5 comments about I May Not Get There with You: The True Martin Luther King, Jr.

1. I find it very refreshing when a product of multiculturalism throws a wrench in the system and violently turns against his masters. In this provocative (though unsurprisingly silenced) work of pop scholarship college diversity program poster-child and hip hop "expert" Eric Dyson sets to work on deconstructing the white-washed image of Martin Luther King, Jr. that the American left has successfully promoted without opposition for the past four decades.
   
   But wait a minute, Martin Luther King Jr. was an American patriot, someone who was deeply devoted to the ideals of its Founding Fathers and simply wanted to tinker with a few of the more archaic aspects of American society (Jim Crow) so that everyone could at least have a fair shot at the American Dream. I must admit that up until a few months ago I was captured (more like poisoned) by this ridiculous myth, probably more so than most even. The story of King's life seemed so inspiring, who wouldn't want to believe in it?
   
   Turns out pretty much everything taught about MLK in public schools are at best half truths and all of the most hideous aspects of his life go completely unmentioned. As Dyson tells us, the truly radical aspects of King's ideology - such as his close association with the American Communist Party - are silenced specifically to keep African Americans in check. Undoubtedly, but these facts are suppressed specifically to keep suspicious whites in a state of unthinking, unquestioning silence as much as anyone else. Dyson didn't have to dig very much to uncover this information, even King's closest associates and biggest financial backers were Communists.
   
   Dyson also quotes some of King's most damaging speeches and interviews on economics that leave little doubt about what King's larger social and economic objectives actually were. "Oh, gee willickers!," the multiculturalist will scream, tearing the hair from his head, "You've got it all wrong - King only promoted the positive aspects of Communism." Well that all depends on just what you think the "positive" aspects of Communism really are. Let's see, King patently endorsed the redistribution of wealth, destruction of the military, labor's seizure of private business, abolition of private property...oh but don't worry, no Gulags!
   
   Predictably the trail of putrid scandal doesn't end there. In what has become a recurring theme amongst American leftists King possessed a voracious and positively uncontrollable appetite for cheap prostitutes. The point in mentioning this type of degenerate behavior at all is so Dyson can tie King's participation in the Civil Rights movement to the anti-objectivity counter-revolution that occurred subsequently thereafter. Here as well King was quite an active critic of the military (not JUST Vietnam), did interviews with pornographic magazines, generally did everything in his power to undermine sensible restraints wherever they existed, and ensured that a whole generation was indoctrinated into loving themselves and living for themselves only. Most important in all of these activities by King were the rumblings of what would later become known as "Affirmative Action."
   
   Dyson of course supports this development unconditionally and who could blame him, he is where he is precisely because King and his predecessors (backed by the Federal Government) were able to intimidate employers, agencies, and universities into adopting certain "hiring policies" favorable to African Americans. Noticably missing however in this book is elaboration on King's despicable intellectual dishonesty and theft (60% of his doctoral thesis at Boston University was stolen from another student) of other people's work throughout the entirety of his career.
   
   The story of "Dr." King is not an entirely uncommon one for political figures and needless to say his story is hardly inspiring. Indeed, it's typical even for the most violent political leaders to take a relatively egalitarian approach in the beginning, only to shed this facade once they start gathering steam in favor of uncompromising authoritarianism. Vladimir Lenin was an outspoken critic of the Czar and railed against the regime for its suppression of political speech, exploitation of the working class, and persecution of ethnic and religious minorities. Well, we all know how that turned out. I seriously doubt that Martin Luther King, Jr. was any different. Just as another reviewer pointed out, if he were alive today I'm sure he'd be right there with Al Sharpton and Jesse falsely accusing random college students of rape, petitioning to get O.J. Simpson reduced bail, and doing anything he possibly could to exacerbate whatever racial tensions still exist in this country.
   
   Why Dyson thinks this new version of King is great for black folks is anyone's guess, frankly I don't care. I'm just glad I don't have to listen to this hippy nonsense anymore and for that I am thankful.



2. I agree with Dr. King's message of harmony and peace. At the same time I can appreciate Dyson's exposure of aspects of King's personal life that most authors do not address (an obvious exception is "And the Walls Came Tumbling Down"). In a very real sense it leads to questioning Dr. King's sincerity in asking others to value the character of a person and not the color of their skin. Dr. King was an admirable figure in American history; I wouldn't go as far as the author in saying he might be the most important American ever; that's a bit over the top. I've read a lot on the subject; this book is worth reading.



3. I have always been fascinated with Dr. King as one of the most influential leaders of the 20th century. I love the work that Dr. Dyson did in writing this book, because he is authentic in talking about Dr. King the man - strengths, weaknesses and all - while exposing the myths about him. Being African-American, I can understand why many within our community woud want to scold Dr. Dyson for exposing Dr. King's dirty laundry. I, however, consider it not only essential, but relevant that we talk about the true humanity of our leaders (espcially one as esteemed as Dr. King) to avoid the danger of us elevating them as idols. It is a great reminder that God uses people (albeit flawed people) for magnificent works in a fallen world. This is a great book that I highly recommed!!



4. I picked up this book expecting a fresh approach and analysis of Dr. King apart from the obligatory images we're force-fed each new year. Instead, I was disappointed to find that Michael Eric Dyson made heavy use of speculation with the intent to scandalize more than to inform and enlighten. One such example includes Dyson conveying the idea that Dr. King may have engaged in orgies with many different women along with his right-hand man Ralph Abernathy. He then goes on to infer that there was talk of King and Abernathy engaging in sexual acts with each other! The author had no commentary to either support or dispel this "theory" making Dyson's retelling of the alleged incident totally irresponsible and even libelous. He just dropped the information, true or untrue, in the reader's lap to do with as the reader pleased. To that end, it is my opinion that Dyson's intent in writing this book was in no way honorable or truth-seeking, rather it was a means to convey his baseless ideas to anyone who would listen. I'm reminded of something my grandmother and mother would always say to me, "an empty wagon makes the loudest noise." Michael Eric Dyson makes a lot of noise in this book but totally lacks substance. This was an expensive tabloid.



5. This book was not what I expected, but enjoyed regardless. I particularly liked his idea of banning the 'I Have a Dream' speech from public media. The stories about his philandering were a bit shocking to me, but I have never read any biography of King before, so I wasn't prepared. The ocassional tangents might irk some, but understand Dyson has to take some risks and expand on ideas to make the book worth his time. Realize the civil right movement is not over. Dialogue needs to continue in written forms such as this book to make progress.
   - logan square yuppie

5 comments about Boss: Richard J. Daley of Chicago.

1. Book came quickly. It was just a little bit more weathered than I expected, but it's an old book so I'm not complaining



2. Yup, I too was alive and kicking during most of The Mayor's reign, and I have to agree, it's got the ring of truth to it. This book was intended as more of a verbal portrait of Daley and the city he helped shape than as a political analysis, although Daley's administration is effectively dissected. Civics classes AND journalism classes should be required to read this since not only is it an outstanding example of what is known in some circles as "Literary Journalism" but because it's more than just political theory,it illustrates the real life nuts and bolts workings of a big city. This is right up there with Caro's "The Power Broker" What's really wild is that I read this book right after I read "The Godfather" and both of the titular characters operated in much the same way!



