Book Description

In this fascinating book of presidential profiles, you will meet the 42 men who have shaped the Presidency-and the course of our country. From George Washington to George W. Bush, here are the stories of their trials and triumphs, their ambitions and achievements. ... Read more

Reviews (2)

Excellent book
This is an excellent book. It is great for people beginning to learn about American politics. It's a great source for quick handy reminders. It's a great gift. ( I bought seven copies for that reason). This would be a great book for teachers to have their high school students study.
While it is not possible to have one book completely cover all the Presidents, this single volumn outlines many important events.
There is an index in the back for quick searches.
Political views?
I have heard people claim this book is written with a Republican slant, and other claim it's written with a Democratic slant!
Using the above paragraph, one would have to think it was pretty fairly written.
I have went back to this book more often, during the election season, to brief my memory.

As a single volumn book; I repeat, this is an excellent book.

Scholarly accuracy and appealing informality
U.S. history, the government, and personae of American Presidents is a fascinating subject. While many scholarly work in the market have done in-depth investigation to profile American presidents, this title by David C Whitney and Robin Vaughn Whitney in its 9th edition from Reader's Digest is classically written and readily accessible to the general audience. Its objectivity and candor serves well as a gentle and educational introduction, an abridged version, on the development of American Presidents in relation to the unfolding drama of U.S. history.

The perennial best-seller, an enjoyable reading, excels in its elegance and clarity in comparison to many (auto)biographies of modern day C(orporate)EO/leadership titles. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Why did Pulitzer-winning Theodore Roosevelt biographer Edmund Morris controversially choose to write his authorized biography of Ronald Reagan in the form of a historical novel? There's a clue in a quote the book attributes to Jane Wyman, Reagan's first wife. As Ronnie speechified about the Red Menace at a 1940s Hollywood party, Wyman allegedly whispered to a friend, "I'm so bored with him, I'll either kill him or kill myself." This anecdote, if true, is more revealing than Nancy Reagan's charge in the book that Jane had attempted suicide to get Ronnie to marry her in the first place. Jane was no intellectual--Morris cracks that "If Jane had ever heard of Finland, she probably thought it was an aquarium"--but he found to his horror, after years of research, that he felt much the same as Wyman. Reagan was as boring as a box of rocks, as elusive as a ghost.

Decades before Alzheimer's clouded Reagan's mind, he showed a terrifying lack of human presence. "I was real proud when Dad came to my high school commencement," reports his son, Michael Reagan. After posing for photos with Michael and his classmates, the future president came up to him, looked right in his eyes, and said, "Hi, my name's Ronald Reagan. What's yours?" Poor Michael replied, "Dad, it's me. Your son. Mike."

Despite deep research and unprecedented access--no previous biography has ever been authorized by a sitting president--Morris could get no closer to Reagan's elusive soul than Reagan's own kids could. So Morris decided to dramatize Reagan's life with several invented characters--including a fictionalized version of himself and an imaginary gossip columnist who makes wicked comments on Reagan's career. This is one weird tactic, forcing the reader constantly to consult the footnotes at the back of the book to sort things out, and Morris makes it tougher by presenting his invented characters as real, even in the footnotes.

Ultimately, the hubbub over Morris's odd method is beside the point. His speculative entry into Reagan's life and mind is plausible, dramatic, literary, and lit by dazzling flashes of insight. The narrator watches the young Reagan as a lifeguard (years before the real Morris was born):

One tunnels along in a shroud of silvery bubbles, insulated from any sight or sound.... Others may swim alongside for a while, but their individuality tends to refract away, through the bubbles and the blur. Often I have marveled at Reagan's cool, unhurried progress through crises of politics and personnel, and thought to myself, He sees the world as a swimmer sees it.

We cannot verify Morris's notion that Reagan probably approved the illegal Iran-Contra funding without having a clue it was illegal, or that the "Star Wars" program sprang from his love of Edgar Rice Burroughs's first novel, A Princess of Mars, which featured glass-domed cities. But however bizarre and ignorant his thoughts were, however cold his heart, Morris believes, the guy did crush the Evil Empire and achieve greatness. Morris achieves a kind of greatness, too, but one wishes he had written a more straightforward dramatization of history. --Tim Appelo ... Read more

Reviews (279)

Pathetic as History....Poor as Biography!
Morris' literary technique is particularly maddening in the first half of the book (the years when Morris wasn't around and pretends he and other fictional characters were). Much of the information and characterization he intends to convey through this literary device could have been conveyed through the more traditional biographical narrative. In other areas his style is choppy and many ideas are left undeveloped. Events are often left hanging with no conclusion or evaluation. One would expect much better from a historian....Morris is really a disappointment. There is virtually no mention of Reagan's time as governor in California or his network of friends in high places from his California past. The coverage of Reagan's management (or lack of) and infighting within his presidential administration is almost non-existent. There are plenty of memoirs out there from people who worked with Reagan in Washington and Morris has no excuse for this lack of detail. For much keener insights, one should go to works by George Shultz or Frances Fitgerald's "Way Out There in the Blue."

The strength of the book is the portrayal of some of Reagan's personality quirks during the presidential years, the period when Morris was present to witness many of the president's actions and his interactions with those around him. A great deal of first hand information is presented that presents a rather frightening picture at times. Mr. Morris portrays Ronald Reagan with serious flaws, but in the end, admires him...although he has trouble convincing the reader exactly why.

I cannot, in all honesty, say that this book is not worth a try, but it is a big disappointment and clearly much better biographies will be forthcoming.

Flawed approach, but engrossing reading
In the interest of full disclosure, let me say up front that I was a Reagan supporter from his bid against Gerald Ford in 1976 through his presidency. Unlike many of my fellow Reaganites, however, I basically liked this book -- with a caveat.

Edmund Morris' biography of Ronald Reagan is a mixed bag. First, to the controversial "device" employs: His use of fictional characters in a biography. Morris uses these characters (primarily a fictionalized, 30-year older version himself, and a fictional lifelong friend, Paul Rae) to tell Reagan's story from a "we-were-there" perspective. This "device" is used extensively in the narrative of Reagan's childhood through his waning days as a Hollywood heavyweight, as we see the characters coming in peripheral and, occasionally, direct contact with "Dutch." Morris and his publishers aruge that htis is a bold experiment in biographical writing. Not really. It's historical fiction with footnotes.

And footnotes abound. Fully 200 pages of extensive notes (many culled from the author's abundant interviews with Reagan during his presidency and afterward) add considerable heft to the 600+ pages of narrative. Thankfully, the literary "device" mentioned above is not extended to Reagan. Every word he utters in "Dutch" is documented.

Morris' writing is superb. His style in "Dutch" reminded me somewhat of Don DeLilo (see "Libra" and "Underground"), making "Dutch" an engrossing read. In Morris' book, you see not only the historical Reagan, but to the extent it can be done in black and white, you "feel" Dutch in all his complexities, shades and hues.

The bottom line is, Morris did not need to employ fictional devices to tell Ronald Reagan's story. The fictional characters were sometimes annoying and often distracting. But putting them aside, you have a vibrant and sometimes critical portrait of a towering personality.

A disgrace, and a waste: A terrible book, great president
This book is unbelievably bad. The truly sad thing, however, is that Morris had a unique access to Reagan just before he became seriously ill. That is a missed opportunity that will never be repeated. What is stunning is the insistence of the writer that he is more imortant than the subject, and his weird mix of fiction, biography and anecdote. It flops completely - I have perhaps never felt this way about a book before. There are a few reviews here that talk about the book being honest - in fact, it is profoundly dishonest in its mix of truth and lies.

