3 comments about The Gentleman From New York: Daniel Patrick Moynihan -- A Biography.

1. Godfrey Hodgson, the author of this new biography of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, is admittedly a long-standing, close friend of his subject. This is at once the major strength and major weakness of this portrait of the senior Senator from New York. On the one hand, Hodgson has enjoyed unprecedented access to Moynihan in writing this book, which stops just short of being an official biography, making the book extremely revealing. Yet as an intimate of Moynihan's, the author cannot seem to achieve the distance and perspective which objectivity demands.

   Nonetheless, anyone interested in American or New York politics--or contemporary American history--is bound to find this an absorbing volume. After all, Moynihan's friends and associates have ranged from Averell Harriman to Henry Kissinger, from Arthur Goldberg to Richard Nixon, from Lyndon Johnson to Irving Kristol. He has exercised power in locales as varied as Albany, the U.S. Labor Department, the Nixon White House, the United Nations, New Delhi, and the U.S. Senate. Perhaps more than most political biographies, this is not just the story of one man but a political and intellectual history of the period in which his career flourished.

   Yet the author's biases are apparent. He strives mightily to reconcile and explain Moynihan's political inconsistencies, styling him at one point an "orthodox centrist liberal"--whatever that means. (It strikes me as an oxymoron.) He tries to find consistent strains in what seems to me to have been a political career characterized most of all by opportunism, if not outright caprice. He tries to explain away Moynihan's alcohol problem, while reporting that his staff employs the euphemism that the Senator is "with the Mexican ambassador" to explain that he is enjoying Tio Pepe, his favorite dry sherry. He justifies the Senator's long-standing feud with the liberal wing of his party in light of some early slights at the hands of liberal New Yorkers, referring at one point to "the authoritarian left," an interesting turn of phrase in the wake of Gingrich and Co.

   There are a number of obvious errors in the book. The author notes that in 1953, the Democrats had been out of power in New York State for 20 years, ignoring the fact that Democrat Herbert Lehman served as Governor through 1943, following FDR and Al Smith. He refers to the Comptroller General of the U.S. as a "Treasury official," although the C.G. is in charge of the U.S. General Accounting Office, a Congressional agency, not part of the Treasury Department. He suggests that President Clinton pledged that he would "vote for" the welfare reform legislation he eventually signed, missing the fact that America is not a parliamentary democracy.

   Despite the weaknesses, this is a beguiling biography, which is for the most part well written, and sure to captivate anyone with more than a passing interest in U.S. politics. I do not regret for a minute the time I spent reading it.




2. Godfrey Hodgson is a stand-out as a political historian of the second half of the twentieth century. If you read anything of his, read "World Turned Right Side Up" and "America In Our Time". Excellent, crisp writing accompanied by balanced judgment and comprehensive coverage are Hodgson's trademarks. This book was also well-put together.

   It is obvious that Hodgson really likes his subject and strives mightily to shore him up, very often without success. An appropriate title for this book could very well have been "Forrest Gump Goes to the Senate." Moynihan turns up at every critical juncture in the history of American social policy....to what purpose, it is never clear. In fact, his entire career leaves one with the feeling, why was he here? This book does nothing to lay these questions to rest and does much to raise them over and over again. Since Jefferson, other men of thought have entered public life to build coalitions and accomplish great things. In this book, Moynihan's first impulse always seems to be to drape himself in a toga and write a monograph. Rather than building alliances with others, he builds moats around himself with gratuitously acerbic commentary.

   By all means read the book. However, we can only hope that Hodgson will find a worthier subject for his next book.




3. I found this to be a fascinating biography, which a good author can accomplish regardless of what one thinks about the subject.

   Unlike another reviewer, I do not think that History will remember Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan in the same thoughts as the great American senators, alongside L.B.J. or Daniel Webster. As noted, Moynihan is not known as one of the Senate's great legislators. Critics regularly pointed to the fact that he was never (at least, in a leadership role) associated with any sweeping legislation, and his lofty presence made accommodation and the give and take of the Senate was difficult for him.

   This is a wonderful biography, which (except for the occasional errors pointed out by other reviewers) remains well written and an engrossing story. Biographer Godfrey Hodgson is admittedly a long-observing and apparently close friend of his subject. Some assert that this the major strength and major of this work while others assert that this is the major weakness of the biography. However, I remain unconvinced that for such an intimate portrait, complete (or even relative) objectivity is impossible to attain. It is hard to imagine a subject letting someone get close enough to do a thorough job who is not a friend. And as we too often see, without the at least tacit blessing of the subject, many people who can offer good insights will not cooperate.

