jewish victims of the Holocaust. Williams barely mentions the reparations and dosn't even attempt to examine Adenaurer's motivations.
   In terms of of giving an overview of Adenauer's life the book's ok. But this giant of the 20th Century deserves better.



5. When I bought this book I had high expections. The cover photograph is awesome! The book however, turned out to be a disapointment. In terms of research, it's similar to an undergraduate paper. Williams uses very few primary sources, relying instead on the work of others. It's kind of a cut and past job. An examination of the citations will confirm this.
   I was especially looking forward to a discussion of what many consider Adenauer's finest hour. His decision, despite intense opposition, to push for reparations for Jewish victims of the Holocaust. Williams barely mentions the reparations and dosn't even attempt to examine Adenaurer's motivations.
   In terms of of giving an overview of Adenauer's life the book's ok. But this giant of the 20th Century deserves better.

No comments about The Life of Herbert Hoover: The Engineer 1874-1914 (Life of Herbert Hoover, Vol. 1).

No comments about The Faith of America's Presidents.

No comments about Science and the Founding Fathers: Science in the Political Thought of Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, and Madison.

5 comments about Indira: The Life of Indira Nehru Gandhi.

1. Indira Ghandi was the prime minister of India from the 1960s and 1980s. She is the daughter of India's first PM, Nehru, and was raised in part by Mahatma Gandhi. Confusingly, however, she married a completely unrelated Feroze Gandhi who granted her that famous last name. This is a monster of a book at over 500 pages, copiously annotated and extremely detailed.
   
   The most striking thing I found reading the book was how weak and non-existent Indira seems in her youth and early adulthood. She is unendingly ill with pulmonary diseases, painfully thin, does poorly at school, and floats around Europe and India with her family (she attended the world's first international school, l'Ecole Internationale, in Switzerland for League of Nations brats). She has no normal childhood or youth as the whole Nehru family is deeply involved in the Indian independence movement. They all periodically have to face jail time (a veritable rite-of-passage) for their activities, which the British government calls seditious.
   
   She marries an ambitious, hot-headed and energetic Feroze Gandhi in 1942 despite the misgivings of her father Nehru. Though they were sincerely in love and they produced two sons, the marriage proved a miserable one. Indira was more committed to her father's political work (who becomes PM of independent India) than her husband (who quickly begins having a number of a more-or-less open affairs). I was struck by how Indira lives for others, she has no independent personality, not until in 1959, at age *fourty-two*, she deems that she has repaid her debt to her family and must live her own life. Tragically good timing, because both her husband Feroze and her father Nehru would die within the next few years.
   
   Then Indira comes into her own, she drifts into the prime ministership in 1966 as the previous once dies. She quickly personalises politics massively: she avoids the party organization her father had created and appeals directly to the people with populist programs such as bank nationalizations and removal of aristocratic privileges. She is massively re-elected in 1967 despite a vast coalition against her running on the motto "Remove Indira". She skillfully responded with the motto "Remove Poverty". As the situation in Bangladesh (then a part of Pakistan, though 1,200 km away) degenerated into genocide as the the West Pakistani military elite reasserted its rule in the country in 1971, Indira acted decisively to attract international attention. She eventually fought a brief 2 week war, short and successful, to liberate the country. She became massively popular earning the title "Empress of India".
   
   Though she governed over other successes, the investments of the "Green Revolution" to make India's food supply self-sufficient were finally paying off and India exploded its first atom bomb ("Smiling Buddha"), she did not fulfill her promises on poverty. By the mid-70s inflation was rising, strikes were paralyzing the economy and an anti-Indira coalition was making strong headway calling for her extra-constitutional overthrow. Indira had already eroded much of India's democracy, weakening the constitution, politicizing the judiciary and bureaucracy, and circumventing political parties. In response she declared "the Emergency", effectively making herself dictator, censuring the press, imprisoning thousands of opponents and postponing elections... but trains ran on time and inflation fell. Indira grew increasingly isolated, relying on her corrupt and ambitious son Sanjay whose political influence grew. She eventually relented, holding elections in 1977 and losing badly.
   