Ronald Reagan was a larger-than-life president who transformed the world. His economic and plitical and dilpomatic legacy lives on. His integrity and vision honesty and honor inspired millions. This book might have captured some of that - or at least tried. Instead, the author creates a book that is not even non-fiction. A disgrace.

A Man Who Likes the Sound of His Own Voice
I was challenged by a friend of mine, that if I really appreciated Ronald Reagan, I would have to prove it by wading through what is arguably the worst book on Reagan. I have to say that he was right. I am about half-way through, and I doubt that I'll be able to finish. It's like being cornered by the most boring person at a party, who likes the sound of his own voice--regardless of whether he is saying anything interesting or not. The way that he has hijacked a biography on Reagan, and placed his own history like a leach on the primary story, leaves me gasping for air. This is only surpassed by his repetitive and abusive use of foreign clichés, as if he was looking down his nose at the poor, illiterate peasant who has scraped together enough money to pay homage to Lord Morris by purchasing his magnificent tome. Save your money, and read a good biography on Reagan instead. Even for free, it's not worth the price.

Interesting, worthwhile, a elegant failure worth reading.
Edmund Morris's book is an unusual book. In short, I found it interesting, worthwhile and well documented.

Mr. Morris is apparently the first biographer writer ever to be assigned the task of writing about a sitting President in American history with the approval and access to the POTUS himself while in office.

First, my criticisms: Mr. Morris, despite unprecedented access to POTUS Reagan, was unable to get inside the man. Mr. Reagan was not an introspective person apparently. Although he was a gifted writer, Reagan was not possessed by great philosophical fervent. Simply, he believed what he believed. And, let's face it, his own children and advisers never go to know the entire men either!!! Thus, Mr. Morris was left with the choice of inserting fictional characters into the book as a sort of doppelganger device to move the narrative along. These characters observe Reagan during his college days, and go on through his presidency. An interesting choice, to say the least.

Does this device work? To a certain extent, yes. The device allows Morris to explain Reagan in an interesting manner. However, it becomes irritating because as fictional character, Morris must breathe life into people, whether based on real life people (for example Morris's own relatives) or not. At first, it is unintelligible to understand what is occurring. I asked myself many times whether Morris had lost his mind. By 150 pages into the book, I began to think Morris was some kind of genius. After all the insertion of the characters allows Morris to explore themes occurring in America that Reagan was either immune from, or unable to explain himself. Also, it allows Morris to explain things about Reagan that may not have worked in a conventional biography. For example, Morris uses people to explore the counter-establishment movement of the 1960's, the years of Reagan in Hollywood, and than Morris discusses himself during Reagan's presidency itself, and his reactions to some the key moments. While there is a correct viewpoint to arguing that Morris violates the wall of separation between scribe and subject, Morris was there, he saw these events and can react to them as an actor in the vast drama.

Morris also uses mock film scripts to play out scenes. A writer and another character mock Reagan in Hollywood and his films. It is a worthwhile device that gets muddled at times, irrelevant at other moments, and altogether weird at further moments.

Another criticism is how the book seems to gloss over periods of Reagan's life. Most of the book is about how Reagan came to the presidency itself, not the events of his presidency in a blow-by-blow account. This is both irritating and interesting, as Morris apparently seems to hint that Reagan the president was formed by his previous experience, and that the best clues about the man are his formative years, not the moments we all associate with Reagan, such as the Bitburg 'fiasco,' Normandy - 'The Boys of Pont du Hoc,' the Soviet summits, and the like.

To me the worst part of this book is the intellectual tripe Morris uses. As a writer myself, I have learned that the quickest way to turn off an audience is to insult them, talk above them, and to utilize foreign languages. Here Morris constantly uses French that is beyond my comprehension. I think Morris has a point to this, perhaps, but his use of the device is profoundly aggravating!

Also, I will say that Morris does use language that many readers of the book will find offensive considering that Reagan himself rarely used profanity.

The positive: The book is very well documented. The footnotes are very well-done. Morris is an excellent writer (who came the Reagan's attention for Morris' Pulitzer Prize winning biography of T. Roosevelt). After about a hundred pages, I found myself transfixed by this book. Reagan comes across as a greater man and leader than I had previously thought. Unfortunately, I think many critics of the book haven't read it at all.

Morris' Reagan is a great man.. Morris clearly respects Reagan. In fact, I think the point about the use of the fictional characters (who are always seeming to mock Reagan) is to make the point that intellectuals could never understand Reagan and his success in connecting with the American people. He mocks Reagan to make the point (in my opinion) not that Reagan was a 'simpleton,' and a non-intellectual, but a great man and an overwhelmingly successful POTUS. Morris seems to make the point that the intellectual sneering about Reagan contradict what Reagan actually accomplished in most aspects of his life.

Morris does not demean POTUS Reagan, but rather through the use of his device, makes Reagan more interesting and human. I understand Reagan's reasons for going to Bitburg, with its small SS troop plots, the reason Reagan believed so fervently that he witnessed the horrible uncovering of the Nazi war crimes in the concentration camps, and the impact of Reagan's belief system as devolved from his early religious education. (whether SDI or the 'shining city on the hill.') Morris has some keen insights here. I also liked the linking of Reagan the lifeguard on the Rock River (77 rescues, thank you) and President Reagan the 'Cold War warrior.'

Don't look here for the definitive biography of Ronald Reagan. It isn't here. However, this is a worthwhile and important book.

I think some of the other 'critics' here are motivated by blind worship of an undoubtedly important and great man and refuse to see flaws of the man or the worth of this book. Others, simply don't understand Morris' motivation for inserting fictional elements into this book as a literary device. While unsettling, it has a certain point.

Read the book with a critical eye, accept the flaws and admire what Morris has wrought: an elegant failure. Not all failure is absolute; here it is a failure of aspiration, not of scholarship. ... Read more

Book Description

Generations of Americans have known Thomas Jefferson as one of our unambiguously great presidents, a man of honor and optimism unencumbered by pettiness and spite; and so they have known Aaron Burr, his greatest adversary, as a traitorous would-be destroyer of that distinguished legacy. In Jefferson's Vendetta, Joseph Wheelan examines one of the eminent political rivalries in our history, set against the backdrop of postcolonial Virginia, and discovers a truth vastly different from what is taught in high schools and universities. Here is Burr, the flawed but gifted politician who made powerful enemies because his charm and skill rivaled Jefferson's own, and who trusted the fairness of American democracy too deeply to rebut the wild criticisms aimed at him by slanderers in the U.S. government. Supreme Court chief justice John Marshall is also presented, who knew that he and his weakened federal judiciary could be redeemed by a few shrewdly considered words-or condemned by miscalculated ones-during America's first "trial of the century." Lastly, in vivid detail, is Jefferson, whose obsessive crusade to destroy Burr was undone by one mammoth but historically overlooked miscalculation. Eight pages of illustrations are featured in this detailed account of an historic reversal of roles. ... Read more

Reviews (4)

Vendetta
A lively account of a notable trial in U.S. history. Mr. Wheelan writes like a reporter (which he has been) more than a more measured historian. Here President Jefferson is the bad guy with Chief Justice Marshall saving the day. Burr is presented as a mis-understood rogue with political enemies in high places. I do not accept the author's version of the first presidential election of Jefferson, which gives an exceedingly favorable bent to Burr's actions. Burr also killed Hamilton, which does not cause the author much pause.

