5 comments about George III A Personal History.

1. Nice overview of the times. The fact that George III was just as determined to maintain the credibility of the British empire as that other George was at finding a way to separate from it. A renewal of the more believable story of 'mad king george'.



2. This very well-written and researched book provides a wealth of detail on the life of Britain's King George III and his family.
   
   The last British king of the American colonies, George III directed the ill-advised war against his independence-minded colonies. Long and terribly destructive, the war saw the defeat of George's armies and navies in North America. Still, having spent eight years fighting the Americans, the King quickly decided to lay the foundations of a lasting peace and friendship between the two countries.
   
   Hibbert depicts King George as a constitutionally-minded monarch and a competent ruler. Initially detested by his people, he ended his life and reign greatly loved. Certainly his greatest challenges revolved around his large and dysfunctional family and his fight with porphyria and insanity.
   
   "George III" is a scholarly work. Though not an easy read, it is an interesting one!



3. Christopher Hibbert is one of those historians that seems to write about everything. Peter Gay is another that comes to mind. Hibbert provides us a very readale account of George's life. The early years are a bit confusing keeping track of the lineage and order of succession in the Royal family. Many biographies of monarchs suffer from this problem because there are so many family connections to keep track of. Once we get past this point and the young george becomes king, the book starts to pick up.
   
   What becomes apparent is that George III was extremely fare and decent man for his time. We should have such politicians today with this kind of integrity! The emphsasis in this bio is on George's private life. His dealings with his German Queen Charlotte, his son and sucessor the future George IV, who was a continual source of stress for him. The chapters on his dealings with the colonies provided a much less bias account than one normally hears from most US historians. The King was willing to come to any reasonable settlement short of independence. This book shows how he tried to grapple with the American problem, but that it just got out of control.
   
   His dealings with the various parliamentry governments provides a classic example of how personalities shape governments. Petty likes and dislikes lead to complete policies that are often inane. Still, the British people stuck by their old George, espesically when the excesses of the French Revolution became known.
   
   The book gives a good account of some of the other Royals, including George IV, the Duke of York, etc. Most come across as aristocratic fopps and losers, but some manage to have some merit. Over all a great book which chronicles both the life and times of Georgian England. The life of George III was indeed that of England in its heyday. A great read for the time and persoanlities concerned.



4. I used this book extensively for a research paper I wrote on George III. This book does a great job at dispelling the myths about George III and his character.



5. Who was the English King at the time of The American Revolution? I dunno!!! Well, now I do know and, furthermore, I now know something about his private and public life before and after The American Revolution. He reigned for over 50 years and the last years of his reign were about 200 "short" years ago. One thing that impressed me was the sorry state of "the medical art" even in those days. Taking blood from sick people was supposed to cure them. Giving arsenic was supposed to cure certain ailments. Today, we are way ahead of these primitive practices....all we do is give medicines that are "poison" such as depression medication and cold medicine and "antibiotics" for viruses which have no effect.....and doctors do unnecessary surgeries frequently so they can get money from the naive and trusting patients. But, that's another story and another book! Read about King George 3rd; you'll find it interesting. Boland7214@aol

5 comments about Reagan: A Life In Letters.

1. Reading this book, its impossible to escape a few conclusions. First, Reagan was a very warm and cordial man. Regardless of your political views, his decency and civility are very much missed in today's Washington. Next, Reagan was obviously someone who has a grasp of his material. Whether you agreed with him or not, reading this book and others that have reproduced his correspondence, speeches etc. that he drafted personally will forever shatter the mythical "amiable dunce" that his opponents were quick to embrace. Finally, I got a much better sense of the Reagan the man than any biography I've read so far. Interestingly, one gets a MUCH better sense of Reagan the man and the President than from his autobiography, which was fairly mediocre in comparison.