   Moynihan was seldom predictable from an ideological perspective. Who else could work for both Kennedy and Nixon, and end up vilified by both liberals and conservatives? Yet, he was consistently respected by Senate colleagues in both parties. Few seriously question the fact that he had a massive intellect. This makes even more interesting the fact that Moynihan so assiduously sought verification and validation of positions which he had taken years before (evidenced by the satisfaction he took as seeing the NAACP - endorsed writings with regard to his decades-earlier call to alarm with regard to the state of the Black family). While many on the left decried some of his positions (the author seems to infer that the occasional, but continued reference to his comment re "benign neglect" was more painful that the stenosis which afflicted his spine), he remained a champion of those whom society left behind.

   All of those who are interested in American or New York politics will enjoy this read. However, I do not find it to be (nor do I think it tries to be) as much an in-depth tome on contemporary American history as another reviewer has suggested. For anyone looking for a study (and an attempted explanation) of an incredibly complex figure in 20th century American history, this is a fine addition to the mosaic.

   The book concludes with Moynihan's musings regarding what now means to be a liberal, and the role (and ability) of government vis a vis social problems. This is thought provoking and a challenge to many readers (including myself). What else can we expect from a biography?

5 comments about Eva Peron: A Biography.

1. EVA PERON by Alicia Dujovne Ortiz is not a good book. It is not helped by the fact that, as others have noted, it was originally written in another language. As is often the case, something was lost in the translation. In addition to being overly dramatic, at times tabloid-ishly so, it is plagued with historical inaccuracies: it uses the terms "dictator" and "fascist" to refer to Peron. Such accusations are by now passe to the serious biographer of Peron and Evita. As Robert D. Crassweller points out in PERON AND THE ENIGMAS OF ARGENTINA, "Peronism was not fascism ... (it was) an authoritarian populist movement, strongly colored by Catholic social thought (and) by nationalism [pp. 220-223]."

   After reading EVA PERON by Alicia Dujovne Ortiz, I was left wondering what the point of it was. Why was this book published? It really has nothing of substance to offer. Obviously, it was published to coincide with the release of Madonna's movie EVITA and to capitalize on the renewed interest in the historical Eva Peron.

   For a serious biography of Evita, I recommend EVITA: THE REAL LIFE OF EVA PERON. For an interesting anthropological study of Evita's importance to Argentine society, I would recommend EVA PERON: THE MYTHS OF A WOMAN.




2. I have yet to find an entirely satisfactory biography of Argentina's controversial first lady once widely revered as a saintly Madonna. This book is written chronologically, from the subject's birth in an unremarkable Argentinean provincial town, to her death and the return of her body to Argentina in 1974. It strives to be balanced and to summarize the evidence around various controversial points regarding the life of Eva Peron.

   Unfortunately, this book, written by a Paris-based Argentinean-born journalist, while thoroughly entertaining, can hardly qualify as a serious historical or political analysis of Eva Peron and her times. Having only read the English version, it is hard to judge whether the translation is awkward is some places, or whether the original prose also lapses into a saccharine style of romantic best sellers. Even as a journalistic book on this subject, you might find a better, more articulate, and shorter account (which does draw from this book by Ortiz) in Looking for History: Dispatches from Latin America, by Alma Guillermoprieto (which I have also reviewed of this website).

   There are some interesting photos in this book, but if it is photos of Evita and her times which interest you, I would recommend Evita: An Intimate Portrait of Eva Peron, by Tomas De Elia, which I have also reviewed on this site.




3. The dark myth of the white Santa Evita whose legacy as the patron saint of Argentina's poor. Ortiz paints a raw, compelling, and ruthless drive of one woman whose innate desire to rise above her shameful beginnings is riveting and profoundly sorrowful despite Eva's scliptic rise to power.



4. Alicia Dujovne Ortiz's major biography of Eva Peron is an interesting book chronicling the rise and fall of Argentina's most famous First-Lady.
   
   Out of the many biographies written about Eva Peron, this is one of the better-researched interpretations so I definitely recommend it over the many other more sensationalized accounts. However, this is far from being the best of the lot. In my opinion, Nicholas Fraser and Marysa Navarro's book "Evita: The Real Life of Eva Peron" is the best written in the English language even though it's over 20 years old. Julie M Taylor's "Eva Peron: The Myths of a Woman" is also excellent and insightful, especially in getting a better understanding of the many myths this legendary woman inspired. Robert Crassweller's "Peron and the Enigmas of Argentina" also deserves mention because it is an excellent book, not just about Eva but of Peron and Peronism in general.
   