   Indira, her son Sanjay and their cronies then had to face 3 years of vengeful and badly organized trials on their misdeeds during the Emergency. They emerged basically unscathed, the very unpopular Sanjay died in 1980 just before the elections in an airplane crash which, though it devastated Indira, placed her in a perfect position to win those elections (the sympathy vote counts). Indira seems pretty aimless during her final term, unable to handle the communal violence affecting Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and Harijans (also called Dalits or Untouchables, the lowest of Hindu castes), especially in Kashmir and the Sikh-populated Punjab.
   
   In 1984 as a Sikh terrorist group had been rampaging across Punjab from their base in the Golden Temple (the holiest of Sikh holy places), she launched a military operation to retake the temple and kill the terrorists. She succeeded, with massive civilian casualties and the temple heavily desecrated. Sikhs around the country were enraged and, a month later, two of her own Sikh bodyguards shot some 30 bullets into her body at point blank range. Her other son, Ranjiv, became the new prime minister. Over the 3 days after Indira's death, some 3,000 Sikhs were killed, tens of thousands more expelled from their neighborhoods, in anti-Sikh pogroms throughout India.
   
   Overall Indira comes across as a fairly unimpressive leader. She seems to have been very lucky to have been Nehru's daughter, not had terribly coherent ideas politically and been very dangerous to India's democratic politics. However, she had the ability to really connect with the common Indian and like de Gaulle, another leader with extra-constitutional and authoritarian tendencies, ultimately favored a return to democracy and could not govern without the approval of "the nation".
   
   In the book, Indira and her family appear very flawed but touchingly human, especially as a youth: they have petty disputes and feuds, she reads voraciously, complains of at the size of her nose and the darkness of her skin, she has few friends and her life is distinctly unordered. One word of warning she spoke to a son I thought particularly poignant: "There are millions of people in the world but most of them just drift along, afraid of death, and even more afraid of life."



2. It may very well be that Sonia cared for Maneka's child during the day, and Indira slept with him by night, but before painting this uncaring picture of Maneka, did Katherine attempt to get the other side of the story?
   
   Even if she had been refused an interview, perhaps she should have attempted to give her readers a third-party (her own?) view of what was probably transpiring in the Nehru-Gandhi household (as she does in numerous other places), rather than passing along what is probably Sonia Gandhi's view of the situation.
   
   Or perhaps Katherine didn't really care whether she maligned Maneka, the not-so-powerful politician?



3. This is a very good account of Indira Gandhi's life. I felt very sad after reading it. I knew already about her life and politics as being an Indian. But this book gave me a very comprehensive account of her life, except her last couple of years, which I think were
   hurried. I think that spicy tidbits of alleged affairs about her, Nehru and her husband should have been avoided as they distract from the larger point and have given her worshippers an excuse to discount the book. Description of India's early life before she became the Prime Minister is very engaging. You can see how the seeds of her later-day paranoia and siege mentality were sown during her unhappy childhood and her estrangement with her husband. You feel sad that in the end that privileged upbringing, lots of potential, education at the best schools and colleges and tutoring by her father in democratic traditions did not amount to much. She achieved little and destroyed much.
   
   It is amazing that in a vibrant democracy, she was able to undermine every political institution, which is essential for a democracy. How she instigated conflicts in Assam, Kashmir and Punjab. How she shamelessly went around dismissing democratically elected state govts and playing one group against another. How she let loose her son, Sanjay as an extra-constitutional authority to subvert judiciary and beaurocracy. She surrounded herself with sycophants and boot-lickers. In her own words, she herself admits, "men who may not be very bright but on whom I can rely"? Only bright spot in her career was the liberation Bangladesh. She used every weapon available to stay in the power. In the end, the forces she helped unleashed consumed her. Even her son Rajiv who became Prime Minister after her violent death was killed Srilankan Tamil Tigers whom she nourished. It might seem like a poetic justice in the end but India was/is the big loser having lost so much and still fighting those forces.
   
   History will not be kind to her and I hope that Indian people would not let another Indira immerge on the political scene.



4. This is one of the best biographies on Indira Gandhi. Most of the other books on indira authored by Indian journalists tend to focus primarily on her political activities with a brief summary of her childhood and adult years. This is by far the most comprehensive attempt at combining the various threads and presenting the story of a normal human being. Katherine's description of Indira's years at Anand Bhawan, Europe, marriage to Feroze read like a best seller fiction. Meticulous research, analysis and an objective attempt to understand the influences in Indira's life prior to her prime ministership is the hallmark.
   