2. This review is not probably going to be what one would think for someone who loved Ronald Reagan, because this book was written for people who ignorantly thought he was "the most dangerous man in America".
   That is the focus of this book in being 'Legacy' which was what his family, friends and administration were dealing with in releasing this book. We knew President Reagan was brilliant, wise, caring, God fearing, moral and a world leader who only comes along in a generation to transform the world, but these letters were meant to convince the narrow minded how wrong they were about him.
   For someone who adores this gentle man, I found it startling in reading he names Jane Fonda and her husband a traitor, how Democrats lied to gain power while the nation suffered in mirror image of what just happened to Bush 43 and his insight that Jimmy Carter would be a disaster and was a phoney before he even took office. The reason that was startling is Reagan was right about Star Wars, was right about how to topple the Soviet Union without a nuclear war and was right how the key to eastern Europe's freedom was religion, so Reagan being always proven correct has deeper meaning for all of history in his naming people traitors and phoneys.
   His greatest warning in his letters today are the dangers of a national health care system which will ruin American health care and how it is only a power grab by socialists to gain more control over America for their rule. It will be the 2008 election and Hillary Clinton as part of her agenda is to implement that national health care. Reagan's voice rings eternal in warning America of what is right and what is wrong.
   I would have enjoyed the book more if the letters would have have been his living legacy of God given wisdom more and less of the facts in trying to prove to ignorant people he really was a good soul. I already knew that like most Americans and we didn't require convincing.
   The book though proves Reagan was the genuine person on camera or off. He and his lovely wife, Nancy, endured more from their children and petty personalities than anyone ever should have to. Americans owe them an eternal thank you and an even more deeper gratitude to God in guiding this American's life who revolutionized America and the world and whose "shining city on a hill" is still moving the entire world.
   That is legacy a generation later and I still love that old man.



3. If you are expecting intricate epistles along the lines of Paul the Apostle or C. S. Lewis Collected Letters of C.S. Lewis - Box Set, forget about it. Sixty percent of this book is small (almost jotted) memos. It is nice to see that Reagan kept in contact with people, and that he nudged his relationships along with these small bundles. But as a presidential source book, we could have done with less. The book could have been half as long, and therefore twice as effective.
   
   If you are looking for sources on Reaganism, then I recommend Speaking My Mind: Selected Speeches and Reagan, In His Own Hand: The Writings of Ronald Reagan That Reveal His Revolutionary Vision for America. We get interesting policy letters about once every 25 pages or so. The gems are his correspondence with Nixon and Brezhnev. Plus we have a lot of material from the Governator years. These are key, since one does not go from GE spokesman to Leader of the Free World in one bound. We see the Reagan we all know love and . . . developing in the California Crucible.
   
   I think the biggest surprise was the section on pen pals. Instead of Ronaldus Magnus, we see Ronnie, all around good egg. Many of these letters are folksy, dealing with human problems, and occasionally we get Reagan's insight into current events--Lt. Calley, Charles Manson, and Sirhan Sirhan. Several letters are personal response to his critics. His firm but gentle way of rebuking a misinformed foe serves for a universal lesson.
   
   Favorite Letter: page 664.
   
   Andy Smith, a seventh-grader in Irmo, S.C., wrote the President in 1984, "Today my mother declared my bedroom a disaster area. I would like to request federal funds to hire a crew to clean up my room."
   
   Dear Andy:
   
   I'm sorry to be so late in answering your letter but as you know I've been in China . . .
   
   Your application for disaster relief has been duly noted but I must point out one technical problem; the authority declaring the disaster is supposed to make the request. In this case your mother.
   
   However setting that aside I'll have to point out the larger problem of available funds. This has been a year of disasters, 539 hurricanes as of May 4th and several more since, numerous floods, forest fires, drought in Texas and a number of earthquakes. What I'm getting at is that funds are dangerously low.
   
   May I make a suggestion? This administration, believing that government has done many things that could better be done by volunteers at the local level, has sponsored a Private Sector Initiative program, calling upon people to practice voluntarism in the solving of a number of local problems.
   
   Your situation appears to be a natural. I'm sure your mother was fully justified in proclaiming your room a disaster. Therefore you are in an excellent position to launch another volunteer program to go along with the more than 3,000 already underway in our nation--congratulations . . .
   
   Sincerely,
   Ronald Reagan
   
   
   Priceless!!!
   
   *
   
   This book should be part of the Essential Reagan Cannon. Along with "Speaking My Mind" and "In His Own Hand," this book should be read with The Reagan Diaries, An American Life, Ronald Reagan: A Life in Politics and In the Words of Ronald Reagan: The Wit, Wisdom, and Eternal Optimism of America's 40th President. I also recommend Reagan: Man of Principle, for insight on the elusive Governator years.



