5 comments about James Madison: (The American Presidents Series).

1. As stated in the Editor's Note, the American President series, of which this book is a part, aims to ".... present the grand panorama of our chief executive in volumes compact enough for the busy reader, lucid enough for the student, authoritative enough for the scholar." At 164 pages of text, this book is certainly compact. It is quite lucid and it is surly authoritative. The book is not, however, an analysis of the life of James Madison, or even a comprehensive presentation of his whole life. It discusses the many facets of his life in terms of his contribution to the United States. As the man considered to be the "Father of the Constitution", a co-author of The Federalist (the series of essays that were instrumental in getting the Constitution ratified), as a leader in the first Congress, Secretary of State (under Thomas Jefferson) and then as a two term President, Madison made immense contributions to the founding and early government of the Untied States. All these facets of his career are discussed, but given the compactness of the book they are only discussed briefly.
   
   The primary thing that I came away with was the feeling that Madison was an enigma. I guess that this just shows my ignorance of the finer points of American history, as historians have been trying, largely unsuccessfully, for the last two hundred years to explain the enigma that was James Madison. Indeed, Madison was also vexed with the difficulty of trying to explain his many contradictory actions. In working on the Constitution he unsuccessfully tried to give the federal government the power to veto state laws. Yet he later was secretly the author of the Virginia Resolutions that promulgated the idea that the states had the right to nullify federal law. He opposed Hamilton's Bank of the US, but then tried to renew the charter and when this failed he supported the formation of the second Bank of the US. He opposed war, yet he led the US into a war with Britain for which it was completely unprepared. Garry Wills tries to come to grips with these, and other contradictions, but I do not think that he was completely successful, but then again neither has anyone else. For me, just realizing that this conundrum exits was worth the price of the book.



2. Garry Wills is an exceptional documentarian, and this effort is a fine example. A very comprehensive review of the formative years of this Founding Father is provided, those years that helped define the political system and policy of early America. Madison's contribution to the constitutional constructs of Virginia and the U.S. are well-woven, even if his presidency is less a focus of Wills energies. Portrayal is of a deeply insightful humanist who performed best as a thinker than an administrator, WIlls has captured the essence of the man himself.



3. Garry Wills, eminent author on the American mind, writes a literate and compelling political biography of James Madison, "Jemmy" as he was called earlier in his life. Here was someone whose resume seems made to become president. Yet this man, "the Father of the Constitution," was not near the success that one might have guessed from his background.
   
   His pedigree includes: key figure in the Constitutional Convention--from getting George Washington to attend (a coup) to helping structure the agenda (from amending the Articles of Confederation to trashing the extant constitution and replacing it with something very different); to serving as a major figure in the early Congress (including helping to produce a Bill of Rights), to organizing the first political party (along with Thomas Jefferson, although it took Martin Van Buren and his circle to perfect the arrangement).
   
   Wills begins by observing that there is consensus that (Page 1) ". . .Madison, though one of the nation's greatest founders, is not one of its greatest presidents." Wills suggests that one can account for this by (a) bad luck falling Madison's way (which Wills discounts); (b) his temperament (he had more legislative than executive talent--more apt an explanation in Wills' view); (c) errors (a very poor reading of the British Empire, leading to foolish foreign policy and the War of 1812).
   
   As with other in "The American Presidents" series, this begins with a brief sketch of the future president's youth, his early career, and his rise to the presidency (from the Constitutional Convention to Congress to Jefferson's Secretary of State). Trivia is included: Madison was the shortest American President ever.
   
   This represents a standard, literate Wills' work. His literary approach is as expected (what a wonderful command of the language!). The work nicely lays out why Madison was not as good a President as one might have guessed--as well as his later life.
   
   All in all, an estimable addition to this valuable series.



4. James Madison(1751 -- 1836) is revered for his role as one of our nation's Founders. Madison played a major role in organizing the Constitutional Convention, in drafting the Constitution, and in securing its ratification through cowriting "The Federalist" (with Hamilton) and through winning a difficult debate with Patrick Henry which led to the narrow ratification of the Constitution in his home state of Virginia. Madison also worked valiantly for the separation of church and state.
   
   Madison's accomplishments as the fourth President (1808 -- 1817) are less well remembered. Madison's presidency is the focus of this brief book by Garry Wills as part of the American Presidents series. Wills tries to explain why Madison's presidency was less successful that his brilliant earlier career. Wills points to Madison's provincialism, shyness, lack of executive experience, and tendencies toward idealism rather than practical politics to conclude that Madison's talents and prodigious learning made him better suited for a legislative, behind-the-scenes role than for a position as the nation's chief executive.
   
   After brief consideration of Madison's earlier accomplishments and his roles under the presidencies of Washington, Adams, and Jefferson (he was Jefferson's Secretary of State), Wills examines Madison's two terms as president. Early in his administration, Madison showed poor judgment about people in selecting his cabinet members, Supreme Court Justices, and military leaders. He also displayed weaknesses of leadership and administration in coordinating the efforts and minimizing the feuding of his subordinates. Even thought he came to see the wisdom of the Bank of the United States, (he had opposed Hamilton on the formation of the Bank) Madison foolishly allowed its charter to lapse, when any sort of endorsement on his part would likely have saved the bank in Congress. This mistake haunted Madison throughout his administration.
   
   Most of Wills's study of Madison's presidency is devoted, as it must be, to the War of 1812. If Madison's presidency is little-known, the War of 1812 remains our country's most confusing, obscure, and little understood conflict. The War had its roots in the conflict between England and Napoleon as Jefferson tried to steer clear of war. At the end of his presidency, at Madison's urging, Jefferson imposed an embargo with near disastrous results.
   
   Wills traces the complex course of events that led Madison into war. Some of these events were due to misunderstanding and to slowness of communication (Britain had repealed the Articles in Council to which the United States had taken offense in declaring war. The ship bringing the repeal to the United States crossed the Atlantic at the same time as the United States ship sailing to England with news that war had been declared.) But, Wills argues, Madison was active in bringing on the War, in part because he had grandiose visions of annexing Canada. The result was a conflict for which the United States was ill-prepared. The country had a weak army, only six frigates built during the Washington administration, no generals with military experience, and, with the end of the First Bank of the United States, no money to conduct the war. It was a harrowing conflict for the United States.
   
   The United States and Madison were fortunate to be able to end the War of 1812 without loss of territory. For Wills, Madison led the Nation into an unnecessary war for which it was ill-prepared. But Wills praises Madison for conducting the war without treading upon the constitutional rights of Americans. This was an important and difficult accomplishment which partially redeems Madison's presidency. And the United States came together as a nation following the conflict for the first time in its history.
   
   Wills's book is both more reflective and more detailed than most of the works in the American President's series. Indeed, Wills has written extensively about this period of our history. Readers of this volume may wish to turn to Wills's study "Henry Adams and the Making of America" which examines Henry Adams' monumental history of the Jefferson and Madison administrations. Wills' short study is heavily indebted to Adams's history. Ambitious readers may want to explore Adams's history of this period for themselves. It is available in a two-volume set from the Library of America.
   
   Robin Friedman



5. James Madison is often one of the least remembered founding fathers. However Madison was very important in the early years of the United States of America. Known as "the father of the Constitution" he was influential in the convention and is one of the best legislators of all-time. The book also reminds readers that George Washington asked for Madison's advice on Constitutional matters because he knew he would be setting precidents that would be followed by other holders of the Executive office.
   
   The book quickly addresses his pre-Presidential years but mostly focuses on his time in the Executive office. The book gives a good quick look at the interesting if lackluster Presidency. The war often referred to as "Mr. Madison's war" dominated his Presidency and he deserves some of the blame for beginning the war, even though the country was completely unprepared. His embargos were disasterous and left the U.S. economy in ruins for a short while.
   