   Missing is the analysis in understanding why a shy, reserved person longing for anonymity suddenly craves for power, and seeks power with scant regard for the institutions set-up by her father, leaders she grew up with. Going by Indira's example,I am disappointed that despite having the best role models (Gandhi, Nehru), best education ( shantiniketan, finishing schools, oxford), global exposure, immense wealth, Indira in her latter years behaved very much like an average middle class Mother, the book unfortunately fails to provide a rationale for this abnormal behavior.
   
   Still a great attempt from a non-indian to understand and piece together the life of the most charismatic and powerful Indian leader in the last 30 years.



5. Result of an obviously (too) meticulous study, the book reveals a very objective account of one of the leading female figures of the world... The emphasis is not limited to her political life and therefore you understand almost all underlying motives in her most absurd decisions. Throughout the book, you both love and hate Indira Nehru Gandhi but most of the time, you pity her for the life she, afterall, did not really wanted to have but couldn't refuse either... There is struggle, war, peace, politics, Byzantine games, democracy, dictatorship but happiness in this life....

No comments about Barbara Bush: Presidential Matriarch (Modern First Ladies).

5 comments about Star-Spangled Men: America's Ten Worst Presidents.

1. This book helps you absorb a lot of material in 248 fast pages. The last 10 pages may be the best. A chapter on the 2 most overrated Presidents.
   
   Jefferson purchased 8 additional slaves While President! Also his terrible hatred of Alexander Hamilton, one of our real hero's. Read Alexander Hamilton, by BrookhiserAlexander Hamilton, American I bought The Long Affair: Thomas Jefferson and the French Revolution, 1785-1800 to confirm what Nathan Miller wrote.
   
   And a surprise, JFK. The start of Vietnam, initially cool toward civil rights struggles (Bobby Kennedy was the real force), too many women, and his enduring contribution, raising the curtain on the age of political imagery. I read several books about the Kennedy's, including the lost older brother. (I think that was the Lost Prince?)
   
   If you like those three books you also might like Scam, Jesse Peterson Scam: How the Black Leadership Exploits Black America, Vital Remnants: America's Founding and the Western Tradition, and AMERICA'S REAL WAR



2. Who is this Nathan Miller to bedevil the reputations of past leaders because they were fat,like he does with Taft,or unsocial,like Ben Harrison,or because they were products of thier time,like Kennedy,jackson,or even a saint like Jimmy Carter?I would think that LEADERSHIP,or the lack thereof,would be the single criteria by which to judge a president,but apparently a doofus like Miller is more interested in making fun of personality traits than in giving any real thought to the achievements,or mistakes of our presidents...Don't buy this book under any circumstance,unless you are one of those worms who enjoy making fun of people based on size,or personality quirk,rather than seeking any understanding as to why these men were either great or mediocore...



3. (original version posted May 8, 2000)
   While the title does offer a warning that this might be a "fluffy," sensationalistic, or overly cynical offering, it's fortunately none of these things.
   
   Unfortunately, that doesn't imply there's a lot of depth to this work. Miller does a competent job of picking ten of our less distinguished Presidents and compiling a lot of well-documented facts about their respective administrations. The book does a satisfactory job of telling us why someone is on his ten worst list. But the facts pretty much do this for us already without the need for much synthesis or supporting argument. In fact, it's hard to argue with any of his choices...with one exception.
   
   I did find Miller's choice for the absolute worst President rather surprising and far too critical considering this President's skills and accomplishments (although I should note that I'm not a big fan of the 37th President). While I understand Miller's point, I really needed some more support for his argument.
   
   Short on interesting arguments, viewpoints, or in-depth analysis, this book could still make for a nice quick read if you're looking for an overview. One last thing... if you're wondering if Miller may have forgotten any of our recent Chief Executives, note that the book was written before 2001.