4. After all the sneering put downs from the leftist elitists, we can see the truth of a great man, in his own words. Almost singlehanded, he led the revolt of the common man against the elitists who would steal the common man's liberty for crass political gain. The revolution continues.



5. "Reagan, A Life In Letters," is the first book that I have read on President Ronald Reagan and it has nearly confounded me of how little I knew of our 40th U.S. President. He was so much different and such a better person than he was portrayed by the news media. He was an intelligent, compassionate patriot who really loved the United States of America. I was so impressed by the book that I purchased three additional copies and gave them away as gifts. I also purchased three different books about President and Mrs Reagan that I am looking forward to starting.

5 comments about Sweet Caroline: Last Child of Camelot.

1. I have read all of the Kennedy biographies and there is very little new information in this biography. The first part has been covered in all of the others, and the second part has been covered in the tabloids, which makes we question the accuracy of anything here that has not been lifted from another source. I noted two parts of this book that do not appear to be in keeping with what has been well documented. 1. The books states, that on April 4, 1968, Caroline was in her classroom when a teacher came in and whispered to her teacher that Martin Luther King had been shot. Quick research on the Web states this happened at about 4:30PM EST..Are 11 year olds in class at that time? 2. The books states that when visiting the White House JFK Jr. told then President Nixon, that he used to play under his desk. Everyone knows that the famous Kennedy desk was removed when he died, and not used again until it was brought back by President Clinton.



2. Andersen misleads the reader when he markets this book as a book about Caroline Kennedy. In fact this author does nothing more than re-hash everything that has already been written about the family. He sells it as a book about Caroline simply because he constantly uses the possessive form of her name to refer to the actual main characters in this book (Caroline's mother, Caroline's brother, Caroline's father etc.).After reading this book, I realized that this is because Caroline has lived a rather simple and scandel free life. The only remarkable thing about Caroline's life is that it's not that remarkable. Like so many Americans, she cooks her children breakfast every morning, video tapes their school pageants, and considers being their mom her most rewarding job in life. Caroline is to be commended for her stellar academic record and her accomplishments as an author. However, without the last name "Kennedy" no one would find her life particularly compelling reading. There simply isn't enough provacative information out there to fill up an entire book about Caroline alone. Unlike her mother, she wasn't first lady of the United States, married to one of the most beloved presidents, she didn't hold up an entire nation during three of the darkest days in our nation's history, she didn't marry a wealthy shipping magnate from whom she inherited 26 million dollars and then went on to parlay that money into 200 million. I could go on and on about Jackie but in the interest of brevity, I think you've got the picture.
   That said, I believe Mr. Andersen has done a great disservice to his reader when he sold them a book complete with the tacit implication that we were to really learn who Caroline Kennedy was as a person. The information may well be out there but Mr. Andersen has yet to find it.



3. this was a good book, and we got to know a lot about caroline, and how sweet she was, despite her tragedies. it broke my heart to learn that she always felt neglected without a strong male figure in her life, especially since her mother centered all her efforts on her son having a strong father figure, or risk having him "grow up to be a fruit." yet, caroline made it through. i absolutely felt sorry for her, and i don't even know how the erroneous belief that jackie kennedy onassis was such a great mother has lasted up until today. she spent most of her time on vacations and shopping, and sent her kids off to boarding school when they were so young, spending little time with them. i feel caroline suffered greatly from it, since she got taken care of mostly by nannies, and not so much by her parents, since her dad was killed when she was young, and her mother was so into shopping and money that she neglected her daughter's needs regarding the idolization her daughter felt for her father, and being there for her in this aspect. overall, a great book



4. Not only does this book do a fabulos job of detailing the intimate life of Caroline the only remaining survior of Camelot. But it also gives an imtimate look of the lives of her family. Jackie, John and John Jr. And even the before and after family events surrounding the assination of her father President John F. Kennedy. Whom Caroline herself, first heard about the assination from the radio. Also intimate details of the power and control that Jackie exerted over her family. Her (Jackie) extreme drive to obtain her vast wealth and to protect the family image and to shelter her and her children's privacy from the public-at all costs. The struggles that Caoroline faced with being a Kennedy, how she could't understand why she was famous for nothing more than her name. So, if you like me, enjoy reading about the intimate life of America's royal family, this book is for you.