   The book does a very good job at showing that Madison was a very good legislator perhaps one of the greatest in US History, but Madison was not made for the Executive office. He had the political knowledge, but lacked the size, leadership, and ability to stand up and announce what was going to happen (in an authoritative voice, perhaps because of his stature). Overall Madison was a very important man to the founding of the country although his 'flip-flops' are also shown throughout the book. Overall this is a good quick introduction to the Presidency of James Madison.

4 comments about Flying High: Remembering Barry Goldwater.

1. I found this book written about my political hero, by one of my favorite observers of politics fun but to light. First of all large parts of the small book really don't have a lot to do with Mr Buckley's relationship with the Senator. That is probably my main take. I also feel that (many would say hoorah) that Mr.Buckley's famed sarcasm and "snobbery" were mainly missing. I certainly wouldn't want every political observer to write with his style of sarcasm (wit), namedropping elitism (lucky and talented enough to be where the action is). But watching, or reading him shred countless liberals was fun. Onto my feelings about the Senator. There has been quite a bit written about him in the last decade and much of it has brought him down to earth from his exalted place in my life. That is not to say he is not still my hero but the opportunities lost because he couldn't or wouldn't say no to the Phoenix Mafia lead me to wonder the big what if question. No he wouldn't have won in '64 but the defeat could have been much smaller and possibly set 1968 up for a change that would have been wonderful not only for the U.S. but the world instead we had to wait until 1980. Final word, at Amazon's price it's worth it and it will be an enjoyable 2 days. Next Pure Goldwater I'm hoping it's effect will be similar to Reagan's Diaries. Interesting point it's funny how the personal and political stock of both Goldwater and Reagan have risen in the eyes of all thinking liberals (that of course excludes the likes of Huffington etc).



2. Taking small snapshots, William F. Buckley, Jr., delivers a wonderful portrait of a pivotal time in American politics and journalism.
   
   From the 100 student activists who were part of the foundation to the modern conservative movement, to the oftentimes hilarious controversies caused by (wannabe) political insiders and adding new twists to key moments which may have faded from the pages of history, the 208 pages prove that richness is not only found in thick volumes.
   
   The friendship of Senator Barry Goldwater and Buckley, Jr., are found on each page, but this is a story of two extraordinary personalities who pushed away the clouds and reached to the blue sky, due to the realization that a revolution in political culture could be had over time by flying high.



3. The year was 1964 - President Kennedy had been martyred, and now-President Johnson looked unassailable. However, there was one man on the Conservative side who seemed willing to carry the flag, and seek to turn back the tide of Liberalism that was flowing out of Washington DC - Barry Goldwater, Au H2O. And there was one man who was always there, even if he wasn't the man the cameras were pointed at, Conservative author and thinker, William F. Buckley, Jr.
   
   This is a "what I saw at the revolution" type book. In a short, but informative narrative, Mr. Buckley takes us behind the scenes, showing who did what, and when, and why. I must admit to being largely ignorant of Barry Goldwater, but I found this book to be intriguing and informative, keeping me turning the pages and watching those heady days unfold.
   
   Overall, I found this to be a very interesting book. It is short and easy to read, and yet packs quite a wallop - there is no unnecessary detail or wasted verbiage here! If you are interested in Barry Goldwater and/or where the modern Conservative movement came from, then you should get this book. I think that it is probably the perfect Goldwater Revolution book, and I give it my highest recommendations.



4. I have enjoyed reading William Buckley through the years, whether it was his fiction with Blackford Oakes as the protagonist or his somewhat self-indulgent mini-autobiographies. His writing style is absolutely captivating.
   
   Flying High is a great read if you have any interest at all in the emergence of the modern day conservative movement. In light of the current political season and two candidates that are essentially trying to claim that they are moderate, or at the very least not on the extreme ends of the continuum as a liberal or a conservative, the story of conservatives not ashamed to identify themselves as such is somewhat refreshing.
   
   I am struck by the sheer force of character and the price that is paid to be a person of character, particularly in the world of rough and tumble politics. If you have never read anything about Goldwater, this would be a good start and you will no doubt want to read The Conscience of a Conservative, actually ghost written by Brent Bozell, though released under Goldwater's name.

5 comments about Samuel Adams: Father of the American Revolution.

1. No one has articulated it any better than Mark Puls when he states in his concluding remarks that " Americans of his generation came to view Samuel Adams as the spirit of liberty and the patriarch of liberty". Jefferson may have written about the ideals of independence more eloquently; Washington may have acted upon those ideals more directly; and, Franklin may have translated those ideals more concretely abroad to our French allies; however, no one of our founding fathers wrote more frequently, acted more fervently, or lived more fully and focused on the prize of separation and independence than Samuel Adams.
   
   Maybe it's because Adams shunned the spotlight and the attention that others of his era sought so impassionately to grasp, or perhaps, he was content to simply see from the background the ultimate fruits of his prodigious labors. Whatever the reason, Adams emerged as the leading patriot strategist,politician as well as most influential writer in America. The author has truly captured the essence of the man who deservedly is called the Father of the American Revolution. It is a well-witten, if not long overdue, tribute to the mastermind behind the War of independence.



2. Samuel Adams: Father of the American Revolution is a short read, but is a relatively concise and well-written account of his political life. Adams himself was extraordinary, and after reading this book, it's easy to see that he is exceedingly under-appreciated as one of the greatest, if not the most important of American revolutionaries.
   
   Adams is a testament to the ability of one man to change the political landscape for the better, and he is inspirational as a one-man harbinger of liberty. His account gives hope for the many political problems facing America and the rest of the world, both today and for the future.



3. Strong statement to be sure. Read this book to find out why it is true.
   
   It is a mystery to me why most historians seem to attach little more than a few footnotes to Samuel Adams. Noyone worked more steadfastly to both educate and organize the colonists. In spite of having a wealthy father and a Harvard education, Sam chose a life close to poverty so he could dedicate his considerable talents to the Revolution.
   
   The Declaration of Independence is essentially a rewrite of a 1774 position paper that Sam authored.
   
   This book also makes a valiant effort to present a British perspective on why they believed that taxation (without representation) was viable.
   
   Your knowledge of the revolution is incomplete without an education on Samuel Adams, the father of the American revolution.



4. I found this book to be a fascinating study of a man who did nothing to promote himself and worked tirelessly for American liberty. This was an insight to a true revolutionary and patriot - skillfully brought to life.



5. I am shocked and amazed. Shocked that I never knew the critical role that Samuel Adams played in what is now the United States. I am amazed at how he was able to start with a clear idea of rights and liberty and then influence first Boston, then Massachusetts, New Enland, and finally all 13 colonies. He did this through study and decades of writings that were distributed and internalized by the colonists. Samuel Adams was fearless, unwavering, and absolutely brilliant. He got thousands of people into action - and led them to make difficult choices at that.
   Mark Puls gave such a clear narrative while giving a valuble context to the unfolding story.

5 comments about William Wilberforce: The Life of the Great Anti-Slave Trade Campaigner.

1. This is a good read, and the author provides plenty of detail about life in 18th Century England.



2. William Wilberforce was the ideal political reformer. He brought together an amazing combination of strengths: personal wealth, a friendly personality, good connections, moral seriousness, rhetorical skill, a sincere faith, a practical mind, and a bulldog's tenacity.
   
   William Hague does an excellent job highlighting all of these qualities. Hague may be the perfect author to write such a book. He is an experienced politician, having held many positions in the British government since 1989, including leader of the Conservative Party.
   
   Although Hague clearly appreciates Wilberforce's great political skill, a large portion of his book focuses on Wilberforce's moral and spiritual struggles, which propelled him forward into a life of effective service. Almost single-handedly, he brought moral concerns into the mainstream of British politics. Best known is his successful campaign to end the British slave trade. Less well known were his many rational reforms of the criminal laws, eliminating many forms of cruel and disproportionate punishment.
   