3. A great read (though dated) of the political machine Richard J Daley enhanced in Chicago. Though Daley himself never pursued the money end of the corruption, his machine enhanced their wealth and Daley's power in their almost total control of the city. Daley was a great politician, turning set backs to political advantage. Daley tolerated crooked cops, until he was forced to hire a reformer. After awhile he took out the reformer, and hired an enforcer as police commissioner. This is a great read about the machine that controls Chicago. This gives an interesting look into the mind of the political machine of Chicago.
   
   This is a great book. If one wants to read further on the Chicago Democratic political machine or Richard J. Daley, American Pharoeh is another great book. This should be required reading for those who live in Illinois.



4. This is a serious and ambitious coverage of the internal workings of Chicago government. This book didn't make me laugh as Royko's "Sez Who? Sez Me!" did, but is so insightful and well-written that this reader, not too knowledgeable about politics, thoroughly enjoyed it.
   
   The story is important because it uncovers a truth otherwise overlooked by the media (for example, what really happened at the police riots at the 1968 Democratic Convention). Amazingly, despite the ugliness of the politics portrayed, Royko's writing is not too judgemental; any judgement of Daley is left to the reader. As Royko describes the rise of Daley's Machine, it becomes clear that the motivation behind most of Daley's actions was simply to keep his enemies powerless and keep the Machine's dominance intact, even when it means promoting inept allies to positions of power or neglecting the needs of Chicago's most struggling people.



5. Royko's classic portrait of Daley and "his" Chicago is perhaps most distinguished by its narrator. While the facts remain the same between this book and others such as American Pharoah, the profound attachment and understanding of a man who spent his professional career writing about the same city that shaped Daley creates a much more colorful and intricate perspective on mid 20th century Chicago. Presented as a journalistic piece rather than a heavily footnoted history or political science text, Boss engages the reader on a more narrative than statistical level. Through personal stories of machine "grunts" and smoke filled rooms, Royko accomplishes more in just over 200 pages than the statistical tome American Pharoah does in over 600. It comes down to one necessary and incontrovertable fact: only a Chicagoan can truly understand and synthesize the experience and leadership of his or her city. East-coasters can write about the "City with Big Shoulders" until their knuckles seize up, but they will not be able to truly appreciate the subtleties of Chicago's culture and psyche. As a highly respected voice in Chicago journalism who was at loggerheads with Mayor Daley on numerous occasions, Royko presents an honest and faithful version of Chicago and its mayor.

5 comments about DOORS, THE.

1. I do not order much from the internet, except I do find Amazon to be great. I have ordered serveral book, and they have all arrived in a very timely manner. The purchased have been very easy and there has never been a mix up on payments, they have also been prompt in emailing to let me know when we can expect our merchandise. I thank you for providing such a wanderful website were we can get great prices and good service too. JML California



2. You could build a library with all that's been written about The Doors over the past 40 years. This makes it hard to find anything new, but Ben Fong-Torres has done that here. Several never before published photos (including Jim dressed as an Indian for Halloween at age 7!) and interviews with Jim's father, brother & sister (his mother was unfortunately too ill to participate) make this a must for any Doors fan. Also has lots of commentary from Ray, Robby & John and others who were closely involved with the band.



3. Rock writer nonpareil Ben Fong-Torres has done an excellent job in this very fine work about the Doors. Lots of never seen before pictures and what a great treat that we finally heard something from Morrisons relatives, especially the rear-admiral. Im pretty sure those fat royalty cheques that started pouring in from 1974 has mellowed the old warriors heart over the years, but still you believe that somewhere deep inside, he was proud of his son achievements. It's a book that you can't put away, so if you start reading it early, you most likely will finish it the same day.



4. The Doors by The Doors and Ben Fong-Torres
   
   Hyperion Books
   
   Forty years ago The Doors broke on through and romanced the public with poetic nightmares combined with a jazz influenced brand of blues driven rock and roll. We all know about Jim Morrison, the bands wildly erratic front man who lived either on the edge of a stage or at the edge of his own mortality. The three remaining Doors members John Densmore, Robby Kreiger and Ray Manzarek give their take on what it was like to ride the ascending success and ultimately the burn out and downfall of comet Morrison. Ben Fong-Torres has the daunting but enviable task of coordinating the vast treasure of photos, interviews and fresh quotes into a time line narrative that takes the readers from the beaches of California to the graveyard in France. What Oliver Stone got wrong in his 1991 movie, "The Doors" Fong-Torres is determined to set straight in this retrospect. Even though it was Jim who gained the most publicity as charismatic singer and lyricist he was the first to correct anyone that would garner him with more than one fourth of the credit for the bands success. The corresponding biographies of each member help to re-tell the now famous stories but also add a more personal insight and explanation of these now legendary tales. It's always been my contention that actually being in such a famous band it is impossible to truly appreciate or understand your own impact. The Beatles never had "The Beatles" to appreciate or enjoy like the public did and the same thing goes with this remarkable group. The Doors were just trying to write some songs and score with the ladies of Venice but after these four individual and creative elements combined a funny thing happened resulting in pure rock and roll legend. It's all here in beautiful detail and imagery, from the band's first rehearsals and the ground breaking shows at the Whiskey, the Ed Sullivan snub, Miami madness to Jim's controversial departure from the United States and ultimately the planet. This is a beautiful coffee table styled book that chronicles all of The Doors phenomenal successes and internal struggles. Just as with The Beatles "Anthology" book the surviving members have assembled to tell their remembrances and share some never before seen photos and antidotes. This leaves Jim's creative and prophetic lyrics along side his infamous quotes behind as both his contribution towards the book and his path to or bread crumb trail back from the other side.
   
   Matt Parish



5. I loved the book! Well worth the money. It has great pictures too. It tells about the whole band and how they got along with Jim.

5 comments about The Architect of Desire: Beauty and Danger in the Stanford White Family.

1. 
   Suzannah Lessard is to be complemented on this reflective and perceptive account. The family skeletons are unquestionably out of the closet, as she narrates the heartrending story of Evelyn Nesbitt, Harry K Thaw and her own ancestor's intertwined lives.
   
   If you have read "Ragtime", this is the non-fiction truth behind the tale.
   
   The murder of the brilliant architect - the "White" in McKim, Mead and White, whose clients included the Teddy Roosevelt White House -shocked New York's 400. This book deals not only with the events as they unfolded but also their repercussions in the author's family. Well written and poignant.



2. What would it be like to be descended from one of America's most celebrated architects? For that matter, what would it be like to be descended from a man whose lurid, predatory sexual practices were once front-page news?

   Members of the Stanford White family have had to deal with those issues for almost 100 years now, since White was gunned down at Madison Square Garden in 1906. For the most part, the White family did not discuss their illustrious pater familias, but Stanford White is ever-present, in all respects, in their collective lives. How the family did (or did not) deal with this mixed legacy would manifest itself over the next four generations.

   Suzannah Lessard, a great-granddaughter of Stanford White, addresses this legacy squarely. She does not attempt to suger-coat White's personality, which combines breath-taking artistic genius with a self-indulgent predatory streak that ultimately led to his destruction. Through the book, she weaves multiple tales about her family, which includes stories of mental illness, sexual abuse, and emotional repression. She does this with remarkable candor.

   This is a Social Register family. They are related to the Astors, the Winthrops, the Chanlers, the Roosevelts, the Rockefellers, etc. They own a magnificent property, designed by Stanford White, on Long Island. On the surface, it would appear that this family has the world as its oyster. Suzannah Lessard shows that no amount of social prominence and privelage can protect a family from the problems that can face us all.