5. A lot of celebrity biographies, or "tell-alls", I take with a grain of salt, but this one seemed very credible when I was reading it. Most of the author's sources were people from the Kennedy's inner circle, including Pierre Salinger, Ben Bradlee etc. I didn't think this book would expose anything new, but I was actually quite surprised and intrigued. Most often I was surprised by the behavior of Jackie Kennedy and new facets of her character were revealed that made me see her in a totally different light from her Camelot image (an image which she created). A fascinating page turner!

5 comments about Lucy Audubon: A Biography (Southern Biography Series).

1. There is not much to say but that this book is one of the best books that I have ever read. It gives you a rare look into the life of Lucy Audubon.



2. There is not much to say but that this book is one of the best books that I have ever read. It gives you a rare look into the life of Lucy Audubon.



3. I have to say that this book is one of the best books that I have ever read. It keeps your attention from the first page to the last. A must read.



4. First and formost it is a shame that Dr.Delatte has only had time to write one book. And I hope that she will get the chance to write another soon. In her book Lucy Audubon A Biography she sets the tone in the first chapter. She goes in great detail to explain to her reader Lucy Audubon's life. She gives a rare insight to a historical figure and brings her to life with her words. the reader feels as if they are there with Audubon as she goes through life and overcomes the obstacles in her life.



5. This is a excellent,thorough book written by an excellent, thorough lady and professor. Sadly, she passed away in August 2004, so there will be no more books. However, this book stands as a monument to her diligence as a historian and talent as a writer. Dr. Delatte will be missed.

3 comments about The Stevensons: A Biography of an American Family.

1. Jean Baker's chronicle of the Stevenson family contains Baker's usual hallmarks-- thought-provoking sagacity, a remarkable ability to objectively look at all issues from all angles, and research that in its scope and accuracy is second to none. The Stevensons should be required reading for all Americans who care about postwar American politics and culture. An excellent piece of work by one of America's outstanding biographers.



2. "The Stevensons" is a sweeping story of the American experience, a story of a great American family.

   Jean Baker begins the story of the Stevenson saga with Adlai Stevenson II's 1948 campaign for governor in Illinois. As the popular governor is about to run for the presidency in 1952, the author takes readers back to governor's ancestors, following the family's migration to America - moving from Pennsylvania to the Carolinas, on to Kentucky and eventually to Bloomington, Illinois -- a sweeping and inspiring journey.

   While the book's focus is Adlai Stevenson II, two time Democratic presidential candidate in 1952 and 1956, the family biography thoroughly recounts the life and political career of his famous grandfather, Adlai Stevenson I (1835-1914), a Democratic Party icon in 19th century Illinois politics.

   Of special interest to those who remember Adlai Stevenson II's two campaigns for the presidency and his tenure as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, the book presents the complexities of the personality of probably the best known liberal of the post-World War II era.

   The only missing link in the story is the period between 1956 and 1960.

   Among all the tragic figures in this saga, Adlai Stevenson II, although flawed, shines with a luster that will be remembered as a liberal statesman head and shoulders above his contemporaries.

   The author lists 35 interviews and has included 74 pages of bibliographic




3. It is important to keep in mind that this is not a biography of Adlai, the most famous of Stevensons. Baker examines his family and his place within that family's development...as well as his place within the American political system. I grew up in Chicago in a family of Democrats who adored FDR and, later, Adlai Stevenson. (They really didn't know quite what to make of Truman nor, for that matter, did Truman know quite what to make of Stevenson.) I begn to follow Stevenson's career when he was governor of Illinois, delighted by his dry wit. Unlike Lincoln's, his career did not lead from Springfield to the White House. His manner was that of a patrician and his demeanor that of an intellectual. (Eisenhower once called him an "egghead.") On occasion, he seemed to lack an appetite for politics or at least for campaigning for public office. Thanks to Baker, I now have a much better understanding of his Scottish ancestry, of his youth, and of the formative years preceding his governship. Contrary to what the elders in my family firmly believed, Stevenson was no saint. For me, that makes him all-the-more interesting. Perhaps his finest moment in public life occurred when, as our ambassador to the U.N., he challenged the ambassador from the U.S.S.R. to admit that it had deployed missiles in Cuba. That took courage and eloquence which Stevenson possessed in abundance. So many fine books have been written about the Kennedys, the Rockefellers, and the Roosevelts. Another family, the Stevensons, has now received the attention it deserves.