   Ortiz's book is well researched but sometimes her personal opinion of Eva gets in the way. I guess it's to be expected when you have a woman analyze another woman who is renowned for her glamour and personal style. Ortiz does a good job laying out Eva's life from her humble beginnings to her amazing transformation into "Evita", the imposing and elegant blonde crusader of the less-fortunate. Ortiz uses a lot of witness testimony and she goes into detail when covering Eva's charitable work and Social Aid Foundation however it's nowhere near as detailed or as enlightening as the Spanish edition of her book which is disappointing and I will get into it a little later. Like Fraser/Navarro, Taylor, Crassweller and the several other historians/scholars who have researched Eva Peron and have written well-documented accounts, Ortiz also tries to separate myth from fact. Although at times, she is a bit rough towards the legend she is writing about, the author treats her sympathetically and portrays the mysterious Eva as a flawed but exceptional woman.
   
   Eva's detractor's, on the other hand, have portrayed her as a one-dimensional caricature devoid of any human emotion and morals. Evita, in the eyes of Anti-Peronist biographers such as Mary Main, WA Harbinson, Paul L Montgomery etc, was a beautiful, murderous monster who was smarter than every single person alive in Argentina at the time and anyone who crossed her path fell victim to her dark, sinister charms. These writers dissect and bring to light every single negative character flaw, real or imagined, this woman may have possessed. They choose to ignore the 1000+ schools, 100+ hospitals and the thousands of other establishments such as homes, hostels and orphanages that Eva through her foundation built between 1948-1952. They hardly pay any attention to the food, medicine and money Eva personally handed out from her desk at the Evita Foundation or when she traveled to shanty-towns or remote, country villages. They may mention that through Eva's foundation several malnourished children finally received health care and food; they may hint at the fact that because of her several thousand impoverished country folk finally received running water and electricity; they may mention as a footnote that Eva sent First-Aid and food to countries outside of Argentina's borders such as Colombia, Ecuador, Turkey, Israel and the US but they will cite exploitation and self-aggrandizement as Eva's principal motive. But no matter how much they try to condemn her, the result is always the same, unintentional glorification. They loathe this bejeweled beauty but can't help love her all the same. The musical "Evita" is a perfect example of this. No matter how much it tries to discredit her, Eva's poetic image is what hovers in most people's mind long after the curtain descends. Most will remember an impeccably dressed blonde clutching a microphone and the famous taglines such as "She Seduced a Nation" or "EVITA IS IMMORTAL" or "EVITA will stir you to your very soul". These are hardly ways to represent such an amoral, corrupt megalomaniac who slept her way to fame.
   
   This major biography of Eva Duarte de Peron was released around the same time as the film in 1996 (at least the English version was). It was originally written in French and later translated into several languages. It is very detailed and it held my interest throughout but having read the Spanish translation, this English version is a poor imitation. I'm not sure how close to the original the Spanish translation is but in comparing it to this, I noticed that the English edition is heavily edited and in some instances, very poorly translated. For those of you who can read Spanish, I recommend that version instead as it is far more complete. Having said that, Alicia Dujovne Ortiz treats Eva Duarte Peron as a flawed but extraordinary human being. After all that's exactly what Evita was, flawed but extraordinary? I guess that's how she should be remembered.



5. In English, this book often reads more like a romance novel than like a serious biography; I do not know whether it reads that way in the original language. It seems more like a work of poetry than a work of prose- not as many cold hard facts as I would have expected from a biography, but some vivid character portraits. Eva Peron comes across as a kind of overgrown child, alternatively desperate to be somebody, do good, and fulfill her whimsical desires for elegance and ego gratification. Her husband comes across as a cold fish, someone who would never have risen to the top in a bigger country with a larger talent pool.

2 comments about My Life as a Revolutionary: Reflections of a Former Guerrillera.

1. My wife is originally from Ecuador and her best friend is from Colombia. So, through staying with her friend's wonderful family in Pasto, I have had the opportunity to explore and experience this vibrant country full of some of the most kind and generous people I have ever met. Tragically, Colombia's history, from far into the past until today, has been marred by devasting political violence and warfare.
   
   When Maria Vasquez was a young, idealistic student she joined a group of revolutionaries, known as the M-19s, hoping to transform Colombian society. Vasquez is an excellent writer who paints a vivid and compelling portrait of her youthful adventures and political activites. That is why I give this book a high rating.
   
   Unfortunately, Vasquez's actions included such atrocities as robbery, kidnapping and hostage taking at a foreign embassy. Obviously, her actions caused suffering to many innocent people. She and other M-19 guerillas also receiving military training in Castro's Cuba and Gadaffi's Libya. In contemporary terms she would likely be called a terrorist. Vasquez does take some responsibility for her actions in the final chapter. But most of the book is a highly romanticized account of her "glory days" as a guerilla, in which little remorse is expressed. In that respect I was disappointed.
   