In my mind, John Marshall is our country's greatest jurist. This book does help in showing an important example of his fine work.

No Surprise, Modern Bio-Slander
Joseph Wheelan's "Jefferson's Vendetta" is a typical modern Bio-Slander hit piece. Wheelan, like most American historians of our bizaare conservative/big government era, continually roll out hit pieces on Jefferson. Jefferson is painted as "vindictive", an "opportunist", and as the title relates with a "vendetta".

If anyone was an opportunist it was Aaron Burr, a man of no real principles accept the aquisition of power. Burr wanted his empire in the west and Mexico and conspired with the British government for aid. It is typical of today's history to exault a scoundrel like Burr or a rabid Federalist like Marshall instead of a man like Jefferson. Jefferson was not a flawless man, as no man that has existed has ever been. He was, however, a very principled and devout defender and believer in republcian government. The American History "profession" is one of the most morally bankrupt and biased "professions" of our era. Most are ardent leftists, or right wing "conservatives". The leftists hate Jefferson and his ideals, which also were ideals of the American Revolution: sovereignty of the people, individual liberty, limited government, and a written constitution. So called "conservatives" dislike Jefferson because they are normally enemies of progress, human rights, and liberty, exaulting the state over all else. An Edmund Burke/ Russell Kirk ideal. Leftists also exault the state in their desire to enforce "equality", "civil rights", and "fairness". Mr. Wheelan is a typical "court historian" if you may. Jefferson must be brought down in the modern era of big government, high taxes and huge public debt, things he vehemently opposed.

The elevation of Burr, a man who the Federalist Alexander Hamilton called a "Cataline" and an" embryo Caesar" is sign of the future slander of not only Jefferson, but other pro-liberty founders.

In our conservative age look at the bios coming out: Alexander Hamiltion, John Jay, George Washington, all Federalists. as with Hamilton and Jay "revisionist" biographies, meaning hiding their toryism and anti-liberty ideals. Burr neither a Federalist or republican, but a opportunist and scoundral, is treated well by Mr. Wheelan, the court historian.

Overall another bio-slander hit piece on Jefferson.

Story of Burr, Jefferson, Marshall and a High Ranking Spy
This is a highly readable book on Jefferson and his fascinating nemesis Aaron Burr. Also included, the establishment of John Marshall and the Supreme Court and the villainous double-dealing General of the Army and mystery figure General James Wilkinson.Burr is the Revolutionary hero, brilliant lawyer, lady's man and political genius who virtually gave the election to Jefferson by bringing in New York as a Republican state. But in the 1800 election, President and Vice President candidates were not on a single combined ballot and Jefferson and Burr, both on the republican ticket as President and vice Presidential candidates respectively, end up with the same number of votes. The legislature eventually breaks the tie after extraneous wheeling and dealing on Jefferson's part, which also starts Jefferson's determination to ruin Burr's political career. Burr, already savaged by Hamilton his former law partner and associate when both were Federalists, now is ruined by Jefferson allowing him little of the patronage due him as Vice President.Even after the election, both Jefferson and Hamilton undermine Burr's political career. Burr's killing of Hamilton in a justified duel seals the alienation of the once meteor like political career of Burr.Wheelan writes a fascinating account that is sympathetic toward Burr who now moves west in a historically confusing circumstance to either separate the western U.S. from the east or invade part of the Spanish held territories or he may have intended just to settle on his large property in Louisiana until an opportunity arose. With his fortunes dashed in the east, Burr associated with General of the Army James Wilkinson who was later to be revealed as a Spanish agent on Spain's payroll for decades. As the author points out, Burr had some grand scheme associated with Wilkinson perhaps to initiate a filibuster and take over Florida or Texas from the Spanish. Wilkinson is the key as the plan leaks out, he turns on Burr and his 30 associates and accuses him of treason along with Jefferson and Wilkinson may he have even tried to assassinate Burr to protect himself. The author tells details the trial as a very entertaining factual story as John Marshall the Supreme Court justice presides and the greatest lawyers of that time prosecute Burr and defend him. Supporters for Burr include Andrew Jackson while Jefferson personally supports the prosecutor. The trial reveals something of Wilkinson as a scoundrel and he is one of the most fascinating individuals detailed in the book and history. The author reveals evidence of Wilkinson's role as an agent for Spain through documentation obtained years after Jefferson's death but Jefferson strangely supports Wilkinson even though evidence of Wilkinson's complicity appears apparent. Burr comes across as a sympathetic character that may naively have gotten involved in the scheme that was not as dark as portrayed but even that extent is still confusing. A filibuster to take over foreign land was not too unusual at that time. George Rodgers Clark tried it earlier and was not banned a traitor. The Alien and Sedition Act, the rise of the Supreme Court under Marshall and Jefferson's challenge to the court are all critical and fascinating side stories.Had Jefferson not ruined Burr, it seems unlikely Burr would he had gone west in a desperate plan. The one clear hero is Marshall who follows the letter of the constitution making the Supreme Court an equal to the other two branches of government. Jefferson's desire to limit the Supreme Court, destroy Burr and to maintain his Virginia dynasty of Madison and Monroe does seem to indicate, "Power corrupts".A very interesting book encouraging the reader to read more on each personality.

Jefferson, Burr,and John Marshall--What a Line-up
This is a very solid account of the Burr treason trial engineered by Jefferson and presided over by John Marshall.The trial established important precedents regarding executive privilege and the meaning of treason under the Constitution.It also allowed both Marshall and Burr to tweak Jefferson's nose and cause him no end of embarrassment. The book does a good workmanlike job in describing the purported "conspiracy," the conduct of the trial, and the political overtones of the episode.It is very effective in explaining some fundamental legal concepts in layperson's language.While there are many books on the trial, this volume is a fairly concise and well written introduction to this important episode in our legal history. ... Read more

Reviews (28)

Founding Father
It is unfortunate that Washington has been reduced to an unsmiling portrait on a one dollar bill, the story that he had wooden teeth, and a fable about him fessing up to chopping down a cherry tree. Here was THE founding father of our country. In an era of great patriots: Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Henry, they chose him to be their leader. It is not unreasonable to state that if it were not for Washington there would be no United States today. Brookhiser successfully examines Washington the icon and gives us insight into Washington the man. Washington's accomplishments are staggering to consider. He had the sagacity to defeat the most powerful military force in his time AND launched a new nation that would endure throughout the ages. This book should be read by every American. In a sense he is a father to us all. I wish the book was larger in scope.

Must Read
Yes, this book should be read by every American, and it is a sad
reminder of the poor state of our education in these modern times.

As the author points out, George Washington was a far greater
man, and a tremendously more important aid to our founding, than
he is currently given credit for. Brookhiser does a very nice
job of painting a vivid, if abbreviated, portrait of the most
solid figure during our early years as a new Republic. We have
forgotten that Washington's mere presence at events of those days lent a strength and solidarity that we can't quite fathom.

No one in our memory has been able to grasp our minds and emotions in the manner Washington did during our Revolution
and during his 2 terms as the first U.S. President.

Everyone should read how his presence on the battlefield affected the Colonial soldiers in their performance under
fire and how he could rally the troops and inspire them.
Even as the first political parties were being formed, and

animosity was rearing its head, and personal rancor was making
its first appearances in our political history, Washington could, by either physical presence or word, bring everyone
together.