1 comments about John Quincy Adams: Policymaker for the Union (Biographies in American Foreign Policy).

1. John Quincy Adams blends history and biography in presenting a new study of the statecraft and life of John Quincy Adams, policy-maker in the early American republic. It's recommended reading for high school and college undergraduate students, as well as any non-specialist general radeing studying early American history and politics.

5 comments about Thomas Cranmer: A Life.

1. MacCulloch seeks to present Archbishop Cranmer as a radical protestant with little scholarly interest or knowledge of the early church, and also that the "via media" of Anglicanism that resulted from the English Reformation was contrary to Cranmer's radical protestant beliefs and is a "myth." While MacCulloch may have written a biography he failed to examine the source of Cranmer's beliefs and theology. MacCulloch claims that Cranmer's eucharistic theology stems from the Swiss Reformed tradition: one had only to read Basil Hall's essay in "Thomas Cranmer: Churchman and Scholar" edited by Ayris and Selwyn to see that this is demonstrably false. Cranmer was heavily influenced by Lutheranism as well as by the "exposition of the most holy and learned fathers and martyrs" of "the holy catholic church of Christ from the beginning" (Cranmer's words) and as such his theology clearly stands in the same line as that of Richard Hooker and Lancelot Andrewes. This sort of "scholarship" with an obvious ax to grind is perhaps the worst sort. If you want to know Cranmer's views on the Sacraments (as most Anglicans or scholars of the Reformation do) please read him in his own words in "A Defense of the True and Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ" (if you can find a copy in the library) or in "Thomas Cranmer: Churchman and Scholar."



2. MacCulloch's book provides access to the singularly foundational figure of the reformation in England. Most who recognize Cranmer's name at all know him only as the author of the first Prayer Book or the man who attained Henry VIII's annulment from Catherine. MacCullogh gives depth to Cranmer as a flawed yet faithful agent of the Church, one who sought with conviction the reformation of the Church of England but was also willing to slavishly follow his prince in order to achieve that reformation. The final chapter, chronicling Cranmer's fall and ultimate martyrdom, reads with the pace of a good novel. For Episcopalians and others with an affinity for the Anglican tradition, insight into Cranmer's life and thought is crucial, and MacCulloch presents that insight with skill.



3. Many Anglican history books have an axe to grind. But not this masterful biography. The Thomas Cranmer of MacCulloch is very human, but no villian nor an unblemished hero.
   
   We see his theological evolution from a fairly orthodox Catholic to a stauch Protestant who went to the stake in defiance of Bloody Mary and the "Antichrist" Pope.
   
   MacCulloch also takes the reader into the historical sources and their reliability. These, along with his extensive footnotes will be of interest to any serious student of Anglican history.
   
   Yet this longish book is very readable and rarely gets bogged down, again unlike some other Anglican histories.
   
   If you want to learn about Thomas Cranmer or about early Anglicanism, this book is a must read.
   
   
   Mark Marshall is the author of God Knows What It's Like to be a Teenager.



4. I took "Thomas Cranmer" on in order to make sense of a seeming paradox: What I already "knew" of him did not square with the theology I had begun to discover in his Collects and Prayer Book. I was curious!
   
   MacCulloch does a masterful job at presenting this complex, and sometimes contradictory figure of the early English Reformation. Despite the derrogatory review given by "a reader," I found very little bias and no axe-grinding in this work. Actually, I came to the book expecting some bias. Even being thusly prepared and properly skeptical, I found only a very few times that MacCulloch let his own opinions show through. (When he does, it is in parentheses with exclamation points!!) You can almost hear him chuckle at times.
   
   I read the book in 9 or 10 days, and never found it to be a chore; in fact, the most difficult thing was putting it down and going to bed! While the book is scholarly, and masterfully written, it is definitely not tedious or boring.
   
   I came to the end of the book with a deep respect for Cranmer. I have many points of disagreement with him, and yet a certain admiration for his eventual willingness to heroically stand where he believed the Gospel compelled him to stand. Fr. James DeKoven, an early Anglican theological hero in Wisconsin, once said "We live at a time when cowardice in matters of religion has been elevated to the status of virtue." Archbishop Thomas Cranmer proved, in the end, to be anything but a coward.
   