3. Powerful, lyrical writing builds the story of Stanford White one layer at a time. The writer, his granddaughter, is uniquely qualified to tell the tale of genius gone awry. You'll remember this story long after you finish it -- a sure sign that you've experienced not just a book, but true art.



4. This book defies a brief explanation. I sensed deep passion in the author as I read her words, a passion for her family's weaknesses and strengths, a passion for knowing herself, a passion for the power of architecture, and a passion for her great-grandfather, the infuriatingly complex architect, Stanford White.

   Stanford was generous and careless, creative and self-destructive, maniacally disciplined and utterly irresponsible. While he selflessly gave his heart and soul to his massive stone buildings, he thoughtlessly shattered the hearts and lives of the people around him. Even while he was racked by ill health, he drove himself in his work life AND his recreational life as if he were immortal. He either believed he could never die, or knew he surely must and so didn't care.

   The sexual portrait of Stanford can be rather harrowing: The countless love nests he set up around New York; his systematic debauchery of young women (many of whom fell in love with him); the attorneys he hired to hush things up; the endless supply of cronies he found to join him in his nocturnal plundering--his appetites--and his ability to feed his appetites--knew no limits. As for Evelyn Nesbit, the celebrated beauty who arguably played a role in Stanford's murder, I'll just say she wasn't the first girl to ride in his red velvet swing.

   Finally, two notes. This author presents architecture, and its impact on the human psyche, in a beautiful, moving way; she breathes life into the bricks of Stanford's buildings. And her depiction of the Gilded Age is superb. It's the stuff of a great trashy Summer novel. Except it's real. And probably still goes on today.

   I should also warn future readers that there's a fair amount of incest in this book.




5. I initially read this book on a library loan as a small part of research for a project I was doing. Now I'm back at Amazon to purchase it. It's one I want to read again in leisure time, to savor, not only for the wealth of history it provides, and the painfully honest look into family self-deceptions, but for the absolutely beautiful writing it offers. The courage she shows in telling this story, and the honest treatment of her family (which I expected her to protect and make excuses for) and painstaking fairness to other characters, sometimes at the expense of her own history, is breath taking. Many of Ms. Lessard's descriptive passages are almost musical in quality, without ever falling to sappiness, and they bleed a depth of insight that one sometimes grasps only at a second glance. Her metaphorical passages are the most beautiful - I will never forget many of them. A joy and a privilege to read. Again.

5 comments about Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader.

1. Watch Video Here: http://www.amazon.com/review/R3KMX3LR39IF00 This is an oldie but a goody indeed. How McCain makes us long for Ronald Reagan the Great!



2. In a way, I always thought that authors who write about Reagan have it easy. How hard could it be to write interesting and inspiring words about a man who was both?
   
   However, the author of this book has taken a bit of a different approach with this book by focusing as much on the "Reagan movenment" as he does Reagan himself.
   
   History is going to be very good to Reagan and it will be because of the movement he created - it spite of the spineless Republicans of today.
   
   I really enjoyed reading the book. It flows easily through the Reagan years and, if you are a Reagan fan, you will close this book, sigh, and say, "God I miss Ronald Reagan!"



3. Most biographers who attempt to write about Ronald Reagan typically get frustrated at some point in their effort and throw up their hands saying, "I can't get to know this man!" Indeed, the man that some many of us felt close to without ever having met him was apparently a very tough nut to crack if you wanted to get close to him in person.
   
   As a result, many biographies supposedly about Reagan offer very little insight into the man and what made him succeed and fail. They talk about his life and history, his advisers and their ideas, but they don't capture anything about the man that you wanted to learn about when you picked up the book in the first place - D'Souza does and that's what makes this book different and better from the rest.
   
   D'Souza was a young aid in the Reagan White House and maybe that gives him a bit of an advantage in capturing the essence of Reagan, but I think most of the credit has to go to something far more fundamental; D'Souza hasn't lost the ability to see Reagan the way most Americans saw him, he hasn't lost sight of what America was like before Reagan compared to what it's like now. That gives D'Souza a perspective on Reagan that most academics (which D'Souza is) neglect. It makes all the difference in this book.
   
   D'Souza really captures a man guided by a vision and a philosophy rather than by polls, a real leader rather than someone who went whichever way popular sentiment carried him. Reagan's ideas about America and its relationship to the rest of the world were positive, contrary to popular thoughts and, as it turns out, right.
   
   If you like Reagan, you will love the way D'Souza articulates how the man accomplished everything he did. If you don't like Reagan, D'Souza's look at Reagan offers the best argument I've encountered that you'll have to counter in order to sway his supporters to your way of thinking.
   
   Highly recommended. A great book about a great President.



4. Very informative. This book will give you a new appreciation for our recent history.



5. D'Souza does a decent job in his biography on the character of Reagan. My biggest complaint with this book is that it does not actually tell us anything about Reagan and his presidency. So much times is spent on the character that by the time you are done understanding Reagan's moral values the book is over and I felt I learned nothing about what Reagan did and how these values played out. For those who have really studied Reagan it is a great addition but if you are looking for only one book try Richard Reeves.

5 comments about All too Human.

1. In this moving look into the White House, Stephanopoulos carefully treads the line between worship for his idealized boss who embodied all the dreams and hopes Stephanopoulos had for his country, and distraught disappointment at the human flaws that caused this man to dally with a certain females and to lie to his aides about it. For Stephanopoulos, the crime here is not the actual act, but the fact that his boss let his people lie for him - without even realizing they were lying. This lack of trust and respect was crushing to the young idealist and it shows through in every page of the book. He mourns for what could have been, but wasn't; he hangs his head for the mistakes made by his "all too human" boss. He does not, however, descend into mudslinging - he obviously still adores his former boss, even if he did turn out to be a little less large than life.



2. This book is interesting in two ways. The first is the rise of a working class immigrant's son to the position of political advisor of the world's most powerful statesman. The father of Stephanopoulos was an working class immigrant yet his son was able to become a Rhodes scholar and reach the position in politics he did. The American success story. It is also interesting, from a much more cynical perspective, in that Stephanopolous' political advice was all politically motivated and absolutely none (with emphasis on absolutely) had a basis in the actual non-political benefits or costs (or efficacy). Extremely cynical. One comes away wondering whether it is even possible for the political process to produce socially beneficial policies instead of just politically expediant solutions.



3. First, my standard disclaimer: I am a political moderate and social conservative. This book is an average look at what happens in political inner circles, specifically the Clinton white house. I was a little disappointed that Stephanopoulos did not take more risks to write about subjects that the general public did not already know. It seemed that much of the reason for the book was for the author to exonerate himself from any wrongdoing.



4. George Stephanopoulos' memoir of working in the White House during Bill Clinton's first term in office makes you feel like a fly on the wall of the Oval Office. Written in that hypersmart, jargon-fluent style familiar to "West Wing" viewers, "All Too Human" is an engaging, candid companion to readers of any political stripe, in part an impassioned defense of one of America's most infuriatingly bipolar personalities, in part a cautionary tale of power trumping principle.
   
   Among the best and brightest that made up Clinton's 1992 campaign staff, no one burned brighter than Stephanopoulos, a senior advisor to the President at the tender age of 31 whose charge included Congress (he formerly worked for House Majority Whip Dick Gephardt) and satisfying Clinton's critical liberal base.
   