   Hague shows that Wilberforce used great wisdom in integrating his Christian beliefs with his political efforts. He was not ashamed of his faith, but he used a light touch in his personal relations, including his lifelong friendship with William Pitt the Younger. Wilberforce maintained that strong friendship, even though Pitt did not share his Evangelical faith, by focusing on their common interests and common love of politics.



3. Lincoln once said that "everyone should know Wilberforce." (p. 511) William Hague has afforded the present generation the second-best way to get to know Wilberforce; a magnificently written biography of the man. While the most insightful means to "know Wilberforce" is to know his God, in no small measure Hague reveals the God of William Wilberforce by disclosing the man. The man, as it turns out, in his life manifested the efficacy of pure religion put into practice.
   
   The author is no neophyte to historical biography, having previously offered a highly-regarded biography of William Pitt the Younger (Knopf - February 8, 2005 - "[A] first-class work of history; informative, well written and captivating." --Alistair Horne, The Times London). In this his accounting of the life of Wilberforce, Hague informatively, with graceful style, leads the reader to an understanding of why many of his contemporaries regarded him on a par with the greatest statesmen of the age; in the end, he was laid to rest at Westminster Abbey.
   
   William Wilberforce is quite rightly remembered for his untiring efforts to bring about the end of British-sanctioned slave trading in 1807. For that accomplishment alone he should be recalled. However, beyond the accomplishment lies the value of studying the life of one who was unusually devoted to higher principles; in many respects, the life of Wilberforce exhibits that one can have one's vision focused on heavenly values while having one's feet planted within the realities of earthly existence. For those who long for political leadership ennobled by trustworthy character traits, this is a worthy model. Think, for example, of a leader who is aware of his abilities, recognizes his limitations, has no greater ambition than to do good for his fellow beings, is tender yet unbending, principled yet practical, bipartisan and independent yet not radical, and honest to the core; that's the Wilberforce model.
   
   This is the man who declared the following in a speech given during his only contested contest for his seat in Commons:
   
   "Gentlemen, so long as you thus understand the constitution under which you live, and know its nature, so long you will be safe and happy; and notwithstanding the varieties of political opinion which will ever exist in the free country, you will present a firm and united front against every foreign enemy. Great countries are perhaps never conquered solely from without, and while this spirit of patriotism and its effects continue to flourish, you may, with the favour pf Providence, bid defiance to the power of the greatest of our adversaries." (p. 368).
   
   William Wilberforce fought to eradicate the greatest evils of his age with uncompromising dignity, eloquence, and wisdom unequalled in the annals of legislative leadership. Mr. Hague's biography brings to light the value of such leadership. The work also brings to light the underlying beliefs and values that created the man and his legacy.



4. I was surprised by how interesting and enjoyable this book was - I was concerned that over 500 pages devoted to the life of a long-dead Evangelical English parliamentarian would be very dry. However, Hague does a fine job both capturing Wilberforce's life as well as providing the proper context of late 18th century / early 19th century England.
   
   I think the reason it appealed to me in particular was that it filled in a number of gaps in my knowledge of the time. I was familiar with the military side of the Napoleonic wars (and have read all the Hornblower and Aubrey/Maturin books) as well as the American perspective on the American Revolution and the War of 1812. This book gave an excellent perspective of the debates and policies of the British government during those tumultuous years and how the country reacted to the major domestic and international developments.
   
   Definitely worth a read.



5. The first biography that I ever read about William Wilberforce was by John Piper in his Swans are Not Silent series titled "The Roots of Endurance: Invincible Perseverance in the Lives of John Newton, Charles Simeon, and William Wilberforce". Prior to reading that book I had never even heard about William Wilberforce. I was very intrigued to read more about this man. I then went and bought Wilberforce's book on a Practical View of Christianity edited by Kevin Belmont and started to read some of it. Some time passed after this and when I heard that the movie about Wilberforce was coming out I thought that I would look at some of the other biographies on him. I have read biography's by Kevin Belmont, Eric Metaxas, Sir Reginald Coupland, Garth Lean, and the book titled "Saints in Politics: The Clapham Sect and the growth of Freedom" by Earnest Marshall Howse. Each biography is like looking through a different window into the world of Wilberforce and his life and I have found them very interesting reading and very revealing into the man and his character and the historical settings and Christian history of the time. I have also been able to download the 5 volume biography by his sons and have only skimmed some of it thus far. My goal is to tackle it at some point as well.
   
   I am about half way through this biography by Hauge on Willberforce. I am presently reading along with Haugue's biography, John Pollock's and will then tackle Robin Furneaux's. I believe one thing that stands out in Hauge's biography is a very good understanding and telling of the historical goings on of the time better than any of the other biographys that I have read thus far. Hauge does not assume that you know a lot about the history and the issues facing the British parliament at that time which I greatly appreciate. Maybe Furneaux's will give this as well but if you want a good picture of the historical settings and the happenings in parliament then this is the one to read. I also appreciate how Hauge shows the clear picture of Wilberforce's evangelical, Calvinistic Reformed faith in the God of the Bible and his faith in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of his sins. He also shows his wrestling's in his desire to walk with God in faith and obedience. He also shows his desire to tell others about his faith and his understanding that faith in Jesus Christ was the true answer to the problems which are the same for today. He shows Wilberforce's true belief in a Sovereign God and His providence regarding the historical facts during that time and how they affected his life which are no different for today.
   
   This book is well written with very up to date language and it has been a very good read thus far. It is well researched and the bibliography is massive. I don't know how long it took him to put it all together but it is clear it took some time. It is clear that he did not just read Wilberforce's sons biography to put this together. The quotations are many and detailed. Hauge's own experience in Parliament is clear and his comparisons from then to today are very enlightening. His breakdown of Wilberforce's speech to parliament is so revealing and reveals how brilliant a speech it was. The book is worth reading just for that information alone. Also his careful handlings of opinions on why Wilberforce made certain decisions then are very balanced. I highly recommend reading this biography. I also have purchased his biography on Pitt and look forward to reading it as well. Buy it and read it, you won't be disappointed.

5 comments about Realities of Foreign Service Life.

1. I found that this book did a good job showing what life in the Foreign Service is like. I am in the military and there are a lot of similarities. Highly recommended for perspective Foreign Service family members, friends and applicants.



2. This book is simply key in helping you understand what a life in the Foreign Service is like. Several essays provide different insights into the ups and downs of living overseas and the unique challenges of the Foreign Service. You simply must read this before considering that career, and more importantly your spouse must read it also. Arguably, the spouse gives up more to join the Foreign Service. Until I read this book I was on the fence but not too far into the text I decided this wasn't for me or my family, which is really a great thing. If I relied on the State Department view I would have exerted significant time and effort only to find out later or too late. Some critics complain the book is too whiny, and it does come across like that at times. But look at it this way: if you read all the negatives and are still motivated, then the Foreign Service would be incredibly dense to NOT take you.
   
   One of the interesting takeaways for me was that your will likely be evacuated sometime in your career. If you or your spouse can't deal with the thought of flying the wife and kids out of a dangerous country, sitting on C-130 troop seats while the other stays in a dangerous situation, the Foreign Service isn't for you. If you don't mind living like a king overseas and living like a pauper in Washington, the Foreign Service may be for you. If you have to have fast access to pop-tarts you may think twice. If the thought of you or your kids contracting dysentery or other crazy diseases with less than great medical care bothers you, think again. If your spouse has career aspirations you need to seriously consider this option. Before you order that subscription to The Economist, get this book first.



3. This book is full of relatively worthless and obvious quips about living abroad.
   There is an entire section devoted to grocery shopping and how it is different in various countries.. no duh. There is also a massive section about Foreign Service wives carrying on about their kids.
   Most of the accounts in this book are written by Foreign Service spouses and provides very little insight into the Foreign Service.