No one else could have brought together Adams, Jefferson and Hamilton to make compromises and get agreements on matters of
national interest.

His influence was so great during those times, it is now hard to
believe any one man could have been so influencial; plus, Washington usually made his presence known in the most quiet ways, and he influenced decisions while keeping his mouth shut
at the same time.

How could someone be in politics and pull that off?

No one but Washington could have done it, and we, as a people,
have forgotten how necessary he was to the success of our Revolution and our new form of representative government.

And, as Brookhiser points out, some of the greatest service he
did to the history of our country was to withdraw from his
positions of power and leadership. When the Revolution was over, and Washington was a national hero and virtually worshipped by all, he could have had any position, but he went to Congress and resigned his commission as Commander-in-Chief,
saying simply that the job he had undertaken was completed.
And he returned to Mount Vernon. Later, after being drawn again
into public service, with public and political adulation unceasing, he completed his 2nd term as President, and he announced in advance that he would be leaving office and returning to his home.

By that time, 2 political parties had come into existence, but
the leaders of both parties acknowledged that Washington, who
had remained aloof from both parties, could have been elected to
a 3rd term if he had any interest. But Washington thought 2 terms was enough for anyone and that a proper republic should have changes in leadership on a regular basis.

Brookhiser has a very readable book, and the story moves along
smoothly, and he retains our interest throughout.

The only hesitation possible in reading this book is the author's last section, where he explores the concept of "fatherhood," and he delves into some psychology that isn't
founded on fact here. He keeps it interesting, but he skews
away a bit from the historical facts about the Father of our Country.

An A-1 read for anyone with any interest whatsoever in the beginnings of our country.

Adding to the legend
In the overall history of the beginnings of the United States, George Washington looms larger than any other participant. The number of books about him are proof of that, if nothing else is. He has been biographied, eulogized, characterized, historied, and fictionalized. And in today's politically correct world, he has even been demonized. Yet everyone who has written about him has had to admit that for good or ill, we would not have the country we know without him.

In Founding Father, Richard Brookhiser, examines why and when Washington became known as the father of our country. He divides his study into three major categories: Career, Character, Founding Father. A fourth category, Death, brings the examination to a close.

More than most of the Founders, our first President was a self-made man. His formal education was limited, although his experience was extensive, beginning as a teenager in a surveying party in the western lands. He shaped his own character by following rules of behavior which he thought appropriate to a man in his position. Not without faults, such as a fiery temper and being a slaveowner, he strove all of his life to be the best man he could be.

Brookhiser describes how Washington worked to be better, and worried about things he could not completely control. He risked everything to free the U.S. from the British. Afterwards, when he would have enjoyed life at Mt. Vernon, he answered the call to serve his country once more as its first president. To the world at large, both in his own time and down through the centuries to today, the most important contribution he made was when he stepped down and went home after his second term.

This is a valuable addition to our knowledge of the man some have called "the indispensable man" in early American history. Brookhiser helps the reader get past the portraits, the dollar bill, and enigma, and to better understand the man behind them all.

Readers who enjoy this book, might also enjoy Richard Norton Smith's "Patriarch," James Thomas Flexner's "Washignton: The Indispensable Man," and for fiction, Howard Fast's "The Crossing."

Thumbs Up!
Richard Brookhiser introduces a new kind of look at George Washington, whose legacy has been all but forgotten in today's society. Citizens today fail to realize the full scope of just how great this man was and the admiration he and his legacy received, not just in early America, but throughout the world. Even King George III said upon Washington's retirement as Commander in Chief placed him "in a light the most distinguished of any man living" and that he was "the greatest character of the age."

There have been countless volumes written on the man, and his tremendous legacy provides room for countless more volumes. That said, this is not the book for someone with limited (public school system) education on Washington. Before picking up this book, you would want to read something else, such as Rasmussen and Tilton's George Washington: The Man Behind the Myths, Washington Irving's George Washington: A Biography, or even the great historical fiction by Jeffrey Shaara, The Glorious Cause, part 2 of his series on the Revolutionary War. Not that someone first learning about George Washington wouldn't enjoy this book, but it may a bit 'deep' for the beginner and would be enjoyed more with a good background understanding of the subject.

Brookhiser begins with Washington the General during the war, then moves to the drafting of the Constitution and finally, on to his role as President. The second half of the book is dedicated to the character of George Washington. Brookhiser gives good insight into how a man who never fathered children of his own could go on to be such a successful and admired father of a nation.

Brookhiser gives the reader a brief look at Washington's Christianity, his proclivity of viewing life as a theatre play, and his establishment of a standard of how things are conducted in our nation's capital. For instance, how Washington refused to turn over to the House, sensitive information regarding Jay's Treaty. The book focuses a good bit as well on Washington's Farewell Address.

Overall, this is an enjoyable read for anyone with a sound knowledge of the father of our country. You will surely find a few other books to add to your reading list in the extensive bibliography. Like all of Brookhiser's books, I give this one a thumbs up.

A short volume on our greatest citizen
A short telling of the life of George Washington. Brookhiser's writing is difficult to find an audience. He writes short biographies that gloss over and mention items that are not readily understood by those new to the subject. At the same time, those who are knowledgeable on the subject will find the books lacking detail and not enjoy the book as well. This book on George Washington is no exception. The book is well written, but difficult to read because of the information that is packed into this 200+ page volume. One must pay excruciating detail to the book to not miss anything. Not until reading Flexner's "George Washington-The Indispensable Man", did I feel I understood enough about our first President. This book is a good short primer for those not really interested in in-depth study. ... Read more

Reviews (2)

The Greatest President of the 20th Century
Frankiln Roosevelt is most often thought of as the President that led the United States most of the way through World War II. In this book, Alsop takes a different approach to capturing FDR's life. While Alsop sees his book as a memoir of his interactions with FDR, it rarely comes off that way. The fact that it feels so much like a biography makes Alsop's commentary annoying at times.

Many of the pictures in the book are treasures that are only in the possession of the Roosevelt family. That in itself, makes this book worth the price. Many of this photos show how physically fragile the president was near the end of his life. Many of the stories in this book are ommitted from history books, but are certainly worth knowing. One example is the story of Roosevelt trying to add most justices to the Supreme Court in order to get them to vote to his liking.

My one problem with the book is its concise nature. Based on the small number of pages, much of FDR's life is not documented. Alsop arrogantly negelcts some facts, such as the onset of FDR's polio, because he believes they are common knowledge. However, the format and photographs compensate for this omission.

Well produced photo/reference book
A beautifully produced (and large size) history/reference of FDR. It gives a solid general overview of his life and career, but the best feature has to be the large photos throughout (be sure to consider getting the more sturdy hardbound edition)... ... Read more

Publisher

Before his fiftieth birthday Teddy Roosevelt had served as a state legislator, under-secretary of the Navy, police commissioner, Army colonel, governor of New York, vice president and then President of the United States. Cattle rancher, biologist, athlete, reporter, editor and writer of nearly fifty books, he was a devoted family man who raised five children and enjoyed a life-long romance with his wife. He stands out as one of the greatest leaders in the history of this nation because he used his accomplishments and gifts for the good of his fellow men. This book gives the reader a glimpse of the character that made Theodore RooseveltÕs uncommon heroism possible. ... Read more

Reviews (10)

A mixed review
In some ways, this is a very good book. It does a great job of bringing to light the many virtues of a most interesting and complex man. It sorts out the various aspects of Roosevelt's life and personality very nicely and does so in an engaging manner. TR was a fascinating man, and I really enjoyed learning more about him. But "Carry a Big Stick" also has some serious problems. For one thing, TR's blind spots and political mistakes are not even touched on, much less discussed in any depth. This makes the narrative somewhat facile and simple-minded, not the thorough, intelligent treatment that I would like in a biography.