   Stephanopoulos makes no bones about being a true believer. He likens his work with Clinton to being an altar boy for the Greek Orthodox priests of his youth. "It's Nazi time out there," Clinton explodes when the Republicans campaign against him in a special congressional election in Kentucky. Stephanopoulos seems on board with this Hitlerian characterization of the GOP.
   
   Yet Stephanopoulos' passion is tempered by a cool calculating side that finds much common ground with the president, too much, he comes to find. "The last temptation is the greatest treason/To do the right thing for the wrong reason," goes the Eliot verse Stephanopoulos keeps on his desk, in a cramped room he coveted for its proximity to the Oval Office. Even when he manages to get the president to save affirmative action or appease other liberal concerns, it all comes back to a base sort of pragmatism. Is Clinton doing it because it's the right thing to do, or for the political benefit? What about George?
   
   Stephanopoulos' candor is this book's greatest asset, candor about the calculating Clinton, his prickly wife Hillary, and especially himself. He recalls a moment in the first campaign when he caught himself telling a small child that her father is "a bad man" for lying about Clinton. Stephanopoulos wants us to see him, and his boss, as good people, but like the title suggests, with some intrinsic flaws.
   
   While the first half of the book is marginally more interesting as a whole, as the Clinton team finds their way into the White House amid bimbo eruptions and fights its own party to pass a budget through Congress, the second half has the book's most interesting figure, the one man Stephanopoulos paints in entirely black hues: Dick Morris.
   
   Morris could be a Dickens character, "a small sausage of a man encased in a green suit with wide lapels, a wide floral tie, and a wide-collared shirt." As unctuous as Uriah Heep, Morris twitters on about his access to the president, all the time sizing our narrator's back for a place to stick his knife. Stephanopoulos, who views Morris as nothing less than a Republican mole, does likewise.
   
   "I have no home. I have no one left to talk to," Morris tells Stephanopoulos at one point.
   
   Get a dog, Stephanopoulos finds himself wishing he had the nerve to reply.
   
   Morris has claimed Stephanopoulos misrepresented him, but I find the depiction very close to the bone from what I've seen of this fellow commentating on Fox News.
   
   There are flaws in the book, like Stephanopoulos' shorthand with the facts. He seems to assume the reader is as well-versed as he is about the Clinton years, which has him skirt over a lot of material or peripherally refer to things like Tammy Wynette being upset with the First Lady as if we all will know the rest of the story. There is also a fatal Yuppie self-absorption in how Stephanopoulos whines about his trials. A lot of people deal with mega-stress. Not so many have a movie actress ready to draw them a bath.
   
   But "All Too Human" is a good read, and buttressed by Bob Woodward's "The Agenda," one gets an immersive sense of life around Bill Clinton in his first term, a time of great possibilities, hopes, and, inevitably, more than a bit of frailty.



5. The subtitle of this wonderful memoir taught me more about politics in 400 pages than I'd learned in 40 years. A diehard liberal and a political fanatic, someone whose views would normally make me sneer and scoff, Stephanopolous paints a picture of the stresses, ins-and-outs, spin, activities and the vital scope of the world inside the Oval Office. Every newsworthy event or program is canvassed for its political ramafications; the very definition and refinement of the word "politics" is reinforced on every page; the mistakes that lead to triumphs, and the feel-good preparations that lead to disasters are all here in stark detail. Stephanopolous proves himself a very sensible man, and even his staunchly liberal views are sidenotes to the greater energies, arguments and preparations that occur inside the White House. I occasionally disliked S's speaking his own platform (which he did sparingly), or telling how political parties are constructed to blunt the other even when their plans are sensible, but all in all I learned more from this book about the workings inside the White House than from all my prior readings and public education.

5 comments about An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy, 1917 - 1963 (Dynasty).

1. Dallek does a very fine job of presenting a balanced look at his subject; he obviously thinks a great deal of Kennedy, but this is no hagiography; when there are mistakes or missed chances by Kennedy, he gives them as much attention as he gives the successes. Those who wish to cannonize Kennedy will be disappointed, as will those who think he is overrated, with the best reputation that his father's money could buy, as well as those intent on believing any and all conspiracy theories about his assassination. But anyone wanting an evenhanded view of the man will find this book a treasure trove of information.



2. The esteemed author of a two-volume biography of LBJ takes a hand at a "comprehensive" bio of JFK, drawing on all that went before, and adding some new research.
   
   A lot went before. More books have been written about JFK than any other presidents except Lincoln and FDR. If you don't want to wade through them all, this is a good one-stop choice.
   
   The main new information comes from Dallek's first-ever access to cartons of unsorted medical records from Dr. Janet Travell, JFK's official in-house physician. These and other records reflect much more, and much more serious, medical problems than was known during JFK's life. In particular, he had severe intestinal problems as a teenager, which were treated with corticosteroids, then a new treatment. The steroids caused osteoporosis of the lower spine and vertebrae, leading to lower back problems as early as 1940. In addition, he suffered from rheumatic fever and, later, prostatitis, urethritis, ulcers, and malaria.
   
   Over his life, he took an astonishing quantity and variety of drugs, including hormones, amphetamines, codeine, cortisone, Lomotil, paregoric, penicillin, procaine, Ritalin, antidepressants, and testosterone. During the campaign, he was followed everywhere by a "black bag" containing his medications. This was once lost, to his distress, lest the severity of his problems be disclosed.
   
   He was medicated during critical times, including the Vienna summit with Khrushchev and the Cuban Missle Crisis. Dallek opines, with expert assistance, that the medications did not impair his performance, and indeed, that he could not have functioned without them.
   
   Dallek also uncovered some five hospitalizations between 1955 and 1957 that were not previously known, raising the implication that there were others, and reconfirming Kennedy's adeptness at cover-up. Dallek's judgment on this is two-pronged: first, that JFK recklessly endangered the country by seeking and accepting the presidency in such fragile health, and was devious in covering it up; second, that he was nevertheless even more heroic than we imagined in coping with it.
   
   Dallek's most publicized revelation was of "Mimi", a nineteen-year-old intern that Kennedy had an eighteen-month affair with ("Kennedy's Monica"). The episode is mentioned only in passing in the book, but was the lead story in the press when the book was first out.
   
   On Vietam, Dallek dug up a brief oral statement taped by Kennedy days after the Diem coup in November, 1963 (just weeks before his own assassination). In it, Kennedy refers to the extreme division there had been in his government over whether to support the coup, and the regrettable murkiness of a cable sent to Ambassador Lodge, setting him on a course to which "he was already inclined". He also expressed shock at the death of Diem, and concern about whether the new government would be stable.
   
   Dallek cites this tape as evidence that Kennedy was going to order a pullout of the 16,000 U.S. advisors then in Vietnam, and that he would never have escalated as Johnson did. Other evidence consists of an order to Defense Secretary McNamara to prepare a plan to withdraw "by 1965", an order to the State Department expert on Vietnam to prepare an analsis of "all options, including withdrawal", a statement in a September, 1963 TV interview that "it's their war", and one or two "think-aloud" private remarks.
   