4. This book was invaluable for people interested in joining the foreign service. I was considering doing so myself, but after reading this book - and much, much more information and reading matter on the life of a FSO - I was able to decide that it was just not for me. Then again, someone could read this book and be quite moved by it. I certainly hope so. This book did not diminish the great respect I have for FSOs and their families, and in fact I think it increased said respect.
   
   The one qualm I had with this book should not really be considered as such. I had one issue in that it was heavily weighted towards stories of the wives of FSOs, and that domestic partners of all other kinds were seriously underrepresented. However, through reading this book, its introduction, and numerous websites on the issue, the truth seems to be that this is one of those facts about life in the FS right now: the demographics are frighteningly skewed towards a three to four person family with the husband the FSO and the wife following him and taking care of the children. If that offends you in any way, then read this book and see if you could live with it - this will give you some idea of what the FS experience is.



5. I've bought several books for my study of the Foreign Service and the vast majority are hard to slog through. This one was engaging, written by numerous personalities about their experiences from different relationships with a Foreign Service Officer. I was able to finish it in one evening.

5 comments about Eleanor Roosevelt, Vol. 1: 1884-1933.

1. This nonsensical bio is written entirely from a blind feminist perspective. The research is suspect. The prose amateurish. The details gossipy and contrived. If Eleanor Roosevelt was truly a woman of thought and progressivism, then Cook has done her an unforgivable disservice. If you're looking to understand Roosevelt's honest-to-goodness place in history, you will not find it is this intellectually offensive work.



2. I found both volumes of Ms. Cook's books fascinating. I could not wait to return to them. I learned a lot about Eleanor and the time in which she lived. I will buy copies of both for all my children and suggest that my grands read them as well.



3. Readers disappointed with the lack of analysis in this book are looking for another animal -- a more supple, lovelier, livlier, or more analytic one. This is a narrative mammoth, wherein Cook revives ER through dense documentary detail. I especially enjoyed the detail about her upbringing, her families, and influential relatives. With all of the details woven into this chronicle, it'd just get convoluted to add more flourish, conjecture, and analysis. I would not like to see details cut for the sake of these.
   
   The notable exception is Cook's willingness to speculate about the amorous nature of ER's friendships. Even here, she cites documentation, and chronicles what has been destroyed, gone missing, and where interview questions were refused. Cook is forthright about her motivation to venture out further here in order to counter popular conjecture about ER as sexually frigid.
   
   Cook has provided groundwork for any number of less academic biographies.
   I too would love to see other kinds of biographies of ER, other than narrative: a philosophic biography analyzing the significance of her actions in her time; a descriptive biography of her character or biopic film.
   
   For a lovelier portrait of her perspective and character, read her own works or The Wisdom of Eleanor Roosevelt. For broader context and significance, there really isn't enough, but try Kearns-Goodwin.
   
   For details, chronology, and narrative, read both volumes of this. I'd love to see a biopic made out of it.



4. For many Americans, Eleanor Roosevelt is more a myth than an actual person. In the Museum of American History in Washington, D.C. there is a whole floor devoted to American presidents, but just a small wing devoted to our First Ladies, or more specifically their inaugural gowns. While visiting the museum, I picked up a poster of Eleanor Roosevelt, with a nice quote that reads something like, "Nobody can make you feel inferior without your consent." Other than my poster, the only thing I knew about Eleanor Roosevelt was what my grandmother, who grew up during the Depression and Roosevelt years, had told me: "She sure was ugly." When Eleanor Roosevelt's letters to Lorena Hickok were revealed to the public in 1978, and questions about the true nature of their relationship arose, author Blanche Wiesen Cook, a historian and women's studies professor, was intrigued to answer the challenge of determining who Eleanor Roosevelt really was. In her book, "Eleanor Roosevelt: Volume One, 1884-1933," Cook promises to give readers a fuller view of Eleanor Roosevelt - not just the mythic character, but the actual story behind the woman, an independent power in her own right.
   
   "Eleanor Roosevelt: Volume One, 1884-1933" is, in essence, a feminist reading of the life and times of Eleanor Roosevelt, telling her story chronologically up to 1933, when Franklin Delano Roosevelt becomes President of the United States. Eleanor Roosevelt's childhood, as would be expected, is crucial to understanding her identity. Although she grows up in a privileged family in New York - her uncle Theodore is President of the United States - her childhood is "filled with disappointment, alcoholism, and betrayal." Eleanor Roosevelt's mother casts Eleanor aside as ugly and too serious. Although her father is an alcoholic, Eleanor adores him, as he encourages her to be courageous and bold and wants her to be self-reliant and self-fulfilled. Both of her parents die before she turns 11, leaving Eleanor to be raised by relatives who mostly conform to the ideals in place during the 1890s. It is not until she is sent to Marie Souvestre's school in Europe that she is first "given permission to be herself." Marie Souvestre is an unconventional feminist and her school is unusual in that it encourages girls to be independent at a time when education is considered to be dangerous to a woman's mental health. Marie Souvestre's role in Eleanor's life is second only to her father's, as Marie Souvestre appreciates Eleanor's talents and encourages her to discover and develop her capabilities.
   
   Upon graduation, though, Eleanor Roosevelt faces the realities of her time, as she is torn between the new self-sufficient world she has discovered through her schooling in Europe and the traditions of her mothers and relatives in New York. Ultimately, Eleanor Roosevelt accepts her prescribed role as a woman, goes courting, and secretly becomes engaged to her cousin Franklin Delano Roosevelt, to the chagrin of his possessive mother Sara. Eleanor becomes increasingly dependent on Franklin, feeling "absolutely lost" when he is away. After they are married, Eleanor is forced to move in to his family home with his mother; as a result, she is never able to have her own home and instead relies on her mother-in-law for everything, as she essentially runs their lives and is the loudest voice in raising their children, leaving Eleanor without a role in her own family and without "self-confidence and ability to look after [herself]." Whereas, to be loved by Marie Souvestre had "meant to display an independent spirit with individual flavor, and a playful imagination," to be loved by Sara "meant to become fully like Sara." It is here that Eleanor loses her identity, mimicking Sara's views, including "flip, class-bound arrogance and egregious racism."
   
   It is not until 1918, when the "bottom drops out" of Eleanor Roosevelt's world, that she reflects on her life and determines what she wants of it. While previously Eleanor has had a romantic view of her marriage, upon discovering Franklin's letters from his mistress, Lucy Mercer, Eleanor Roosevelt becomes dejected and depressed and develops what the author characterizes as anorexia. After a period of reflection and introspection, ultimately she resolves to design herself an "independent life" that serves to meet her own needs and reclaim her separate identity. After 1923, Eleanor and Franklin live essentially separate lives, as Eleanor accepts Missy LeHand's role as his "second wife" and develops her own separate circle of friends separate from his. While Franklin works toward rehabilitating his legs after developing polio, Eleanor works on her own career and becomes a national figure in her own right, including an important role as an educator, owning and teaching at a progressive school called Todhouse, and encouraging a new generation of female students just as she had been encouraged by Marie Souvestre. Finally, Eleanor seems to complete her personal journey as a woman through her romantic relationships with Earl Miller, her bodyguard, and Lorena Hickok, an esteemed reporter from the Associated Press, who both champion Eleanor Roosevelt and promote her best interests, giving her personal fulfillment. Through these relationships, she is no longer alone, but has the support system she will need to face her next big challenge - the White House.
   