In some ways, the hagiographic nature of the book did not bother me overly much because I bought the book for my bright 5th grader. She was supposed to read a presidential biography for a school project. Having a treatment that deals only with the most admirable aspects of the person seems appropriate for this circumstance. Unfortunately, the vocabulary in this book is too advanced for someone in the 5th-7th grades, even if the level of discourse is not. In the end, my daughter and I read the book together, stopping every few sentences so that I could provide a synonym for a difficult word. Now you might think this is not so bad, but if an author is going to write a simplistic biography, why not make it accessible to the most likely audience? In most cases, the esoteric words were not necessary, and I could easily come up with synonyms that my daughter knew.

What finally made me decide that I really didn't like the book was that toward the end it took on a political tone, very preachy and heavy-handed. It showed that the author had a very conservative political agenda that had little to do with Theodore Roosevelt. Until the last 50 pages or so, I enjoyed the book, but the end really ruined it for me. I was VERY glad that I was reading it along with my daughter because I was able to provide some perspective to counteract the political propaganda.

Inspiring¿a ¿scout manual¿ for accomplishment
When _Carry a Big Stick_ came across my desk, I was attracted to its small physical size and quick introduction to the hero rather than the usual ritual recapitulation of the rigors of writing.

I kept reading because George Grant choreographed words with a modest glamour seldom seen on the 90s litterary stage-such as "standardless pragmatism and cunning latitudinarianism," and "orthodoxy invariably begets orthopraxy."

Teddy Roosevelt is inspiring in both drive and humility in Grant's tale, intentionally the essence of TR, with a bias for Grant's view of character. Not "just another biography," because it shows what might have been Roosevelt's better side, _Stick_ could itself become a guidebook of measured success.

TR did not sip life; he gulped it. He did not nibble at knowledge; he gorged on it. He did not stroll; he charged! His style-as much as any accomplishment-is his legacy.

The chronology and the differentiation between TR, his father, and FDR are helpful to the non-historian.

Near its end, the book becomes repetitious-whether because the author circles again to moralize or has finally gotten the hang of cut and paste. Overlooking that, if you could use an infusion of passion, want to rethink what you're doing, or just want to do more or better, you might make this little volume your "scout manual" for a week!

Carry A Big Stick
This is an incredible book, that truly gives you the insight of one of the greatest men that ever lived. Filled with many incredible principles to live by, you WILL enjoy this book and the excitement it brings to your life!

Errors galore in this Conservative Christian propaganda!
I've read 40+ plus books by or about TR and this is the worst, one-sided view of this complex, multi-facted man. This is as bad as the radical-left "Howard Zinn-ism" revisionist history of TR's foreign policies.

There are too many "blatant" errors to list in this mini-review, but just for starters:

1). TR did not, as the author claims, visit his mother's Georgia plantation "10 or more times". It is well documented that TR only visited Bulloch Hall twice -once as president and once post-White House. He did not have a very high opinion of most Southerners, despite the author's claims to the contrary. His wife abhorred most Southerners.

2). TR did not force his children, particulary Alice, to attend church every Sunday. Edith was the religious task master of the family and in her quiet manner usually rounded up all kids, except for Alice. Alice was a well-known, open atheist from her teen years until she died. TR and Edith had accepted the teenager's refusal to be confirmed in the Episcopal church or any other church. Their son Archie also grew up to be an agnostic.

3). TR most certainly did NOT shower Edith with flowers and jewels. He never even remembered her birthday (though he never forgot the date of their engagement and wedding anniversay). Edith hated receiving extravagent gifts from anyone, especially her husband. They did have a very happy marriage and home life but he also known for taking off on 3-month hunting trips soon after Edith would deliver another baby.

4). TR most certainly did like to attend parties and was a professional social butterfly because he knew he would probably end up as the main attraction - just what his ego needed. The author paints TR as a man who shunned social gatherings to be with his family 24/7. Definitely not true. He LOVED being around people of all and any type, though his wife certainly like to stoke the home fires more than making the social rounds.

5). TR never made any speeches about abortion. Abortion was not on the radar screen in his time. The author uses quotes that TR said about women not wanting to get married and raise families to make it seem as though TR were speaking direcly on the subject of abortion.

6). TR believed in and preached on the separation of Church and State. He wanted to remove "In God We Trust" from the US coinnage and even pushed one of the leading artists of that time, Grant LaFarge, to create a new design. The "religious right" of his time went ballistic over this decision and he later backed down. He made many speeches proclaiming that the Church stay out of the affairs of the State. Indeed, he was a strong, "old school" Christian who did preach to the citizens the value of religion, a happy home life, and following the morals one teaches to his/her children. However, he also thought a country would head down the dangerous path if a certain religion or belief were forced upon its citizens.

I would not recommend this book on TR to ANYONE.

My, wasn't that just bully!
George Grant has written a delightful book about a delightful man. ... Read more

Book Description

A balanced and nuanced treatment of Reagan's personal and political evolution.

• An evaluation of Reagan's contributions, shortcomings, and ultimate legacy.
• The first scholarly biography of the 40th President of the United States to be written in the aftermath of the election of George W. Bush and the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, allowing a fresh perspective of the long-term consequences of Reagan's foreign and domestic policies and his ideological impact.
• The first new title in several years in the venerable Library of American Biography series.

Book Description

Teddy Roosevelt, the favorite political role model of Bill Clinton and both George Bushes, is legendary for his political acumen and for bending the world to his will. Yet where did he learn how to master the rough-and-tumble of politics? Not by weightlifting and boxing, nor by heading out west to try cattle-ranching, nor even as a Rough Rider in Cuba. He was far more than simply a self-made man or a crusading outsider who reinvented politics wholesale. The story of his political education has never fully been told and is every bit as entertaining as his more famous nonpolitical exploits.

Paul Grondahl knows New York political history as well as anyone, from the long-reigning machine of the Albany Democrats to the great Tammany chieftains who lorded over New York City. After working in the State Senate briefly before turning to journalism and writing about Albany politics and history for the past two decades, he knows the colorful byways and larger-than-life characters who made late nineteenth-century political life into one of the most amusing and fascinating periods in our history. In I Rose like a Rocket, Grondahl reveals the true story of Roosevelt's preparation for the White House: not one of self-making so much as a classic political education. From his earliest days as an assemblyman in Albany to his service as police commissioner in New York and civil service commissioner in Washington, Roosevelt learned invaluable lessons from the giants of his day. He was nearly roughed up twice by Democratic toughs in Albany and he suffered terrible defeats at the more-experienced hands of machine masters "Easy Boss" Thomas C. Platt and "Honest John" Kelly; yet he also learned how to manipulate and co-opt the press, how to harness public pressure and bipartisan allies, and how to fight for his desires from sunrise to sunset and beyond.

The product of Grondhal's research is one of the most important books ever written about Teddy Roosevelt. To learn of the inspirations and motivations of the young TR will cause readers to pause, reexamine, and reinterpret their views of him.