   Dallek is not convincing. The actual record is sparse and ambiguous. Robert Kennedy himself said later that he did not know. Against Dallek's view are Kennedy's commitment to containment of communism, his "bear any burden" rhetoric and mentality, and his professed belief in the domino theory. The one concrete action he took was to order the increase from a few hundred advisors to 16,000 in the first place. And his main advisors--McNamara, Rusk, Taylor, and Bundy--were also LBJ's.
   
   Like Johnson, Kennedy obscured the U.S. role from the public. By the time he died, the issue had not yet come onto the general public's radar screen. Even viewing his actions cynically, he was too much the politician to simply abandon Vietnam to the communists.
   
   The truth probably is that Kennedy was conflicted, that the increase in advisors was a "buy time, split the baby" measure, and that he had in fact not yet decided what to do. In all things, he was more of a reactor and improviser than a large strategic thinker.
   
   Like the LBJ books, this one is written in plain English rather than that dreadful academese that many professional historians are captives of. Apart from the disclosures above, there is little that is new. It is mainly a distillation and re-presentation of the vast prior literature. As such, it is an admirable job, worth a solid B+ if turned in by a graduate student.



3. What you will like about this book:
   
   1) The apt title: it's a nice little turn of phrase which both recalls and overturns the biographical genre. Also, it reminds us that JFK's life was unfinished in two respects: he died young, and he died without completing his term in office.
   
   2) The sober treatment of the subject. Dalleck neither sensationalises JFK nor does he excoriate him. There is an admirable even-handedness in his assessment of JFK's achievements and fiascos.
   
   3) The slow, patient accumulation of facts upon facts, which might make for a long book, but which help to build up a thorough picture of what exactly happened. Especially useful if this is you first Kennedy biography or if your knowledge of this era is a little hazy.
   
   4) The sheer drama of the events that unfold. Kennedy's tenure was brief but the crises he had to deal with were of monumental proportions. Especially engrossing are his confrontations with Kruschev during the Berlin Crisis and the Cuban Missile Crisis.
   
   What you may not like about this book:
   
   1) I never thought I'd be tempted to put away a book about Kennedy, but I almost did. The first 200 pages were especially hard going. Most exasperating were the overlong, involved discussions about Kennedy's medical problems. Of course these are relevant to his life-story, but they are interesting only up to a point. Then they become tiresome and spoil the pacing of the narrative. One can safely skip these parts and move on to the "story".
   
   2) Dalleck's writing style: Now don't get me wrong...Mr Dalleck is a fine writer and his expositions are very clear and sometimes brilliant. I thought the epilogue was especially well-written. But his style is too deadpan to generate any excitement in the reader. I think a life as colourful and portentous as Kennedy's deserves a narrative with more panache and perhaps a little flamboyance.
   
   3) Whatever happened to Kennedy's private life ? There is adequate treatment of his growing up years and of his relationship with elder brother Joe. But his relations with women, with his wife and children, what he did when he was not being "political", all this gets only cursory treatment. The omission is especially glaring after Kennedy assumes the presidency. From then on the book is almost entirely political. This means that it falls short of being a complete biography.
   
   4) As an old hand at reading biographies -I've recently read books on Mao, Hitler, Gandhi, Lincoln, Napolean, Indira Gandhi, Darwin, Einstein--I know that one of the most effective things a biographer can do is to provide a sort of leitmotif, a common thread running through the book and at various lifestages, that helps to explain and understand the character. Without such a device, the reader doesn't get a satisfying grasp of the protagonist. The only recurring theme is Kennedy's medical problems and how these might explain his actions. There are others, but they are not explicitly stated. Dalleck tries to do this by rounding things up in the epilogue, but it's a case of too little, too late.



4. This is the first full-fledged biography that I've read about JFK, and it certainly was informative and educational. Robert Dallek's access to the official medical records provided for an extremely enlightening tome. Certainly we gain appreciation for the intense physical torment which Mr. Kennedy must have felt while he was in office, and also the way that his back must have plagued him on the campaign trail. My one fault with the narrative is that I think Dallek gave short-shrift to Kennedy's affairs and sexual conquests. I do not bring this up due to a need on my part for more "juicy" details but due to the realization that his assignations were a political liability--such as when they were possibly used against him in the selection of his Vice President. It's hard to know what ever happened beyond closed doors but his relations with so many women undoubtedly jeopardized his ability to lead (due to blackmail concerns). I also felt that Mr. Dallek was rather naïve in regards to the 35th President's motivations. Did he have an overwhelming need to serve the public? Perhaps, but this, assuredly, was secondary to his need for power and status. We see here, in retrospect, how absurdly ambitious this young man was and how much his drive offended some of his contemporaries. One Senator said, "Why not show a little less profile and a little more courage?" Indeed. If he wanted to only to serve the public then he could have done so by less flamboyant means. At any rate, I still admired JFK after reading this biography, but the factual accounting of any person always tarnishes their veneer. That is inevitable as we are all human.



5. This was required reading for a graduate course in American history.
   Robert Dallek chose to write this book for many of the same reasons that I and, undoubtedly, many other readers, chose to read it. In many ways, the legacy of John F. (Jack) Kennedy looms larger than life. is "Camelot" persona, youth, and televised image, combined with his fashion plate wife and ubiquitous family form the images seared in my mind. His dramatic assassination and its undiminished controversy, combined with the Baby Boomer generation's recollections of "where they were when he died," add to the mystery and legend of this man. I was eager to understand the substance behind the man's style, and the accomplishments and failures of his brief administration. In the preface, Dallek mirrors my interests by declaring that his goal of writing the book was to "penetrate the veneer of glamour and charm to reconstruct the real man or as close to it as possible" (ix). His purpose in writing the lengthy biography (838 pages inclusive of footnotes and sources) is to analyze the influences on Jack's character and, ultimately, his policies and administration.
   
   Dallek divides the book into four parts: Jack's 'Growing Up' years from childhood to his Navy service; his 'Public Service' as Congressman and Senator from Massachusetts; the question of 'Can a Catholic Become President?' that shadowed his nomination and; and 'The President and
   his struggles with domestic frustrations and foreign policy crises. In Growing Up, Dallek details the merging of two of Boston's prominent families in the marriage of Jack's parents, the growth of Joe and Rose's own, wealth and family and the strains that ensued; Jack's privileged life of summers at Hyannis Port, preparatory school at Choate and college at Harvard, Jack's budding interest in foreign policy, and Jack's heroic rescue of his crew after a Japanese destroyer sank his PT boat. In Public Service, Dallek details Jack's decision to enter politics and the influence of his father and his brother's death on that decision, his reconnection with his younger siblings during his campaigning, and his rise as Congressman and Senator. Dallek also cites Jack's criticism of
   President Eisenhower's defense budget reduction, his response to the French-Indochina crises, and his decision to not vote to condemn Senator Joseph McCarthy, which plagued Jack throughout his political career. In Cana Catholic Become President?, Dallek describes the 1960 nomination and the challenge of balancing the diverse demands of liberals,* Southern senators, and civil rights advocates. He discusses Jack's growing public speaking ability, his physical endurance of the demanding campaign schedule and his artful mastery of televised debates. In The President, Dallek notes high points such as Jack's compelling Inaugural address and high public opinion polls, his formation of the Peace Corps and the Green Berets, his restrained response during the Berlin crisis, his performance during the Cuban Missile crisis, his opposition to nuclear proliferation, and his New Frontier-inspired intent to land a man on the moon. Dallek also notes the failed Bay of Pigs invasion, the tense negotiations with Khrushchev, the troubles in British Guiana, the deepened rift with civil rights advocates from the Freedom Riders incident, and his failure to pass major domestic legislation in his administration.
   