   I have corresponded several times now with Professor MacCulloch, and find him to be humble, dedicated, and helpful. I am now reading his "The Reformation: a history," and I plan to read everything else of his that I can get my hands on!



5. I have'nt finished this book but as you've asked me I respond. The book is heavy going,but probably no one will ever do better owing to the subject i.e Cranmer's deeds are known in all their inconsistancies in the earlier years,but nothing is known of the personal reasonings that gave rise to them.
   Even the glories of his style of writing just seemed to come from nowhere,but the Author does a good job in explaining its inimitableness

4 comments about Wellington: The Iron Duke.

1. The book aims to be realistic - the fog of
   war is foggy indeed, and Wellington sometimes makes mistakes. The
   casualties at Waterloo are appalling, and the battle almost lost.
   Lt.-Col. Trant of "Sharpe's Rangers" fame actually appears, an excellent soldier but "the most drunken dog there ever was" in Wellington's words.

   Unusual is the emphasis on Wellington's Indian campaign and on the
   Peninsular War - the period of Sharpe's Rangers is the most important in
   the book. The Battle of Waterloo is treated as somewhat of an
   afterthought, as I suppose it was (if Nap had won it would have been a
   very different matter, of course). There are a number of good plates,
   including a daguerrotype of the Iron Duke himself in his mid-70s, looking
   buth shrewd and oddly sympathetic.




2. This is one of those books that once you take it up, you can't put it down!

   Its balanced treatment of Wellington the man, the military man and the politican, has meant that this is not just a book about Waterloo.

   One is left with the impression that Wellington was a great man, with equal weight given to his 'greatness' and his 'humanness'.

   Very readable and highly recommended.




3. Richard Holmes's "Wellington - The Iron Duke" is a well-written survey of the active life of the First Duke of Wellington. In just 300 pages, Holmes presents a balanced, even nuanced view of a man who was both the quintessential military professional and a complex human being. Through Holmes' efficient prose, we see Wellington as an extradinarily dedicated soldier who mastered his profession in ways few of his contemporaries did, yet who sometimes paid a price on campaign for his insistence on micromanaging his armies. Wellington comes across as a remarkably honest and duty-bound public servant; as a young man, he was also relentlessly ambitious, and as an older man, sensitive about his military reputation.
   
   Holmes provides some useful insights. He suggests that exhaustion and strain were responsible for Wellington's uncharacteristically poor performance at the Siege of Burgos in 1812. Holmes examines the academic dispute over Wellington's relationship with the Prussians during the Waterloo Campaign; he tellingly notes Wellington's responsibilities to his alliance partners and to the British Government and finds that he served both. Holmes acknowledges Wellington's extramaritial activities but resists the urge to obsess over them or to indulge in psycological speculation.
   
   Serious students of the Duke and of the Napoleonic Wars will find no new scholarship here; indeed, Holmes readily acknowledges his debt to earlier works such as Elizabeth Longford's exceptional biography and Jac Weller's battlefield narrative trilogy. Holmes has provided an accessible biography for the general reader, supported by well-chosen quotes from the Duke' contemporaries and by a nice selection of illustrations.
   
   This book is highly recommended to the general reader with an interest in the man and the era.



4. Richard Holmes is an eminent historian and a splendid TV presenter but, though I found his study of the great Duke of Wellington an enjoyable biography that I couldn't put down until it was finished, I also found myself being irritated on too many of the 303 pages (hardback edition) by mis-spellings and stylistic and punctuation inconsistencies. An example of the latter was the mixed and varying use of inverted commas (quote marks). My own preference is for the end of a phrase or a sentence to appear thus: '................... end,' or '..................... end.' Too often the style was thus '........................ end', or '........................... end'. Mr Holmes ought to have made up his mind which way his work was to appear or his editor ought to have been sacked!
   
   Another niggle was that the Duke's Hampshire home was named only once as 'Strathfieldsaye,' with '[sic]' to follow. Mr Holmes should have been aware that that was the original spelling and that 'Stratfield Saye' is the more modern name of the house and estate.
   
   I mustn't criticise too much, however, because I learned a lot from a very good book and I recommend it to other lovers of our British history and other admirers of one of the greatest and most courageous Britons ever to have been born.