   In telling the arc of Eleanor Roosevelt's journey to becoming an independent woman, "Eleanor Roosevelt, Vol. 1" is what it claims to be - a life and times of Eleanor Roosevelt through 1933. Although the writing style is dry and the book starts off slowly, it ultimately succeeds in explaining who Eleanor Roosevelt was - her struggles to find her own identify and to put herself in a position of power where she doesn't need her husband to define her own self-worth. But because the book ends at 1933, we learn more about who Eleanor Roosevelt is and less about why she is such an important historical figure. Also, because this book is necessarily about Eleanor as an independent person, she emerges as a fully-fleshed three-dimensional figure, while Franklin comes off as a flat, ordinary, two-dimensional character. As a result, the book sparks even more questions than it answers. Why did Eleanor marry Franklin? What was the true nature of their partnership? What were her greatest accomplishments? And why should we care about Eleanor Roosevelt? While I had not originally planned to, I now intend to read "Eleanor Roosevelt: The Defining Years, Volume 2" by the same author, as well as "F.D.R." by Jean Edward Smith and "No Ordinary Time" by Doris Kearns Goodwin to help answer these additional questions and learn not just about who Eleanor Roosevelt was, but why she mattered.



5. I happened across Vol. 2 of this biography and procrastinated on actually reading it for several months--it is a LARGE volume and I was kind of put off at the seemingly enormous task of reading the tome. Once I started reading, I stayed with it. The book is well written and I found Eleanor to be a most intriguing figure. Something that kept me interested was the similarity between the issues in the United States in Eleanor's day and the issues currently. I found myself wishing everyone would read the biography, as a kind of refresher course in history. Maybe our country's leaders could be more effective in leading our nation away from economic disaster and loss of a middle class if they were reminded of what happened in the first half of the 20th century. Volume 2 of the biography made such an impact on my thinking, I felt compelled to locate Volume 1. I have not finished reading it yet, but so far, it has not disappointed. Blanche Wiesen Cook is a thorough and skilled researcher and an excellent writer. One should not be put off at the size of the two volumes--Reading these two volumes of Eleanor Roosevelt's life is very much worth the effort!

5 comments about In the Footsteps of Mr. Kurtz: Living on the Brink of Disaster in Mobutu's Congo.

1. `In the Footsteps of Mr Kurtz' is a nice introduction to the intriguing life and times of infamous dictator Mobutu, from his rise to power to his less than glorious downfall. I advise it to anyone who is unfamiliar with Zaire-Congo. Very good reading is her account of the final collapse of the Zairian army. This book was originally conceived as a radio-program on BBC. It is however just that: an introduction. The author is so kind to refer to further reading in the last pages of the book. There the interested reader can find very good resources on the history of the Belgian Congo.
   
   
   Michela Wrong does suffer from some prejudice towards Belgium and the Belgians not uncommon in the UK. Apart from King Leopold II, the role of the Belgian monarchy and the Belgian governments, especially while supporting the brutal Mobutu dictatorship is hardly present and when mentioned it is downplayed. Not a word on the part that King Baudouin and Prime Minister Gaston Eyskens played in 1959-1960, especially concerning the assassination of Patrice Lumumba. I strongly suggest The Assassination of Lumumba by Belgian journalist Ludo De Witte for a good background on that period.
   
   
   The author points out that it took an American historian to dig up the facts about King Leopold II's barbarity. While the author is absolutely right in pointing out that Belgium has still not come to terms with its own colonial past, and while King Leopold's Ghost by Adam Hochschild is a must read, it is NOT the first published account of that period. That honour goes to the Belgian former diplomat Jules Marchal. But even so, in 1985 he still had to use the pseudonym of A. M. Delathuy and go to the small leftwing publisher EPO (Education Prolétarienne - Proletarische Opvoeding) to get the first ever book published of a ruthless campaign that would nowadays be labelled as genocide. All big Belgian, French and Dutch publishers flatly refused it. Unfortunately this book is only available in Dutch and French, not in English.
   
   
   Michela Wrong does give credit to this book, stating that it is only available in French (and Flemish if you can read it) ...Two small remarks here, there is no such thing as a Flemish language. I know that even recently a quality newspaper like The Guardian still claims that `the Flemish Belgians speak Flemish, a language related to Dutch'. The author does not have to take my word for it, she can go check any library and ask for an Flemish-English dictionary, there is no such thing. She can also come check the curriculum in any Flemish school, where she will find that students learn mathematics, geography and `Dutch' at school. While her apparently not so well informed ears may find it odd to hear that the Flemish speak Dutch while not being Dutch, maybe it will help to point out that also the Austrians speak German, that the Brazilians speak Portuguese etc ... Do the Flemish have a different accent than the Dutch? Yes; certainly, but so do Texans, Jamaicans, Australians, yet they all speak English. I also do not understand why Michela Wrong finds it necessary to give a demeaning remark ... if you can read it ... Dutch is the native language of 16 million Dutch and 6 million Flemish, that is more than all Scandinavian languages combined. Another detail that reveals her prejudice towards Belgians and Flemish is that the only Belgian politician she mentions by name is Leo Tindemans who she misspells with a typical `German' double `nn'. Of all Belgian Prime Ministers that ever played a role in Zaire-Congo, he was the least active on Zaire. Every Belgian knows about Tindemans' personal distaste for Mobutu (the feeling was mutual).
   
   
   A good introduction to Mobutu indeed, a translation into French and Dutch (I can read it!) is more than welcome.
   
   
   Lode Vanoost (Belgian native Dutch speaker, 7 years old in 1960, no strings attached to Congo), Brussels, 26 November 2006



2. Few nations have had as sad a history as Zaire, currently known as the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Michela Wrong, a journalist for the New Statesman, has taken the time to write a book about the Congo's history particularly under Mobutu, and her experiences in the Congo during his kleptocratic rule.
   
   Her stories are well-researched, and it's clear she's talked with many of those who influenced the history of the time. The sterile recounting of Congo's continual deterioriation under Mobutu is quite well done. What I found infuriating about this book is that Wrong never seems to ask why things happened, or were allowed to happen.
   
   When Zaire, for instance, became independent, it boasted all of 17 university graduates in a country the size of Western Europe, and had had the Belgians pour much treasure into its development. Surely the Belgians, who deconialized, realized that the country would be dependent on Western know-how for many years. Why then, did they not leave advisers behind, perhaps advisers with a brief to make the president offers he couldn't refuse, as was the practice in other francophone colonies? One of the cataclysms under Mobutu's rule was his expelling of many non-Zairians, who left their capital behind, but not their connections and understanding of their business. The economy duly crashed. Why did neither the Belgians nor the French nor the Americans dissuade him from a policy that all but destroyed Zaire's prosperity? One reason why the above mentioned powers were loath to antagonize Mobutu were the many services he queitly performed for them during the Cold War. Why does Wrong only allude to them, and not mention them? One could continue in this vein, but I felt as if what could have become a fascinating book focusing on the crunch times when astoundingly disastrous decisions were made, instead focuses on the misery that these ill-begotten decisions wreaked, which is not as nearly interesting.
   
   If you need to need a source for academic work on Zaire under Mobutu, you may enjoy this book, but I wouldn't recommend it as pleasure reading.



3. Michela Wrong is one of those liberal journalists who blame 99% of Africa's 'problems' on the European colonial regimes and the European and American 'neo-colonial' interventions. Her book does provide a very good glimpse into the doings and crimes of Mobutu and his relatives and cronies, but excuses most of it away by referencing the colonialists who went before. Ditto for his successor Kabila of course, although the focus is mainly on Mobutu.
   
   The United States, the World Bank, and the IMF are blasted as participants in all the corruption and downgoing of Congo/Zaire because they provided countless millions in aid money. The money was given to Mobutu in the hope that it would be used improve the economy and aid development, but of course most of it wound up being slotted into Swiss bank accounts or into the purchase of villas in the Riviera.
   
   If these vast sums had NOT been given, the author would of course have led the pack in condemning the USA, WB, and IMF for not giving the money to help Africa, as if only they had then it would not be in the mess it is. And so on, we know the refrain by now, don't we?
   