4. Handicapping best and worst Presidents is a popular pastime for the politically inclined and even Presidents sometimes take turns critiquing our Chief Executives. Nathan Miller, best known for his biographies on Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt, takes his turn here critiquing our ten worst Presidents and there are few surprises to be found here. Miller singles out the usual suspects (Pierce, Buchanan, Johnson, Grant, Harrison, Taft, Harding), but adds a few surprises (Coolidge, Nixon, Carter). Miller addresses each in a chapter making the case against them repeating stories that have been told ad nauseum. Miller adds little that is fresh, insightful or new here and very little in the way of objectivity as Miller focuses on their individual personalities, relationships and temperaments more than actual achievements and failures. Even Harry Truman picked out most of these Presidents as duds in his autobiography and they're regularly on most everyone's list. Miller saves his worst invective for the very end when he lists his two picks for the most overrated Presidents, John F. Kennedy and Thomas Jefferson, which seem gratuitous, especially in Jefferson's case in light of the wonderful "American Sphinx" by Joseph Ellis.
   
   There's little here that reflects great creativity or ingenuity. I'd almost prefer to see someone write a counterpoint highlighting the accomplishments and achievements of these Chief Executives just to refute what was laid out here. In the end this book reads like something I've read before; a good gossipy read that doesn't break new ground. Miller is an excellent writer as demonstrated with his other books and his writing here is lively and engaging. I just find it hard to single out Coolidge and Carter when you have other ample targets like Madison, Fillmore, Tyler, Van Buren, and others.



5. This was an exceptionally well written and interesting book. Miller has a genuine knack for writing, as would be expected of someone who is a journalist. He also has a beautiful way of synthesizing historical events related to the presidents under discussion. It's an immensely enjoyable read. Miller explains that his choices for the ten worst presidents are subjective--of course they are. In my opinion, the list of ten is an very good one--with one or perhaps two exceptions. He is very hard on Grant, whose presidency has been rehabilitated by historians in recent years. Miller takes the old-fashioned view of the Grant administration, hammering away on the scandals, which were rightly bad. But Grant did much good for the country, and, contrary to Miller's claims, Grant actually enforced the rights of African Americans against public opinion. He used force when necessary to protect their rights. His administration included more quality men than just Hamilton Fish. Miller also impugns Grant's generalship--another an old-fashioned view. Grant was not just a "butcher" and even if all he had against the confederates was overwhelming force, yet still he was able to use this to win, while many other union generals still faltered with the same overwhelming odds. Finally, Miller is a bit too hard on Coolidge. While doing nothing may be bad from a liberal or Democrat's point of view, Coolidge represented the last president before the era of big government began (yes, government started this track even under Hoover). While unimaginative and provincial, Coolidge believed, as even Jefferson did and as many people still do, that government should not be too large or intrusive. We now have an enormous military industrial complex welfare state that feeds off of 40 to 50% of our nation's income every year. You may approve of that, but Coolidge represented a different era. As a matter of fact, the Great Depression only became "great" because of the Smoot Hawley Tariff and the Federal Reserve raising interest rates. Please, please, don't blame Coolidge for what other presidents or government agencies did. He's also a bit hard on Kennedy. But still an excellent and thought-provoking book.

1 comments about Presidents at War: From Truman to Bush, The Gathering of Military Powers To Our Commanders in Chief.

1. This book should really be titled 'Presidents at UNDECLARED War.' During the years since the founding of the republic, the United States has only been in five declared wars. During those same years the United States military forces have engaged in more than two hundred armed conflicts. It is not a new thing, Wikipedia says: 'The first United States military action overseas, executed by the U.S. Marines and Navy, was the storming of Derna, Tripoli in 1805 in an effort to bolster diplomatic efforts in securing both the freedom of American prisoners and an end to piracy on the part of the Barbary state. The opening line of the Marine's Hymn, From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli, refers to this action.'
   
   This is a very interesting book in how it looks at the conflicts fought since World War II. It covers not the conflict itself so much the interaction between the President and Congress. It further raises interesting questions about how Congress acts in these cases. For instance in the vote regarding Iraq, Congress voted 77 to 23 in favor of the Iraq war.
   
   With the current dissatisfaction regarding Iraq, it will be very interesting to see what happens, especially if the Democrats gain control of Congress.

4 comments about Cnut: King of England 1016-1035.

1. I found this book frustrating to read since Lawson constantly refers to the source material assuming that every reader is a professional historian. The main things I learned from this book was what we do not know about Cnut and his times. The source material is scanty but overwelming the reader with ambiguities does not help. I was not very familiar with late Anglo-Saxon England but the book should have been more accessable for an important figure in English and Scandinavian history.