1 comments about The Lady Penelope: The Lost Tale of Love and Politics in the Court of Elizabeth I.

1. I'm at the time in my life that I want to just read for pleasure. I have all the facts that my brain can handle. Expecially facts about the Tudors, since I've been obsessed with them for many years. So I looked forward to getting this book because I thought it was going to be another interesting read. But I quickly got bogged down because this is not the entertaining book I was expecting. For one thing Penelope is only mentioned in her relationships with other people. I was hoping to read about her own life, but there were just tidbits inserted here and there, while there was loads of information about her relatives. She was related to everybody at Court, cousin to Queen Elizabeth, so it was only occasionally that the book got around to her. This book should have been called "Various People Who Penelope was Related To." I was expecting a novel, and got a textbook.

5 comments about Leo Strauss and the American Right.

1. The chief insight offered by Shadia Drury in LEO STRAUSS AND THE AMERICAN RIGHT is that Leo Strauss's political philosophy is a radical variant of conservatism whose assumptions and strategies are at odds with traditional conservatism. While both Straussian and Burkean philosophy appear similar in that they both make the assumption that the only choice is between a beneficent plutocracy and anarchy, the Straussians are unsentimental about the past, rejecting the older conservative view that naturalizes pre-modern hierarchy and the inequalities preserved therein as intrinsic to and representative of mankind. Straussians are instead post-modern activists, who use the past as repository from which to cull whatever elements are necessary to build whatever institutional machine is necessary to regulate lesser mortals. They imagine themselves as an intellectual pastorate who must defend society against the depredations of liberalism -- that socially disruptive idea which insists on equality of opportunity and justice.

   According to Drury, Strauss's philosophy accepts the death of God, (unlike traditional conservatism) and then moves positivistically (unlike traditional conservatism) to fill the vacuum with elite group of self-elected philosopher kings. This elite, alive to the nihilism of the liberal ethos and its potentially anarchic consequences, believes it must act forcefully to paper over the hole left by His demise. Their esoteric/exoteric readings of philosophy tell them they must forge from the ashes a seamless, monocultural machine to encourage obedience and staunch chaos. This nationalistic machine must be equipped with a religion (any religion) and a mythic culture based on flag-reverence and knee-jerk patriotism. This is necessary because pluralistic, liberal societies cannot meet the challenge posed by well-organized, culturally cohesive states. Because the mass of men are primitive, credulous, prone to error and evil, the state with the best machine necessarily will win. Straussians, unlike traditional conservatives who see the state as malevolent, justify their activism by insisting that as philosophers they are immune to temptations of power.

   According to Drury, a particularly striking strategy of Straussian conservatives is their struggle to identify and mythologize American traditions. She points out that while Burke had the last remnants of feudalism to extol as a naturally just system, American conservatives have been forced to create a ?traditional? America out of whole cloth. To do so, according the Drury, Strauss's followers have invaded history departments across the US where they have been working hard to uncover "tradition" in the beginnings of America ? a difficult task given that America was the first truly modernist state. Nevertheless, these historians, depending upon which ax they are grinding, rewrite American history either to prove that colonial America was feudal, or to prove the Founding Fathers were not Deists and creatures of the (Liberal) Enlightenment, but rather Platonists. Drury notes that like postmodernists on the left, Straussians believe there is no ultimate truth, but that instead there are only discourses of power and that whoever controls the discourse wins. She notes that this is what makes American politics so narrow and so tedious -- the right and the left both operate from the same morally bankrupt premise.

   This goes a long way toward explaining the bizarre combination of libertarianism and fundamentalism in neo-conservative thought. Like other dogmas which have been used to support those in power -- Social Darwinism and eugenics come to mind -- neoconservatism is just the latest apologia for the up-to-date reactionary. Notably, its adherents are generally unaware of the contradiction. This does not deter them from defending this instrumental hodgepodge of Ayn Rand "objectivism" and millenarian "revivalism" however. Such a philosophy is, of course, its own best self-satirization.

   Well-written, its conclusions careful and amply defended, LEO STRAUSS AND THE AMERICAN RIGHT, is not the ravings of conspiracy theorist. It does not imagine that Straussians have come to run the United States, nor that they form a secret cult which pulls the strings behind the scene. It exposes rather the infiltration of post-modern intellectual cynicism into the once decent, and even honorable, Republican Party.