   Wrong brings up the Cold War as yet another dire consequence for Congo, it becoming a victim of competing world powers grabbing for its resources and influence over the region. It doesn't occur to her that really it was a tremendous boon, in that it meant that countries like that could soak up billions in handouts from the West and eyes averted from African crimes and despotism. Big chiefs like Mobutu massively exploited the West and could not have done so as deeply as without the Cold War.
   
   I lived in Africa for twelve years and saw several countries go from colonialism to post-colonial darkness under one despotic regime or another. I have run into plenty of Michela Wrongs there, who think they understand Africa but really just can not get past their own biases.
   
   Yes, colonialism in Congo under the Belgians did have its share of abuses. But for most Congolese it was a good thing in that it meant jobs, education, modern agriculture, medicine, order, and the building up of a functional, modern nation. The problem is that the Belgians LEFT - at the demands of wannabe despots and liberal journalists like Wrong of course - and the grasping, bloody hands that took over utterly ruined the place. And of course it has been about the same all across Africa: darkness followed by colonialism as a brief ray of light, and what came after a return to the darkness.
   
   So why did I give this book four stars? Because of the fairly accurate portrait of those post-colonial grasping, bloody hands. There is plenty of detail on how the billions got stolen, how the economic infrastructure was pillaged away to nothing, and how the whole population was returned to about the level of the stone age which is where the Belgians first found them.
   
   Two last notes -
   
   Firstly, Wrong's continual reference to Mr. Kurtz and Conrad's novella 'Heart of Darkness' seems way out of place. Mobutu was no Kurtz, period. Mobutu's head would have been just another adornment on Kurtz's front gate up the river. And Conrad could not have even imagined how horrendous the post-colonial Africa would become.
   
   Secondly, she claims that Stanley was called 'Breaker of Rocks' for his brutality towards the various Congolese tribes he encountered. That is not true. He was far less severe towards the tribes than they were to each other, and the 'breaker of rocks' comes from his construction work of the railway across Congo - the endless rocky areas which he blasted and hacked away, amazing his African laborers along the way.
   
   Overall, I recommend this book, readers should just disregard Wrong's trendy liberal-left biases.



4. Anyone who wants to understand the Congo should read two books, Michela Wrong's In The Footsteps of Mr. Kurtz and King Leopold's Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror, and Heroism in Colonial Africa by Adam Hochschild. I also heartily recommend both books to anyone studying Conrad's Heart of Darkness, which is too seldom seen as an historic account as well as a literary novel. Wrong and Hochschild explain why the last 100 years of bloody tyranny in possibly the most mineral-rich country on earth has laid the groundwork for 100 more.
   
   Hochschild gives us the first half of the century, when King Leopold II of Belgium, a man whose inferiority complex knows no bottom and whose greed no limits, jumps into the feeding frenzy for colonies and comes up gripping the very heart of Africa, the vast area around the Congo River and it's tributaries that would later become the Belgian Congo, then Zaire, and today is the Democratic Republic of Congo. This is also the setting for my novel, Heart of Diamonds: A Novel of Scandal, Love and Death in the Congo. Wrong covers this era also, but in less depth, helpfully referring readers to Hochschild for the full story.
   
   Where she picks up steam, though, is with Joseph Desire Mobutu, better known as Mobutu Sese Seko, who became the archetype African strongman dictator. She paints a remarkably nuanced portrait of the man, exposing not just his brutality but his cunning; his charm as well as his lust for power. Wrong witnessed Mobutu's last days and tells us how he ultimately lost control of the nation he ruled for over thirty years.
   
   Mobutu didn't rise to office on his good looks and winning personality--he was essentially put there by the CIA. He also didn't retain power simply because he was good at exercising it; France, Belgium, and the United States, not to mention the World Bank, kept him there with military support and an endless stream of dollars. The tale of how he played the First World like a violin is fascinating. Mobutu's nationalization of foreign-owned assets and his machinations with the White House sparked several plot elements in Heart of Diamonds: A Novel of Scandal, Love and Death in the Congo.
   
   Wrong gives us a highly readable account of Mobutu's demise. "The Leopard" as he was known, had grown increasingly distracted and detached from his power base. In the last years, he spent most of his time in the Xanadu he constructed in Gbadolite in the middle of the equatorial forest, leaving the country's affairs to a network of cronies and relatives who plundered the nation in his name. The Rwandan genocide of 1994 set the stage for his downfall. Mobutu sided with the Hutus, and when he ordered the Tutsi refugees who had fled into Zaire to leave under pain of death in 1996, Rwanda, Uganda, and Burundi joined forces to drive him from office.
   
   Wrong also explains how Laurent Kabila picked up where Mobutu left off as ruler and manipulating despot. Unfortuantely for the reader, her account was published before Kabila's own assassination in 2001.
   
   Paired with Adam Hochschild's well-researched history, King Leopold's Ghost, Michela Wrong's book gives the reader a better understanding of this deeply troubled nation.



5. This is a mostly fascinating on-the-ground report of the waning years and immediate aftermath of Mobutu Sese Seko's incompetent dictatorship in Zaire (Congo). Michela Wrong offers a well-rounded journalistic report that digs into the bizarre depths of kleptocracy, as the potentially prosperous Zaire was bled dry while Mobutu and his ever-shifting gang of cronies and yes-men lived in ridiculous luxury, oblivious as their subjects suffered some of the worst poverty and hardship on Earth. Wrong gains plenty of insight into Mobutu's style of governance, as he spread favors around egregiously and played other powers off each other in an increasingly paranoid effort to maintain his own influence, stealing or blowing away untold billions of dollars in the process. Wrong also reports on the aftermath of Mobutu's pathetic downfall, as a convoluted series of atrocities related to the genocide in tiny Rwanda eventually led to the replacement of Mobutu's kleptocracy with Kabila's thugocracy.
   
   There is a running theme, which Wrong could have dwelled upon more, about how the ugly history of European colonialism and exploitation has forever wrecked the ability of Africa's peoples to build their own functioning societies, while Zaire suffered the tragic fate of a home-grown dictator who ruined his people as badly as the colonialists did. Cold War politics and shifting loyalties in endless proxy wars added to the misery. The tail end of the book gets a bit messy as well, degenerating into disconnected chapters on various items of interest, as Wrong's writing takes on some of the disjointed chaos that plagued the country itself during Mobutu's downfall. The British slang and grammatical patterns of Wrong's writing style can also lead to some confusion for American readers. But despite missed opportunities to dwell on some crucial historical lessons, here we get an engaging history of a dictator who is fascinating in his ineptitude and corruption. [~doomsdayer520~]

5 comments about Madam Secretary: A Memoir.

1. This tape provides a very good personal history of her as a person but, unfortunately, very little with respect to analysis of policies and issues when she was foreign secretary. There is very little discussion as to how and why major foreign policy decisions were made, interaction of the main players in these decisions, what goals (short and long term) were and other aspects involving foreign policy decisions and strategies. All these should have been discussed. Is this not why someone buys a book like this to begin with? It's as if the book defeats its purpose.



2. An admireable lady with lots of guts! She has accomplished some feats that would be nearly impossible for most of us. Learn the real facts about Madam Secretary!



3. This is a very good bio ;read by the author which gives it some extra interest and dimension. This could have been a dry tome except for the little glimpses of Ms. Albright and her human side and how she used her humaanity to affect world policy. Further proof that " if women ruled the world..." is something to be considered. I believe that while Ms. Albright was at the helm as secretary of state , we were all a little bit safer.



4. This is a great audio that peeks candidly into the life of a very famous person. If nothing else you should listen to it to get some historical relevance to a living leader. It is provocative and glimpses into the jet setting life and yet manages to down to the details of how she manages to get a professional blow dry for her very difficult to manage hair. This audio puts a nice twist on a very powerful lady. Better than the book.



5. This is one of the best books I've read in a long time. I also have a better understanding of Eastern Europe and Israeli/Palestinian conflicts.
   Madeline Albright is a an excellent writer and a great role model.