2. This book is good. Unfortunately, it is the exact same book written by M.K. Lawson under a different title. If I had known that, I wouldn't have spent another $20 on a book I already have. M.K. Lawson has the SAME book on Cnut out by two different titles.
   
   Anyway, it is a good, thorough, scholarly work.



3. This book does a really good job of covering King Cnut's reign in detail. I didn't like the way it ended, though. We are told what a skillful king Cnut was, both politically and militarily, and then we are told that he has been all but forgotten. Kind of ruined the mood!



4. Lawson's coverage of the reign of Cnut and of the Danish conquest of England in the 11th century, is a thorough examination of a subject rarely covered in most histories of the island. About 50 years before the famous Norman Conquest of 1066, the Danish conquest was accomplished on the battle field by Cnut's father Svegn and cemented in Cnut's law codes. The England they conquered was one tired of wars and eager for a chance at peace. Lawson's study examines the ways in which Cnut engineered an aura of legitimacy to his reign, by using personal loyalty, legal codes, close relations with the church and, finally, by marrying the widowed queen of the Anglo-Saxon king, Aethelred the Unready. This is a very carefully researched work, shedding light on a compelling period in English history.

   This book is not for the historically uninitiated or for those who like their history on the light side. However, for those who enjoy an in-depth study of primary sources, this work fills an important gap in scholarship.

2 comments about Jacqueline Kennedy: First Lady of the New Frontier (Modern First Ladies).

1. Unlike more gosspiy biographies, political scientist Barbara Perry approaches the life of Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy as a scholar. She writes about the early influences in her life, her role as first lady and the passions and causes that she undertook in her official life. Perry touches on such issues as JFK's infidelity and deftlly handles the criticism leveled at Mrs. Kennedy for, among other things, her spending on her wardrobe and her "francophile" attachments. So while the book doesn't get bogged down in the tawdry details of their personal lives, neither does it ignore them. It's a well-written, well-documented account of a White House that was so different than any other in modern times -- much due, in part, to the youth and flair of Jacqueline Kennedy. For those who want an objective account, this is an excellent read.



2. As one of the most charismatic and intriguing women in modern American history, Jacqueline Kennedy has been the subject of numerous books, articles, and even made-for-television movies. Those attempts, however, focused almost exclusively on Mrs. Kennedy's aura of celebrity---until now. Enter Dr. Barbara Perry, the Carter Glass Professor of Government at Sweet Briar College in Virginia. In "Jacqueline Kennedy: First Lady of the New Frontier," Perry does an outstanding job of telling a familiar story from a scholar's perspective. She provides a highly readable, yet serious examination of Jacqueline Kennedy in the White House.
   
   In researching the glamorous and sometimes enigmatic First Lady, Dr. Perry states that her mission "was to write the first scholarly treatment of her [Kennedy's] work as first lady and filter out the extremes of previous books that range from hagiographic tributes to mean-spirited or sensationalized accounts." That mission was a particularly daunting one in that Jacqueline Kennedy's personal papers and oral history, located in the John F. Kennedy Library in Boston, remain closed. Not to be dissuaded, Dr. Perry apparently did exhaustive research into virtually every available primary source. The result is a fascinating, insightful look at a first lady who emerges as a surprisingly assertive, independent, and even bold actor on the White House stage. Jackie, of course, is best known as the driving force in the restoration of the White House, but she was equally influential in the creation of the White House Historical Society, the preservation of Lafayette Square, and support of the arts. Her personl correspondence on these projects is quite revealing, suggesting that she had a clear vision of how the White House, the presidency, and the first family should be presented to the public---and how she attempted to preserve and present her own identity. Professor Perry is especially effective in exploring this area, having previously authored a compelling analysis of the symbolism and imagery of the U.S. Supreme Court and how the court presents itself to the public (see "The Priestly Tribe: The Supreme Court's Image in the American Mind").
   
   Barbara Perry's work is a much-appreciated scholarly addition to the body of literature on Jacqueline Kennedy. Until the Kennedy papers are opened to the public (in about 40 years), it will stand unchallenged as the definitive account for viewing and understanding an American icon inside the White House.