Roosevelt was driven by demons, yet he learned how to harness those inside himself as well as the more fleshly versions who fought him at every turn. The story of his political education is one of the most entertaining, instructive, and inspiring of that of any American president. ... Read more

Book Description

Robert Weisbrot for the first time considers the Cuban missile crisis in the full context of history. ... Read more

Reviews (2)

Another cogent analysis of the Kennedy/Cuba crisis
Robert Weisbrot's Maximum Danger provides another cogent analysis of the Kennedy/Cuba crisis: this from the viewpoint of Kennedy's overall attitude toward the Soviet Union's growing missile strength. Weisbrot argues that John Kennedy attempted to minimize confrontations with the Soviets, pursuing different options to avert the crisis. Maximum Danger provides an engaging, thoughtful series of different viewpoints about the missile crisis.

Maximum Danger
"A powerful and provocative look at what the publics view was on the Cuban missile crisis. Maximum Danger reveals startling information from both Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill. Robert Weisbort tells the real story of what Kennedy and his administration endured through almost near nuclear holocaust." ... Read more

Reviews (58)

Stalin's Crimes Exposed
Radzinsky has presented an extensively researched and well-documented book on Josef Stalin's rise to power and his 25 year
bloody reign in the USSR. I was surprised by the sheer number of "Comrades" that were eliminated by Stalin, simply to instill
fear into the lives of all Soviet citizens. While the true death toll will never be known for sure, upwards of 20 million
of his own people were killed in order to appease "The Boss".
Radzinsky provides only glimpses of his children (mostly Svetlana) and his family life, but comments extensively on Stalin's close associates such as Molotov and Beria. The author's speculation regarding Stalin's uncharacteristic behavior when Hitler invaded the USSR in June 1941, and the mediocre performance of his armies leaves me wanting to know more about this time period (what if Moscow had fallen to the Nazis?) On the other hand, the sheer number of names and personalities presented in this work is overwhelming to those with only casual interest in Stalin's life. Perhaps the most telling event in Stalin's life was Radzinsky's account of how he lay dying in his room alone, for hours, because his comrades were so fearful of disturbing him and doctors were so fearful of treating him, that they dared not even knock on his door to
see why he had not arisen. (Was he poisened and deliberatly left to die a wretched death?) Ironically, Stalin's final pogram against Soviet Jews was scheduled to begin on the day he died - 3/5/53.
Thanks to Edvard Radzinsky for reminding us of who Stalin really was - even though we may never know why he was one the worst murders of recorded history.

Revealing biography of a mass murderer
I read this book over a year ago, yet the images it conveys still disturb me. First recommended to be by an uncle, I read it to further understand why and how Communism acquired such a nasty reputation, and it did not take long to learn that Joseph Stalin was the focal point behind this 'bad rap.' Even though this book is a translation from Russian, it reads and flows well; Radzinsky is an excellent writer. His book first appeared in 1996, almost in the form of a breakthrough, because it used newly declassified Russian documents on Stalin, who took every effort in purging archives (and people) in keeping his life and details a secret.

Radzinsky meticulously chronicles the life of Stalin (born as Iosif Dzhugashvili in Georgia) from his troubled and rabble-rousing youth growing up in the Caucasus, to his life as a young revolutionary at Lenin's side. Radzinsky writes that during those years, Stalin went through two transitions: one as 'Soso,' the child, and as 'Koba,' the revolutionary. With gripping narration, he chronicles how Stalin (his nom de guerre) scrambled for absolute power following the death of Lenin, the founder of Bolshevism.

What stands out in Radzinsky's biography is not just the now-illuminated life of Stalin, which had deliberately been shrouded in mystery and speculation for fifty years, but more importantly the details of Stalin's crimes. Although known for his complacency in mass murder during his years in power, both sympathizers and others that wanted to keep Stalin's tyranny a secret never revealed the full extent of such crimes. Radzinsky chronicles them, and shows that this malevolent dictator was even more blood-crazed and paranoid than ever imagined. To Stalin, no human life was sacred, hence the atrocious scope of his show trials, liquidations and deportations to Siberia.

A perfect example of Stalin's culpability in massacre after massacre is the infamous killing at Katyn Forest, which Radzinsky does not date; the reader can be confused as to the precise date, which was in the fall of 1939, in the wake of Hitler's invasion of Poland. About 20,000 Polish prisoners were 'quartered' in camps close to the Soviet border, and when Stalin was later preparing a counterattack on Germany, he had them all massacred in a forest in Katyn, balking at the idea of having so many potential 'enemies' within his grasp. He later released some two thousand Polish prisoners from other camps, trying to hide his culpability, but Poles abroad kept wondering how so many thousands of soldiers had just vanished. 'The answer given was that they had run away from the camps at the beginning of the war' (p. 498). In the presence of a Polish representative, Stalin playacted that Poles from all Soviet prisons had been released. When the Germans occupied Smolensk, they found evidence of a massacre at Katyn and the decayed (and shot) remains of the Polish officers. Stalin changed the story altogether: accusing Hitler of provocation, he said the Poles had not run off, but had been transferred to Smolensk to build, where it was made to believe that the Germans caught them and shot them. In all, it became known that 21,857 Poles had been massacred. (pp. 498-499). The Germans were the first ones to be blamed for the killings, without surprise, but Stalin was the true architect from the very beginning. All documents on the Katyn massacre were ordered destroyed by Khrushchev in 1959, though some had evidently been overlooked, and preserved.

Katyn is one instance of many in Stalin's years in power. If anything, Radzinsky's biography serves to hold Stalin accountable for the terror he inflicted and to let the truth be known, for the sake of those lives lost under Stalin. On pp. 3-4, in Radzinsky's Prologue, he symbolically refers to a statue of Stalin overlooking the Volga canal, in which many slave laborers died digging and building it. Birds would gather on the statue's head and leave droppings, so the caretaker of the statue decided to electrify the statue, and every morning afterwards would come to clean the tiny bodies of birds littered around the statue. 'While the statue, cleansed of bird droppings, gazed out on the great expanse beyond the Volga, fertilized by the bodies not of birds but of human beings, by the unmarked graves of those who had built the great canal' (p. 4). Oh the irony...

Flows like a Dream.
This is great history. I could not put it down but I gave it four stars because I did not feel it was in the same class as Simon Sebag Montefiore's "Stalin: In the Court of the Red Tsar." Radzinsky in no way compiles the same type of comprehensive narrative as does Montefiore but it is very much worth your time. The archival evidence he uses is excellent and this is particularly true for someone who went to school (as I did) before the fall of communism. His best nugget involved Mikhail Bulgakov accidentally hanging up the phone on Stalin who assumed that he was the recipient of an April's Fool joke (p.262). Stalin, the sphinx, actually got Bulgakov a job at the Moscow Arts Theatre. The inconsistencies of the General Secretary's personality are clearly displayed by the author in this 1996 effort.

Chilling, fascinating and instructive
Josef Stalin's 30-plus-year reign of terror makes Adolf Hitler's 12-year Reich look like a child having a temper tantrum.
Radzinsky's book is an excellent biography of a truly evil man who caused the deaths of millions of his own countrymen. He wiped out an entire class of semi-prosperous peasants and engaged in ethnic cleansing before the term was coined. He was planning to eliminate the remaining Jews in the Soviet Union and launch World War III at the time of his death in 1953.
As one only casually acquainted with the cast of characters and chronology of the 1918 revolution and its aftermath, I found this book an excellent introduction to the horrors visited upon the people of the USSR.
Of particular interest is Radzinsky's assertion that Stalin planned to strike the first blow in his war with Germany. He was beaten to the punch when the Führer did the unexpected and plunged Germany into a two-front war.
Anyone who has ever had a sympathetic thought about communism or the Soviet system needs to read this book to comprehend the hideous truth.
It's one of the greatest tragedies of the 20th century that the western democracies stood by while Stalin terrorized his nation and its neighbors for three decades.
If your knowledge of Stalin and the Soviet era is a little thin, this book will get you up to speed and prepare you for further reading.