   Many interrelated themes emerge in the first part of the book and are revisited throughout the well-sourced text. One theme is Jack's personal health and his family's tragedies, and the role they had in shaping both his somewhat hedonistic outlook on life and his desire to make his mark
   on the world. Jack suffered the deaths of his older brother, Joe Jr.in World War II, of his beloved older sister Kathleen in a plane accident, and of his premature son, Patrick. His persistent health problems, from failed back surgery (196), to spastic colitis and urinary track infections, to Addison's disease, plagued him constantly. He spent much time in and out of hospitals and on mediation, survived a coma (196) and was twice almost administered last rites (153). His ordeals instilled in him a belief that he was "... slated for an early demise, making him almost manic about packing as much pleasure into his life as he could in the possibly short time remaining to him" (78). Furthermore, his personal realization of how close the world was to nuclear war increased his hedonistic attitude (475). This attitude manifested itself, more negatively, in his womanizing behavior (153) and, more positively, in his drive to become a politician and make an impact on the lives of people (158).
   
   Jack's struggle with identity is a subtle theme that emerges throughout the text. He strived to form his identity in opposition to the identity afforded to him by his famous family. His desire to 'be his own person' emerged from his earliest childhood competitions with his Joe Jr., who was his father's favorite (36), and his failure to achieve his brother's successes in prep-school football and political life (44). Jack chose to go to Princeton rather than follow Joe Jr. to Harvard (41), although he later matriculated at Harvard. Dallek attributes some of Jack's womanizing to his desire to "be successful at something"(46). Jack also spent most of his pre-presidency political life trying to separate himself from his father's conservative, isolationist outlook. For example, Congressman Kennedy supported the Truman Doctrine's aid to Turkey and Greece as a deterrent to Soviet aggression but also as an opposition to his father's public declaration of isolationist policy toward the Soviets (149). Additionally, his perpetual challenge during the Presidential election was to convince liberals that he was not a substitute for his father, who they denounced as "a robber baron and prewar appeaser of Nazi Germany" (232). Jack's slightly irreverent and rebellious personality, manifested in childhood rebellions against his mother (70), disregard of subjects that he was not interested in (37), and the organizing the Muckers club at Choate (39), served him well into his presidency. In assembling his cabinet and advisors, Jack was determined to surround himself with the right men (307) and maintain control of the administration so that he would not be unduly influenced by single interests. He also harbored a skepticism of the military leaders and experts, which was largely confirmed by their role in failed Bay of Pigs invasion (368). A third theme in the book is Jack's contradictory emotional behavior. Jack's controlled and reserved demeanor contrasted with Bobby's rash, outspoken comport, but there was an affinity that came from being "out of the same womb" (Ribicoff in Dallek, 316). Jack's family primarily masked emotion by teasing (166), yet he was very close to his sister Kathleen (153). Despite an obvious affinity for the company of women, he was a distant lover (151). Despite his reserved demeanor, .he could deeply empathize with strangers. He considered himself to be a fiscal conservative but also could 'put himself in the shoes' of blue-collar workers dependent on government assistance (142). He met with ordinary citizens during a seven-week trip through The Middle East and Asia in 1951 and developed a newfound calling to uphold "the obligations of the advantaged to the disadvantaged" (167). He advocated for federally financed housing as a Congressman (144). He was moved by the suffering he saw in West Virginia during his presidential campaign and promised to assist; later, his federal Area Redevelopment Act helped ease unemployment in that state (378). Though assessment of his Civil Rights support is mixed and Dallek believes that his privileged upbringing rendered Jack unable to grasp the reality of racism in America, Jack delivered a "heartfelt appeal in behalf of amoral cause" by asking Congress to support the largest civil rights bill in history (603).
   
   In the preface, Dallek states that his analysis results in "not a sharply negative portrait but a description of someone with virtues and defects that make him seem both exceptional and ordinary" (x). Dallek illuminates Jack's character flaws, such as his resentment of Jackie's success in Paris (400), and his bitterness toward Adlai Stevenson for not supporting his nomination, and he blames Jack's competitive nature for some of the failure of the Vienna meetings with Khrushchev (409). However, Dallek's portrayal errs overwhelmingly to the positive - he seeks to justify Jack's character flaws and to minimize his policy failures. For example, he dismisses Jack's proven womanizing by attributing it to his desire to live life to its fullest because of his health problems (152) and by couching it in the assertion that many other people were engaging in the same behavior (477). Also, Dallek minimizes Jack's culpability in the failed Bay of Pigs invasion by emphasizing the misleading information and false assumptions made by the Central Intelligence Agency and the military chiefs.
   
   Dallek artfully combines old and new sources and, in the process, uncovers new information about the effect that Jack's health had on his administration, his opinion about the military's leadership, and his older brother's death during combat. His contribution to the scholarship on John F. Kennedy is the painstaking comparison of his health records to oral history accounts of his day-to-day presidential schedule. He concludes that Jack made all his political decisions with careful, rational thought and that he was not distracted by his health problems or the medicine he took to cope with the pain (705). Dallek's emphasis on health adds a new dimension to Jack's Naval service and actions during the sinking of his PT Boat by asserting that his heroism was all the more impressive due to his debilitating back and health problems (99).
   
   Ultimately, Dallek praises John F. Kennedy's foreign policy success of preventing nuclear war, his soul-stirring speeches and his visions of a better America.
   
   Recommended reading for anyone interested in American history, foreign policy, Cold War history.

2 comments about My Life and Work - An Autobiography of Henry Ford.

1. Anyone who has read "My Life and Work" will understand exactly what is wrong with our country today. There are three ways to create wealth--grow it, mine it, or make it--and activities like flipping houses or trading carbon credits do not qualify.
   
   Ford developed what is now known as the Toyota production system, and readers will see a very explicit description of just in time manufacturing (and its benefits) in "My Life and Work."
   
   Ford also summarized effective labor relations in one sentence: "It ought to be the employer's ambition, as leader, to pay better wages than any similar line of business, and it ought to be the workman's ambition to make this possible."



2. I'll just say this about Ford. He was absolutely the greatest industrial mind off ALL TIMES.

5 comments about Revolutionary Characters: What Made the Founders Different.

1. The chapters on each of the founding fathers Woods wrote on included a lot of detailed character information in this book. The book provided background information on each person as well as information on their character. It was interesting to read about the contributions these men made that still affect America today such as the banking system, election policies, etc.



2. Read "Revolutionary Characters" in combination with "Founding Brothers" for an excellent duo, and compare and contrast the two in their approaches and content. This is not a history of the revolution or a detailed analysis of our form of government. Wood has done what he claimed - a look at the character of the subjects, how that influenced their work, and how they were a reflection of, or an exception to, their times.
   
   Wood's work combines expansive praise and cold analysis. Each of the founders (Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams, and Madison) is portrayed as a "great man", which of course each deserved, as well as a flawed individual or thinker. The praise and the more negative comments are done with a suitable tone, neither being excessive. For example, Wood describes how Washington was not an intellectual and how that affected his role and strategy, but not in a demeaning way, as Washington obviously contributed greatly in other ways.
   