5 comments about Journals: 1952-2000.

1. Historian/columnist Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. was the last half-century's most prolific, eloquent liberal voice. He served John Kennedy's administration as "special assistant to the president," wrote best-selling biographies of JFK, RFK, and Franklin Roosevelt, advised, wrote and edited speeches for Senator Ted Kennedy and most major Democratic leaders, and had working friendships with most of recent history's most influential political, literary, even entertainment figures. His exhaustive life journals numbered more than 6,000 pages; Schlesinger approved their publication before his 2007 death, and they were edited by two of his sons and Penguin Press to a still-formidable 858 pages.
   
   Yet amid Schlesinger's power lunches, society parties, and foreign trips seeming the setting for each page, he writes compelling, honest looks at friends and loved ones (wife Alexandra and children, the Kennedys, Adlai Stevenson, Henry Kissinger), enemies (Roy Cohn and Caspar Weinberger but chiefly Richard Nixon as the comic villain Schlesinger calls "Tricky") and loyalty to FDR/Truman/JFK liberalism.
   
   Schlesinger's opinions and observations fascinate, whether from inside as cabinet member or distantly as seasoned political observer. He called political gamesmanship his "favorite spectator sport," and his election year entries (especially those involving a Kennedy as late as 1984) are especially savory. Not to mention his disappointment at reduced roles in Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter's administrations. (Schlesinger even paraphrased Gerald Ford describing Carter's 1980 defeat.) His year 2000 entries even echo into this year's election race with frequent positive references to Hillary Clinton (in her First Lady and Senate campaign roles), John McCain, and a haunting closing sentence on then newly-elected President George W. Bush.
   
   Schlesinger's brief period as Nixon's next-door neighbor (years after placed on Nixon's "enemies list.") reads hilarious, as do some of the more pithy presidential cracks at predecessors (JFK on Eisenhower, Ford on Nixon).
   
   Yet even in these informal settings, Schlesinger's chronicles 1963 and 1968's horrific events with mastery and mourning for friends and political heroes. He repeats a generation's feelings on November 23, 1963, when wrting, "I still cannot believe this man (JFK)...of such intelligence and gaiety and strength, is dead. The wages of hate are fearful."
   
   Schlesinger's June 9, 1968 entry is possibly even more saddening. He speaks of Senator Robert Kennedy's assassination with personal heartbreak associated with losing a younger brother: "There was for me such a poignancy about RFK," he wrote, "all the greater now that they killed him before he had the chance to place his great gifts at the service of the nation and the presidency; Jack had at least 2 ½ years." These events shadow Schlesinger throughout the rest of his life and journals, from Ted Kennedy's presidential campaigns to tourists on the Kennedy front lawn.
   
   In his recent hit album, "Memory Almost Full," Paul McCartney writes, "When I think that all this stuff could make a life/it's pretty hard to take it in." It can be argued Schlesinger stood too close by one political family to keep an historian's objectivity. Or his Washington-New York social life (chronicled endlessly) cost him understanding of how Americans lived and viewed their history. But his was an important voice and seconding motion for the post-World War II years, and this well-edited collection of observations and perspective cement his niche in history behind the political giants he advised, chronicled, and befriended. Highly recommended.



2. Anyone who has read Schlesinger's books on Andrew Jackson, the New Deal, or John and Robert Kennedy knows how partisan he was. He viewed American history as a perennial struggle between noble, idealistic, intelligent liberals and selfish, materialistic, moronic conservatives. This is not my interpretation of his views. It was explicit in his meta-historical cyclical conception of American history, which he adopted from his father. Indeed, his partisanship was so obvious that it was harmless. These journals are no exception. Those people who opposed his heroes were not only wrong, they were morally and intellectually corrupt; and even, in the case of Lyndon Johnson, borderline insane. The only exception I could find was Henry Kissinger, whom Schlesinger usually described with respect. The same is true of events. The American involvement in Vietnam enters his journals only in 1966, with regard to Robert Kennedy's opposition to it. There is no way of knowing from these journals that John Kennedy was responsible for it.
   Nevertheless, these journals provide many interesting and important insights into the events and people that shaped American political history in the last half of the twentieth century.
   Moreover, among their most valuable passages are those in which Schlesinger's liberal bias itself is illuminating. For example, on page 363, he attributed George McGovern's catastrophic loss to Richard Nixon in the 1972 election mainly to racism, which he says was "the all-pervading issue of the election." According to Schlesinger, it was "the belief that Nixon can be relied upon to keep the blacks down" that caused large numbers of traditionally Democratic voters to vote for him. Schlesinger acknowledged that Nixon's supporters did not say that that they were racists. Schlesinger claims that instead of admitting their racism, Nixon's supporters used code words: welfare, crime, busing, schools, quotas. However, it should have been obvious that these were real and serious grievances. At that time, the rate of violent urban crime was rising by more than ten percent a year; children who lived a few blocks from a public school were being bussed for hours each day; etc. McGovern lost so terribly because he and his supporters thought like Schlesinger. They dismissed these real and serious grievances as expressions of racism.
   Another example is on page 437. There Schlesinger makes the interesting observation that Carter was the first Democratic president of the twentieth century whose programs did not have a label, like Wilson's New Freedom, Roosevelt's New Deal, Truman's Fair Deal, Kennedy's New Frontier, and Johnson's Great Society. He attributes this to Carter's defects. (Schlesinger loathed and execrated Carter.) Schlesinger could not see that the reason was that the Great Society completed the New Deal. (Completing the New Deal was Johnson's purpose, the dream he had had since he entered Congress as a fanatical Roosevelt supporter in 1937.) After the Great Society, there were no longer any new, broad, governmental economic programs that could gain the support of most Americans. Schlesinger regarded McGovern as the last Democratic candidate who represented the true Democratic tradition. But anyone who now reads the 1972 Democratic platform will be stunned by its vacuous phrase-mongering and shameless racial posturing. (Most Americans were revolted in 1972 also.)



3. Unless one is a scholar, those under 60 will not find this book of great interest. For someone my age (71) who's also a political junky with still-vivid memories of the 1960s forward, this book is an artistic and intellectual treasure. The editing--and there was obvious a lot of editing--results in jewels on virtually every page. Schlesinger undresses everyone of consequence he ever worked with, no holds barred, including the Kennedy family.
   
   In 1969 (maybe 1970) Lloyd Norman, dean of the Pentagon press corps, addressed a class I attended at Fort Benning, GA. He claimed before the so-called Cuban missile crisis, he was given a briefing about how the crisis at sea would be orchestrated, so there was never a real chance of armed confrontation. I could never get verification of this, and none of the popular or historical accounts mention it. Yet, on page 176 Schlesinger mentions an October 1962 letter from Khrushchev to Bertrand Russell about "his instructions to Soviet ships to avoid confrontation..." When Schlesinger heard about the incident from Averell Harriman, he sent a memo to the President describing the Khruschev letter. Kennedy, according to the book, "called Harriman the next day and asked him questions about it." Is this validation of Norman's account? Maybe.



4. Schlesinger's 'Journals' is a fantastic insight, focusing mainly on the Democratic Party's inner battles as well as a juicy dish piece for an intellectual socialite. The author may embarrass himself on a number of occasions, but he's always thoroughly readable and deadly honest. Criticisms of his devotion to the Kennedys might be accurate, but he's honest in his affection and very aware of it. Anyone thinking this is just a load of leftist propaganda ought take note of Schlesinger's animosity toward Gore Vidal and American communists, as well as warm relationships with Henry Kissinger, George HW Bush, and eventually William Buckley. (A fantastic subtext is the declining role of alcohol in American politics.) Does anyone know if there's a conservative book like this?