A suspenseful bio - a rare treat
This book packs a lot of communist history into an intriguing bio. Did you know Stalin was a Czarist spy? Did you know his approach to terror was an implementation of Lenin's theories and orders? Did you know he was starting another Jewish holocaust in the early '50s as a provocation to world war III with the West and justification for further terror behind the Iron Curtain? I didn't until I read/listened to this book. On top of all this, David McCallum's reading is the best I've ever heard by one man working alone. He ratchets up the suspense to higher and more chilling levels with only his voice. True, the book on tape uses background music in some places, but it's McCallum's skills as an orator that will have you unable to get of your car, sitting in your driveway, waiting to hear how Stalin commits another atrocity in the name of a utopian society. ... Read more

Amazon.com

The veteran author of critically praised books about Emily Brontë and Lucie Duff Gordon has written an exemplary popular biography of the powerful, controversial prime minister who indelibly shaped the world's largest democracy. Katherine Frank's solidly researched narrative is particularly good on the early years of Indira Gandhi (1917-84), cogently delineating her complex relationship with her father, nationalist hero Jawaharlal Nehru, which was intimate when they were pouring out their feelings in letters, but strained when they were actually together. We see an intelligent, strong-minded woman coming of age in a turbulent time marked by her relatives' frequent stays in prison as India struggled for freedom from Great Britain. After independence, when Nehru became prime minister, Gandhi was politically active but for many years resisted seeking power in her own right. Following the deaths of her husband (Feroze Gandhi, no relation to the Mahatma) in 1960 and Nehru in 1964, she moved into the top spot, aided by the Congress Party bosses' mistaken impression that she would be a figurehead they could manipulate. On the contrary, Frank shows Prime Minister Gandhi prompted by her deep fear of disorder toward increasingly authoritarian acts, most notoriously the state of emergency declared in 1975, when she authorized the arrest of many opposition leaders. Frank depicts Gandhi as having more faith in her personal bond with the Indian people than in the messy workings of democracy. But the religious and political divisions inflamed by her policies came home to roost in 1984, when she was assassinated by her own bodyguard, a Sikh enraged by the massacre of militant Sikhs in the Golden Temple. This sympathetic but unsparing portrait makes it clear that Gandhi was a flawed leader but evinces compassion for a woman striving with a difficult personal and political legacy. --Wendy Smith ... Read more

Reviews (8)

Indira is no more
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....

The Woman who was born to lead India!
An interesting and quite detailed story of Indira's life, and the Nehru's in particular.
Katerine Frank narrates facts and hearsay with impartiality, leaving the readers to come to their own conclusion.
The most interesting part is the gradual introduction of Indira into Indian politics and her ascent up through the coteries of the congress party, which she ruled with an iron hand at the end of the struggle.
By reading this book, One would be able to better admire indira's strong handling of foreign affairs, and the aggressive strength she showed in making india have a say on the world political map. In particular, her role in the formation of bangladesh, and the transformation of india into a nuclear power.
Leaders such as these are nowhere to be seen in india today.This book is a fitting tribute to this great personality.

Great Read...!
I would definately recommend this book to anyone who whats to get a good insight into the life of Indira Gandhi. This is has a lot of interesting information about Indira and her family.

Riveting!
I found this book to be an absolutely fascinating introduction to 20th century Indian history through the story of an absolutely fascinating woman. Indira's early years as part of the most prominent family in India post-independence were chaotic--her education was haphazard, her health very poor, her sense of security forever damaged by periodic visits to jail by her father and even once by her tubercular mother. Her life goals were confused--she longed for anonymity as those around her pushed her into the limelight. Her marriage was troubled and she had children against the advice of her doctors.

Indira's political life began in my opinion with her decision to separate from her husband and live with her father and become his "right hand woman," plus the advent of anti-biotics which cured her own TB for good. She became strong and accustomed to power, but never overcame the fear and suspicion of others and fear of disorder which so tragically played itself out in her own political career.

This book is over-sympathetic to Indira during her years in power. Taking advantage of certain constitutional provisions which thank god have no equivalent in the US, she systematically dismantled local governments which were the backbone of this country that is fractured by ethnic and religious conflict. She surrounded herself with loyal but not very wise men, and as the older generation of politicians retired from public life, a new generation of leadership failed to emerge in the corrupt, authoritarian atmosphere she created. She allowed her son Sanjay to roam uncontrolled and sat by as he knocked off enemies, took enormous bribes and payoffs, and perpetrated some of the worst injustices of the Emergency. She was voted out of office in 1977 but amazingly voted back in in 1980, in part because her years in power had allowed her to keep the opposition weak, disorganized and divided.

In fairness Indira was faced with intractable problems--conflict in Assam, Sri Lanka and Kashmir, war with Pakistan, unimaginable poverty, illiteracy, Muslim-Hindu strife, the caste system and the tragedy of untouchability, drought and famine. Unfortunately her reaction to these was to eliminate opposition and protect her own position, and in later years do nothing as she was overwhelmed by paranoia and a clear sense of her own imminent assasination.

And yet the people loved her. On a recent visit to India I visited Gandhi's house and the garden where he was assinated--it was peaceful and uncrowded. Meanwhile long lines awaited those seeking admission to the garden where Indira was killed and her memorial. She styled herself "Mother India," and was idolized by the poor. She spoke to their needs but tragically did little to help them.

I would highly recommend this book to anyone interested in Indira, or those looking to gain some understanding of the modern history of India.

Why did she become a tyrant?
This biography is strong on the first part of Indira's life -- her disjointed childhood and dedication to her father, Nehru, and his democratic ideals. When she becomes prime minister, however, the book becomes a series of facts about her sudden about-face in creating an anti-democratic, power-grabbing, corrupt regime. There is a lot of information but not much interpretation, or at times enough explanation of factions and conflicts that have divided India. Nevertheless, for someone who knows little about the country, this provided an introduction. ... Read more

Reviews (5)

Good bio / bad man
The American political system at its worst! This view of Nixon reveals a despicable man, doing whatever he could do to discredit his opponents, manipulate whoever he could, lie, and cheat to get elected. Hard-working, brilliant, but disgusting. Nixon even tried to undermine peace attempts in Vietnam just before the 1968 election. All that said, the incumbent president wasn't much better, as those peace attempts were really lies propagated by the LBJ administration to influence the election in Humphrey's favor. The 1968 campaign was absolutely horrid and unforgivable. What was different between Nixon and LBJ is Nixon's paranoia and vindictiveness.

It's interesting how Ike never really endorses Nixon, even when his grandson married Nixon's daughter. Finally, from his hospital bed Ike endorses him before the 1968 election, but even then it was lukewarm. Ambrose - who wrote an Eisenhower biography as well - contrasted the two. He says Ike loved life and loved people, while Nixon was distrustful of people, and gave in to hate. Ike brought people together; Nixon tore people apart. Ambrose cites a diary entry from Ike's secretary during Ike's administration: "The Vice President [Nixon] seems more like someone acting like a nice man more than a nice man".