2. I have a somewhat different take on this book than the other reviewers. I am struck by the idea that the Straussians neoconservatives, who have seized strategic positions in the U.S. Government and the Republican Party, fundamentally agree with the Secular Humanists about the nature of religion (i.e., that there's no god out there to rapture us away, much less lecture us about right and wrong). They just disagree with the Humanists about the advisability of telling ordinary people the truth, pretending instead that increasingly absurd and delusional christian beliefs like the ones promoted by the Left Behind novels are worthy of respect, as long as christians who hold such fantasies vote Republican. (By contrast, UFO cultists who promote similar scenarios about mass alien abductions are ridiculed.) In other words, Neocons view religion as a useful tool for keeping the rabble in line, including the unsophisticated religious politicians who support their agenda.
   
   I find this crypto-Atheism contemptible, though also complimentary in a back-handed way. Intelligent people in many times and places have arrived at Atheism by following their own inquiries into the nature of reality. Strauss and his followers just add further support to the legitimacy of the Atheist discovery, though their systematic dishonesty about it has led to harmful consequences in the real world. The increasingly Atheistic populations of Western Europe, where even American christians readily visit for vacation, show that advanced societies can function well without religion, empirically falsifying the Straussian prejudice that the sheep need superstitions while their shepherds can handle Atheism.



3. The tendentious nature of this book, the fact that it is a politically charged polemic as opposed to a philosophic critique of a thinker, relegates this book to the myriad of yearly right and left wing fodder that we see on the book shelves. Strauss's thought, is first extremely learned, and secondly complex and subtle. If only this author had approached Strauss's texts with the humility and dedication that Strauss himself had brought to the likes of Plato, Machiavelli, and Locke, we might begin to tease out a very different portrait of the man that is found in this book. While Struass's thought my have been possible to interpret as synonymous with the agend of the likes of Newt Gingrich, it does not stand to reason that Strauss would have accented to their interpretation of his teaching. To claim that Strauss had, " no use for liberalism and little use for democracy" appears to be nothing short of academic dishonesty. Strauss if he is to be read for what he said very well understood the historical and natural implications of liberal democracy as the most just regime of mankind. And after leaving what was Hitler's Germany, a Jew and intellectual, Strauss knew very precisely the oppostunities afforded to him in the American landscape.



4. A readable and scary review of Strauss' philosophy and how it influences neo-conservative thoughts and actions. I could not put it down.
   It is hard to believe this was written in 1999. It is consistent with everything we have seen and suspected since the 2000 election. What we see today in the missing John Roberts documents. Yesterday in the Downing Street memos. And tomorrow in ...
   Do you wonder why Jewish and Catholic neo-cons support a born-again President? Why born-again evangelicals support Israel? Because the philosopy of Strauss is for only a few chosen individuals to be educated and know what is going on, to lie to the rest of us, and to use religion (any religion will do) as a vehicle to rally the masses.



5. Since I haven't read the book yet I can't submit a review of it (since the average rating is 3 stars that is what I've assigned it so as to upset the balance as little as possible). However I feel compelled to respond to the review by "Advanced Atheist" (the phrase itself an oxymoron). He cites the "increasingly Atheistic populations of Western Europe" as evidence that "advanced societies can function well without religion". I don't know where he gets his information but he is not even remotely aware of what is occuring across the Atlantic in the 21st century. Western Europe my friend is a dying civilization experiencing a birth dearth. The increasingly aging population is not producing enough children to support its society and therefore is relying more and more on immigration (from primarily Muslim lands) to run the country when the the workers retire. As the Muslims vote in ever increasing numbers it is only a matter of time before government favors their ideas on how a society should function. The reason the "advanced societies" of Europe are not having any children can be boiled down to the wide use of contraception, abortion, and radical individualism. The Muslims on the other hand are not decadent and are very familty oriented, having many children. Experts give Europe roughly another 50 - 100 years before its civilization is changed beyond recognition. In short my "advanced" friend Europe, as we know it, is doomed. In America the situation is better but not by much. Only time will tell whether we join Europe in the dustbin of history.
   "The fool says in his heart there is no God". Proverbs.