   To me, the freshest perspective was on Madison, as Wood questions Madison's actual contribution to the Constitution, with an end result that bears little similarity to Madison's intent. Wood also tackles the apparent changes in Madison's thinking about the relationship of the government and the people. In fact, elite thought vs. public opinion is one of Wood's recurring themes.
   
   Hamilton comes across as the most modern of the founders, which is hardly original, so Wood points out some areas where Hamilton may be overrated in claims regarding his vision. Hamilton obviously outshined the others in his ability to turn vision into governmental reality.
   
   Jefferson gets the least positive treatment of the six. Wood recognizes TJ for his brilliance, yet Wood considers Jefferson overrated in American culture, as his vision of the American future was hopelessly impractical and outdated.
   
   Aaron Burr takes his lumps in a succinct assessment that will be familiar to readers of Chernow's Hamilton bio. Wood includes Burr as a counter-example to the positive character of the others, with Burr as a schemer void of known intellectual political thought or vision. No detachment for the good of society for Mr. Burr.
   
   The unexpected chapter on Thomas Paine was a surprising plus, explaining why Paine is not considered a true "founder". Paine was not the gentleman or the politician that his cohorts were, instead being an early modern intellectual and professional writer according to Wood. The chapter also served as a hint of the analytical final chapter, which emphasized the transition from the brilliant gentleman founders debating among themselves to the rise of the general public as part of the political process.
   
   As Wood said in his apt closing sentence, "In the end nothing illustrates better the transforming power of the American Revolution than the way its intellectual and political leaders, that remarkable group of men, contributed to their own demise."
   
   4.5 stars



3. First, this is more of an academic work than a popular one. If you are looking for a collection of engagingly told short bio's of some of the founders, this is not it. This is more of an academic work. It contains analysis and summary of scholarly opinion. For what it intends to be it is nicely done. Due to its nature, I found it less interesting in places, but it was beneficial to see what the current ideas are on these men.
   
   The book is largely a collection of previously published reviews or articles and it shows in places. For one, the choices of whom to include seems odd in places. Why include Thomas Paine and Aaron Burr but neglect Patrick Henry? Sure Paine was a key figure early on but in the end he was not much of a "Founder." Aaron Burr's chief qualities are negative ones as Wood points out. Henry, however, was perhaps the key early voice calling for independence- his resolutions reprinted throughout the colonies defined the issue and galvanized support. In addition to other examples that could be given of his oratory his role as governor of Virginia- the richest and most populous colony- during the war and his efforts in supplying Washington's troops were very significant. He is typically neglected due to his opposition to the Constitution, but this is actually another significant contribution to the shaping of the country since his criticisms helped to produce the Bill of Rights.
   
   In the end, if you want an engaging synopsis of the lives of the Founders, this is not it. If, however, you want one historian's analysis of their life and work this is a fine one. A good supplement on the issue of which Founders are most remembered and why is Daniel Dreisbach's essay "Founders Famous and Forgotten" in The Intercollegiate Review 42 (Fall 2007): 3-12. For just as scholarly but more positive assesment of Washington see Patriot Sage: George Washington and the American Political Tradition (ISI Books, 1999).



4. I read Dr. Wood's work as a graduate student in the 1970's and my daughter had him as a professor at Brown University several years ago. Consequently, I have an elevated sense of respect for the man. Dr. Wood has an extraordinary understanding for the Revolutionary Period. This book is for anyone who wants to peek into the heads of Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Adams, Paine and Burr. I highly recommend this book.



5. Eminent revolutionary era scholar, Gordon Wood, brings clarity to the profound question of why the revolutionary period produced the greatest set of public leaders that this nation has ever seen, and why it will never happen again. The men profiled here were of the Enlightenment where learning, rationality, and social adeptness were ardently pursued, but only by those with sufficient leisure, in other words, by social elites. They were not the multi-generational profligate aristocracy of England, instead basing their social standing on the merit of self-development. But with elite status came the expectation, if not requirement, of serving the public with disinterest (not for personal gain) regardless of any personal impositions. They were the leading intellectuals of the day, but in the context of being social leaders not as adversarial social critics of the modern era. With the exception of Paine and Burr, all of these revolutionary characters, as elite members of society, sought to shape the direction that the fledgling nation would take in a manner consistent their extensive learning and judicious understanding of social forces.
   
   These revolutionary leaders were not "small d" democrats, but were "small r" republicans. They had the notion that society, at least those that mattered, did or could consist of so-called virtuous citizens, public-minded and interested in the social good. It was an optimistic, if not fanciful, view based more on interacting with their fellow elites than any actual dealings with the general public. By the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Madison, Adams, and Hamilton had become disillusioned with the self-interested machinations of the general public; only Jefferson and Paine continued to place faith in the wisdom of the common man. As the author points out, the decade of the 1790s was one of the most highly contentious in our history as the need for a powerful central government to constrain popular sentiments was counterpoised against the self-governing capabilities of virtuous citizens.
   
   All of the men are profiled in terms of their understanding of their social position and their need to project a refined and educated public image, and of their recognition of social forces that were eroding the privileged position of so-called gentlemen and elevating the influence of the often raucous, ill-informed common man. Washington's rectitude and concern with his public image is undoubtedly unmatched in our history. Franklin, though perhaps a manipulator of his public image, is regarded by the author as the most effective diplomat in our nation's history for his efforts in obtaining the help of the French. The chapters on Hamilton, Adams, and Madison are very insightful examinations of the subtle and complex, yet different, political thinking among the founders. The chapter on Jefferson is least satisfactory as he has become the whipping boy among modern historians (not the author particularly) for his lack of progressive thinking in the revolutionary period concerning race and gender issues. On the other hand, Jefferson's democratic utopianism is noted, which has endeared him to many through the ages. Paine, alone, was not among the social elite. His willingness to be forthright in his writings served him well in his advocacy for independence in Common Sense, his pamphlet of 1776, but less so when condemning Christianity in The Age of Reason. Such awkward sentiments among elites were generally confined to private correspondence. Burr, the only true aristocrat among the founders, was condemned by his fellow founders precisely because he refused to serve the public in a disinterested manner, seeking to benefit himself and friends.
   
   As the author shows, the revolutionary period and many of the men he profiled undermined the social world dominated by elite gentlemen. The constant extolling of the virtues of the common man was empowering. The proliferation of newspapers filled with popular sentiments overwhelmed the meager output of elite gentlemen. The Sedition Act of 1798 was a last gasp by social elites to curtail mass public opinion. Even Jefferson, became disheartened by the passing of control by cultured elites perhaps best exemplified by the election of Andrew Jackson.
   
   The author is most assuredly correct to assert that a disinterested, cultured, and knowledgeable elite will never again rise to the top of political circles in the US. In lieu of that, the American political system has gravitated to electing highly self- and class-interested, mostly business, elites, of no particular refinement or knowledge, to our most important political offices. The contrast with the founders profiled in this book could not be greater.

5 comments about Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full.

1. This was a great read. I was thrilled to discover that Conrad wrote a fair and even-handed biography of the late President. (I enjoyed Nixon's memoirs, too, so lengthy tomes aren't a problem for me, as they might be for a few of the reviewers.) I liked the book's emphasis on Nixon's persistence and ability to remain on the political scene for so many years, despite media prejudice and pumped-up mobbings. Nixon had to perform on one of the most volatile stages of American history, and this book made it clear that he managed to stay on it, decade after decade.