The author commented how much different the Nixon administration may have been had Nixon had his first choice - Bob Finch, a genuine nice person - as his running mate. As it was Nixon surrounded himself with clones, all vindictive and paranoid. All fed his paranoia and anger and goaded his wrath. Their daily orders - delivered via comments in the margins of Nixon's daily news summaries - were very telling (and extremely interesting).

Nixon's foreign policy accomplishments - the settlement with North Vietnam, the opening to China and détente with the Russians - were indeed exceptional. But could these events have happened sooner had Nixon not circumvented his own State department in order to increase the histrionics and guarantee the credit for himself? Also, regarding the China and Russian initiatives, the author poses an interesting rhetorical question - who could have done it but Nixon, since he did not have to deal with a Nixon critic!

This is the middle book of a Nixon trilogy, so you don't get the childhood and Congressional years, or "Nixon in winter", but you get to know the man, and it is depressing.

Character Matters
As usual, Stephen E. Ambrose is flawless in this middle edition of the Nixon trilogy. The book is quite long and detailed to a fault. The detail includes huge quantities of actual quotes, painting a picture of Nixon about as clear as one can get on any man.

The picture I got was of a man not well suited for the presidency. Intelligent, clever, creative, bold, knowledgeable on world affairs, yes. But he also had character flaws. Over-sensitive almost to the point of paranoia, Nixon was driven by an obsession to be President more than the desire to be presidential. His statement in the later David Frost interview that, "If the President does it, it's not illegal," is very telling. The ends justified the means. He had the ability to rank goals above consequences, and almost everything he did was for the acquisition or preservation of political power.

The best example is Vietnam. He took four years to end a war he knew early on could not be won. His delays were to search for ways to avoid being the first American President to lose a war, and to prevent the staining of American honor. Both of which would have cost Nixon reelection in 1972. Ambrose makes the point that half the names on the Vietnam War Memorial are from the period of Nixon's futile attempts to foil Hanoi and fool America. People should never have to die to protect a politician's legacy.

I see Nixon and Clinton, representing both political parties, as two good examples of why character matters when we vote. For some reason, the presidency attracts extreme or narcissistic personalities whose motivations are more for glory than good. After reading Ambrose's book, the simple question, "Why does this person want to be president?" will rank higher in my mind.

Another eye-opener in the book was the lesson in political science. Nixon was neither an appealing candidate, nor a rallying ideologue. He scraped his way to the top because he was the consummate partisan politician. Ambrose shows a glimpse of the American political system's underbelly: maneuvering, manipulating, prevaricating, waffling, and backstabbing. He makes it easy to forget that despite the warts, our republican democracy is still the best system in the world.

The irony and enigma of Nixon is that he also opened up China, warmed the Cold War with the Soviets, began nuclear disarmament, and other worthy and statesman-like accomplishments. The book, like Nixon himself, will mean different things to different people. --Christopher Bonn Jonnes, author of BIG ICE

The rise of Nixon
The second volume of Ambrose's three-volume biography of Richard Nixon covers the period from Nixon's defeat in the 1962 gubernational election in California to his re-election as US President in 1972.

In his refreshingly frank Foreward, Ambrose states that "I confess that I do not understand this complex man". And indeed that problem of assessment runs throughout the book - Nixon, and his first Administration were full of contradictions, big pluses and minuses, which make an objective view very difficult.

Ambrose's analysis of Nixon's time "in the wilderness" until his nomination as the Republican candidate for the Presidency in 1968 was particularly interesting: not so much a time of drift as of recovery and preparation. The man's sheer drive and ambition must have been huge.

The nightmare of Vietnam looms large in this book, quite rightly. Looked at in hindsight, Ambrose reveals the utter absurdity of US policy at the time - all the more tragic as lives were being sacrificed even though there was no clear goal and real hope of victory had long since gone (if indeed it had ever been a realistic ambition).

Ambrose takes care not to neglect domestic politics, US-Soviet and Sino-US relations, and describes the beginnings of Watergate. At the end, I reflected that whatever nostalgic image we are presented of the 1960s, society was in fact deeply divided. Ambrose writes with great unease about the duplicity of all of the politicians of the time and condemns equally the excesses of the protesters. The summer of love? Perhaps not.

A man to whom nothing mattered except power!
Stephen Ambrose's second volume of Nixon:
"Triumph of a politician" is just as good as
volume one.
This is the heart and soul of presidential politics.
Surely we have the politicians we deserve, but some of them
are complex, confusing, ruthless, criminal, fascinating,
moving, grand and great - which kind of make it hard
for us poor voters. Nixon was all of that! as is so
clearly demonstrated in this
portrait of the Nixon presidency.

In 1962 Nixon held his famous last press conference
after losing the California gubernatorial contest.
The reporters wrote his political obituary.
Five years later he had held hundreds of press
conferences and was on his way to becoming president!

He won the presidency over Humphrey in 1968
partly by the not very statesman like behavior of
namecalling and allegations about Humphreys neglect of
national defense and his softness on law and
order and his willingness to spend the country into
bancruptcy. Or perhaps he almost lost because
of these wild charges?

I think the book explains how it all happened.
Even the parts that are really unexplainable.
Fascinating.

-Simon

Calling All US Politics students
Ambrose's style is excellent for the US politics student. He covers all fields of policy but centers, quite rightly, on Vietnam. Ambrose is very perceptive about Nixon the man, without being too sychophantic he is fair on the guy -- though maybe not always very complimentary. The book is very nicely balanced and the chronology does not flow perfectly so that Ambrose is able to concentrate on policy areas rather than conducting a simplistic and boring narrative. ... Read more

Book Description

In this concise, vivid, and brilliantly readable biography, New York Times bestselling author Michael Korda sheds new light on the life of Ulysses S. Grant -- a man who is consistently ranked as one of the greatest American generals and as one of our weaker presidents.

The son of a tanner in Ohio, soft-spoken, taciturn, given to drink, easily hurt and embarrassed, Ulysses S. Grant was the most unlikely of heroes. But, as Korda vividly demonstrates, Grant also possessed remarkable tenacity, decisiveness, a willingness to tackle conflict head-on, and a ruthlessly objective way of evaluating military situations. These characteristics are what enabled a shy and awkward boy to overcome his unhappy years as a West Point cadet and his lack of early success in the army. They propelled him through the ranks of military leadership to victory at Fort Donaldson, Shiloh, and Missionary Ridge; drove him in his epic pursuit of Lee to Appomattox; and eventually guided him to the presidency. Korda writes that it was Grant, with his slouchy hat, rumpled uniform, unkempt beard, and omnipresent cigar, who understood like no other man -- Lincoln excepted -- that the Civil War would be long and bloody, and would be won not by fancy maneuvers or clever strategy but by confronting the Confederate army in the field and defeating it.

Despite his battlefield successes, Grant is often dismissed as a failed president. Examining his leadership in the White House, however, both within the context of his time and in contrast to more recent American presidents, Korda shows that, although Grant's two terms were riddled with political and financial scandals, he managed to exert a calming influence on a country that had only recently emerged from civil war, and that he sought -- above all things -- peace between North and South, and between the United States and the rest of the world.

Korda concludes that Grant was both a military genius and an ordinary American, a warrior without arrogance or vainglory, a general who excelled at fighting and hated what he was doing -- in short, a hero only America could have produced. It is at once a unique portrait of Grant and a rousing and illuminating study of his times -- and of the great war he did so much to win.