5. I liked the journals by Mr. Schlesinger and learned a lot from this journals especially when it came to the issue of the Iranian revolution, hostage crisis and the late Shah of Iran. Not that I agreed with Schlesinger's liberal and wrong ideas on how to deal with the Iranian revolution but it confirmed what I have always thought about the incompetence among Carter's aides and advisers which resulted in loss of a great ally. As a typical leftist the author disliked the late Shah of Iran and thought it is okay to replace him. Also, it showed how terrible Carter admin was in dealing with the Iranian crisis where Carter says to Zbig: "I can't tell a fellow head of state what to do". Also, it confirmed my earlier belief that Zbig was in favor of supporting the Shah and preventing the revolution but Commie Carter and State Dept were against his tough proposals. All in all, journals are a great way to learn about the past and I do appreciate his time for writing the journals even though politically I disagree with him so much.

5 comments about Exposing the Real Che Guevara: And the Useful Idiots Who Idolize Him.

1. This book is so bias that it makes books by people like Michael Moore look truthful--and in all openness, I love Moore's books, I find them hilarious--but that's okay, if you can make some clear points and elaborate on them. However, in this book, that steams with the sated hatred Mr. Fontova has for Che and the people that like him and think him a Revolutionary, his points are too broad, and too outward against what is actually known. But I will be fair and show the points that he did make that are true.
   
   1. Che was a murderer.
   2. Che participated in acts of torture.
   3. Che was responsible for the murder of several male teens.
   4. Che aided in installing an egaltarian dictatorship--though much of communism is shadowed on egalitariaism, Castro's views are to the extreme.
   5. Che was not a chivilarous and kind person who only wanted freedom.
   
   All of these things are true about Che Guevara, he shouldn't be an icon of freedom. But the smart person sees him as one for Revolution. He was a revolutionary. He was not a psychotic, though he did suffer from paranoia, his acts of murder of the multitude of men that he did kill (quite a lot less than what Fontova has listed, 14,000, more like 4 or 6), came not from a callousness, but from a fear of being overtrown and killed (this is referenced in the change of voice in his journals through the times, several biographies, not to be biased myself, but Che A Revolutionary's Life is one great source). He did not murder children. He did murder boys--teenagers--old enough to take up arms that he felt a threat, or a support of the former dictatorship. He disowned the movement with Fidel after seeing what Fidel did with the power. Che Guevara did believe what he spoke and did believe in what he was doing, it made him a dangerous person, a person that would not stop until he accomplished his goals. He was willing to die for his cause. He was a revolutionary.
   
   I do not like Che Guevara, I think he's overhyped. I do not like this book. I think it's a poorly written, poorly structured, and even worst, poor lies--if you're going to lie to me, at least do it creatively and believably like Michael Moore. There are plenty of reasons to not like Che Guevara, but the facts in this book aren't one of them.



2. If Humberto Fontova's book were not so disturbing, I would call it a page-turner. And in as much as it grips you from the first sentence, it is still difficult to read of the first-hand accounts of such brutalities which, sadly, fill this book from beginning to end. Unlike Jon Lee Anderson's disgraceful and idolizing tribute to the bumbling, blood-thirsty butcher of La Cabana, constructed upon interviews with present-day communists still ruling in Cuba (Anderson wrote his book while living in Cuba), Fontova instead reaches out to the families and victims themselves to tell the story of the coward and mass murderer, Che Guevara. In fact, one of the great joys in reading this book was the masterful deconstruction of credibility he wields against leftist Che biographers like Anderson and Jorge Casteneda. Fontova eerily transports you to the blood-spattered execution wall where thousands of innocent Cubans were murdered as Guevara gazed down from his office window while dining -- a favorite pastime for Che. He takes you to the filthy dungeons where prisoners awaited their turn at any moment, day or night, to be dragged to the stake and shot. He also takes you to the dank, repulsive rooms where prisoners had almost two pints of blood drawn from their bodies moments before execution. This blood was, in turn, sold to North Vietnam as an export item for profit. In short, Humberto Fontova vividly brings the horrific world of Castro and Guevara's "revolucion" into your living room.
   
   Fontova's book finally reveals Che T-shirt-wearing dolts like Johnny Depp, Carlos Santana as well as every other useful idiot stupid enough to don them as they fools they truly are.



3. As a Child of Exiles, I read and had the pleasure of meeting the author, Very Informative book, I did not need to read it to know that this book says what Us "Crazy Cubans In Miami" as were called ,Always have thought about this scumbag. The book dares to Confront the truth, a ugly one not liked by "so-called scholars" and way-left loonies, First, That he was A blood thirsty killer, who sent not just So-Called Batista's Men but Apolitical people who were caught up. Ordered many executions(see The lost city, Read Spanish Book: El Che Mito o Realidad By Enrique Ros,Or See Documentary of same name.)Yet Foolish Idiots like Santana, Rich Suburban College kids who have never stepped foot in communist torned cuba. That the so-called liberator was a mere follower, Was a Spoiled kid and yes even liked the so-called ills of capitalism!.That he was a Psychopath with deep rooted problems(He shot a Dog for no reason), Was a Coward(Never fought on the front lines and did not know military strategy) Never got his "Degree". So The Doctor Was not a Accredited one.and Was a Failure at all he touched included the Monetary system in cuba. Often you will hear idiots say But before the "Revolution" Cuba was a third world country". Was not, not until after Castro and INC. came on the scene.Cuba was one of the most advanced countries in the world right along the united states, sometimes ahead of the U.s.! We had the 1940 constitution, of course batista was a bad leader, but the situation was not as severe as described by "Historians", and NO the Mob as popular myth has it did not run cuba as its own as much one would say the mob ran the U.s. Many things are exposed here.Again, If your A blind leftist this book is not for you. if your apolitical or conservative. you must read. everyone should read a book that does not depend on sources(Straight from the cuban regime!)and from a critical point.



4. Dear friends, Che Guevara lives on two main levels: the first is the exuberant Christlike figure that makes work of his youthful idealism, steps up in defense of the oppressed masses of South America (it is interesting to understand the identity of the oppressor...) and rides the wawe of the world's social emancipation of the '60ties; the second one shows us a man like you and me, with it's shortcomings and naivety that propels himself to the ranks of power and cannot therefore be unstained and saintly. He became a soldier and a commander and a government official during a (cold) war. We all know what this mean.
   In spite of the fact that this book for some reason can be found on almost every page of Amazon - I cannot say the same of the great biography by Ignacio Taibo which instead was 'hidden' in the very last pages - and therefore reeked of propaganda, I must say that the book seems to be the fruit of a genuine research and it should certainly not be ignored when seeking an objective perspective on the figure of Che Guevara. It is evident that the author has an understandable personal grudge with the Cuban regime - a grudge for which he earns my condolences and compassion however, I believe that in a future revision of this work, limiting himself to the mere facts would be sufficient to illustrate his point of view and would prove even more effective in describing the dark side of the Cuban revolution and putting forward the idea that the idolization of Che Guevara needs to be reconsidered.
   I would recommend this book to all that wish to fine-tune their view of that particular historic period. The book also contains an interesting bibliography for further research.
   After reading this book I cannot but agree that the myth of Che Guevara needs to be looked upon critically and somehow a veil has been lifted.
   I would also recommend the book by Carotta 'Was Jesus Caesar?'in order to gain a new understanding of how a person can become the icon of an ideology and end up portraying a set of universal values in spite of their flawed human conduct.Jesus Was Caesar: On the Julian Origin of Christianity: An Investigative Report Guevara, Also Known as Che



5. The author simply fails to make his case. As i read this in a bookstore i couldnt help but feel that i was reading the Warren Report or a neocon apology from the Bush administration. Was Che Guevara without flaws? Hardly.
   But is he the figure this book tries to make him? Not in my opinion. The Jon Lee Anderson bio remains for me the most scrupulosly researched and even keeled exploration. This is crap.