2. Richard Nixon was one of the most influential man in the world, and also someone who was misunderstood



3. Conrad Black is not a typical historian or biographer. Indeed his approach and style are singular. Unlike "professional" historians and idelogues like Robert Dallek, Black does not have an ideological axe to grind. Although a professed conservative, Black's biography of FDR is the best I've read, utterly balanced in its approach to the man who so divided the nation before he saved the world from the darkness of fascism.
   
   At 1,059 pages, the book is too long. Yet, if I were editing it, I would be hard-pressed to figure out what to cut from the manuscript. Even so, only the dedicated student will make it all the way through or not skim in some places.
   
   Black does not flatter his subject. He sees Nixon as a man of some great strengths and some equally great weaknesses. Thirty-some years later, in fact, and reminded by Black's book, i56 is still mystifying that Nixon was so tone-deaf in his handling of the Watergate "scandal". Black makes a solid case that Watergate was a tempest in a teapot that, with the aid of left-wing journalists, venal Democrat politicians and intellectuals and pundits, was turned into a coup against a sitting President. Certainly nothing that Nixon did was any worse than what was done in the name of national security or just plain politics by Roosevet, Kennedy and Johnson. But Nixon had been hated by the left-wing for his anti-Communism since he first appeared on the political scene.
   
   Critical phrases such as "Nixon's duplicity acheived a new depth . . . " mark Black's narrative, leaving no doubt that Black sees all sides of Nixon.
   
   Nixon was a President of great historical significance. The fact that he was so endlessly attacked by the left-wing is proof, in a way, of his power. He also made mistakes, such as imposing price controls. He never gave up, though, successfully rehabilitating his image before his death.
   
   As he did with Roosevelt, Black has written a superb biography of another controversial, immensely talented, vastly misunderstood American President. Well worth reading, but the length of the book is daunting.
   
   Jerry



4. The moment I finished reading this book, the image of the late USA President came to me when he left office and waved to the crowd his last Good-bye. Nixon looked hesitant and undecided like a man relieved of an overwhelming burden. His Good-bye expressions were made indicating how far he had worn out of his Office; his eyes refused to meet the camera.
   Perhaps what is quite revealing is that Nixon policies and behaviors were formulated to keep pace with `Détente `. There has been a wave of publicity unparalleled in contemporary American foreign policies relating to the appointment of Henry Kissinger in September 1973. Never before has a President and a Secretary of State had such interest by Newsmen and Biographers alike. Both names were associated with secret channels notably in Vietnam, Arab/Israeli conflict, and of course - Detente. I can safely say that Nixon, in particular, was less a friend of the media until Watergate blew its hurdles in the face of the world and the legend `'impeachment" was then born. What followed invoked a cauldron of aggressive and sympathetic editorials. Hostile comments were destructive in character and reflected envy.
   I am convinced these 1000+ pages transpire feelings of persecution centered more upon the Office and less upon the Person whom many have loudly hated and secretly admired.
   Mr. Conrad Black could picture the late President of the United States of America at his best moments slouched back in his chair, his long legs stretched out above the table in the deceptively thoughtful pose caricaturists had made famous in their media.



5. I worked to help Richard Nixon get re-elected in 1972 because I thought he was a great president. I was a huge supporter of Nixon. Even up to the night he resigned, I thought he was getting railroaded. I was 23 at the time, but I'm a lot older now, and I see things more clearly, honestly, and objectively. That's one thing this book does not do--look at Nixon's life clearly, honestly, and objectively.
   
   I enjoyed the first half of the book, as I thought it was about time someone gave Richard Nixon a break and be truthful and fair to him. The writer seemed to be doing that, and although I was glad he was giving Nixon a lot of credit and understanding for the first half of his life, as the book continued I began questioning the author's use of personal comments and judgments as becoming less about history and more about punditry. By the time the book reached the frenetic beginnings of Nixon's second term, it had stopped being a historical narrative and became instead a very partisan editorial on Nixon's behalf. The author took on the role of a Nixon apologist. (One can understand why the conservative reviewers have praised it so much.) I am a student of Watergate; I've read dozens of books and articles, and watched countless interviews about it and its participants. I quickly came to realize that Black left out a lot of unflattering Nixon actions, glossed over others, minimized Nixon's criminal behavior, and routinely re-wrote historical facts. Black described those people who disagreed with and were willing to testify against Nixon, and those public servants who acted with honor and integrity, as "rats," "weasels," "turncoats," and "liars" over and over again. I can't imagine T.H. White, Edmund Morris, William Manchester, Dumas Malone, Stephen E. Ambrose, or David McCullough injecting such unprofessional personal indignities in one of their wonderful--and objective--biographies. As the book progressed, Black's writing style became more reminiscent of Kitty Kelly's gossipy tomes about Frank Sinatra and the Royal Family than of a professional historian writing what could have been the seminal book on Nixon.
   
   Black repeatedly stated some transgression of Nixon's only to point out that other presidents were worse in this particular violation of law or lapse of ethical behavior. Black sounds very much like a 21st century authoritarian when he routinely, even excessively stated "it's okay if Nixon did it because the other guys did it worse." Black regularly portrayed FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and even Nixon's mentor, Eisenhower as having less integrity than Nixon. It didn't work when Nixon tried to do that 35 years ago, and it didn't work in the book either.
   
   "Richard M. Nixon, a Life in Full" hardly qualifies as an objective or truly scholarly biography although it could have been. I could have overlooked the occasional glossing over of and bending of the truth as poor reporting, but Black was blatant in his omissions and measurably flawed in his translations of events. By the time the book came to an end, I realized that this was a Nixon I didn't know, and I know an lot about Richard Nixon--much of it good, and some of it not so good. I should have read about the author's credentials before I read the book instead of during the middle of the reading when I began to suspect that it was more than just a biography. Once I realized Conrad Black was connected to the Nixon Library, I understood that this book was just a re-writing of history: a deconstruction of the facts and an attempt to paint a different picture of an undoubtedly important but flawed life.)
   
   Black is a talented writer and a relatively thorough researcher. What he is not is a praiseworthy historian. I would not say don't read this book, but I would say be aware you are not getting an objective look at an interesting life and otherwise effective president. I did enjoy the book to some measure because it was exciting to relive that period in history, but I did get frustrated reading accounts of situations that I knew were just not true. I don't mean to sound crass, but reading this book is like reading a book about L. Ron Hubbard that was written by one of his followers, and then expecting it to be an objective look at Scientology. In spite of Black's efforts, "Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full" because of its overt lack of objectivity, will be soon relegated to the bottom shelf of dusty libraries rather than be viewed as an important addition to the Nixon canon of political thought.
   ---------------------
   LATE ADDITION: The following was taken from a conservative publication's Conrad Black bio page: "Conrad Black, an erstwhile media mogul, closely connected to rightist political factions in the United States, was convicted in July 2007 for defrauding shareholders of his Hollinger International newspaper empire out of millions of dollars. He was sentenced to 6.5 years in prison in December 2007 for his conviction on three counts of fraud and one count of obstruction of justice (Associated Press, December 10, 2007).
   ---------------------
   I guess that speaks to Mr. Black's objectivity better than I can. It's all the more reason to be suspicious of the content of the Nixon book. After all, with his conviction for obstruction of justice he has much in common with the Nixon White House.