   Still this book has an amazing story to tell and I do recommend reading it. But, sadly, instead of changing Colombia for the better Vasquez and her fellow M-19s only continued Colombia's brutal legacy of political violence and killing. This beautiful country and its people deserve better!



2. "My Life as a Colombian Revolutionary; Reflections of a Former Guerrillera," by Maria Eugenia Vasquez Perdomo is primarily a guerrilla narrative of Colombia's violent past. To this end, the author provides an intimate understanding of "how" young urban and rural Colombians flock to revolutionary movements. However, this book has two major shortcomings. First, the author fails to adequately explain "why" Colombians turn their back on establishment institutions to promote change. And secondly, Vasquez makes a very feeble attempt to demonstrate contrition for living the life of a terrorist for 18 years.
   
   On that note, it is no surprise that the Spanish-language version of this book was awarded the Colombian National Prize for Testimonial Literature in 1998. Colombian readers have a good understanding of the absence of political, economic, social and land reforms inside their country. American readers of this text should be warned to pay close attention to the strong 22-page historical "Introduction" by Arthur Schmidt. Otherwise, they will never completely figure out "why" Colombians join guerrilla organizations. The author fails to give a comprehensive understanding of significant historical events. For instance, Jorge Eliecer Gaitan, the Bogotazo, La Violencia, The National Front, the controversial 1970 elections and Camilo Torres take a back seat to her day to day anti-imperialism, anti-oligharchy, anti-sectarianism guerrilla activities. Had the author dedicated more time to weave Colombia's complex history to her narrative this would be a benchmark book.
   
   Still and all, this is an extremely valuable text. Vasquez is harassed, hunted and tortured by state institutions. She also renounces motherhood twice for her senior leadership position in the M-19 guerrilla organization. Consequently, her explanation of the turmoil on the Colombian urban campus and the era of war for the sake of peace is useful. Moreover, information on legendary M-19 leaders, Jaime Bateman, Gustavo Arias (a.k.a. Boris), Carlos Pizarro, Ivan Marino Ospina, Antonio Navarro, and Alvaro Fayad is priceless. It just would have made more sense for the author to have developed a better "connect" between the revolutionary consciousness and Colombia's long history of state-inspired violence.
   
   Bert Ruiz

5 comments about The Messenger: The Rise and Fall of Elijah Muhammad.

1. from SALAAM ALLAH NATION OF ISLAM, June 3, 2004,
   ministersalaamallah@lycos.com
   not wonderful at all this book is a disaster!
   what is wonderful about what is happening to the black nation today?
   the black man and the black woman freed slaves and that is all is
   supposed to believe that this awful idiot karl evanzzz has some clue
   as to what he is talking about of which he has NONE WHATSOEVER! now
   as more and more black american becomes homeless permanetly
   unemployed and unemployable filling up the jails and prisons and
   death rows of the wilderness hell of north ameriKKKa ......... and
   the rest of our black peoples karl evanzzz cares NOTHING about being
   sent off to foregin wars int he US military to die and come back to
   ameriKKKa to add to the rest of the list above etc... Somehow this is
   supposed to be 'wonderful' and if we just stop what we are doing read
   the lies and deciet of sonsyrea tate silly little book ' little X '
   or the late misleader ' alex hailey ' oh his Biography of minister
   malcolm shabazz and now the big 3 negatives books by the latest
   mental basket case 'karl evanzzz' & this is somehow going to do
   great 'wonderful' things for the black american who is still at the
   bottom of everything of hell we still suffer from at he hands of the
   worst ever peoples to ever rule with a beast savage madness on the
   planet earth ever ( just ask iraq ) MESSENGER ELIJAH MUHAMMAD taught
   right what was going to happen in the last days of the so called good
   ol' USA and where this was going! nothing 'wonderful' at all about
   this karl evanzz needs to write what his solution and solution(s) is
   for the black nation lay out his program and not KNOCK the greatest
   black leader of all time ever ........ MESSENGER ELIJAH MUHAMMAD
   peace be upon him those who think karl evanzz is so 'wonderful'
   should ask him to lay out what his SOULTION is for the so called
   american negro here in the wilderness hell of north america !
   ameriKKKa ! thankz for reading this correction to ' wonderful '

   Also recommended: MESSENGER ELIJAH MUHAMMAD MESSAGE TO THE BLACKMAN
   THE FALL OF AMERICA OUR SAVIOUR HAS ARRIVED HOW TO EAT TO LIVE THE
   JOURNAL OF TRUTH !- BY HIS BLOOD BROTHER! SUPREME MINISTER JOHN
   MUHAMMAD DETROIT MI.




2. Karl Evanzz wrote a fascinating account of how power corrupts in "The Messenger: The Rise and Fall of Elijah Muhammad." Evanzz supported his biography of the man responsible for the enormous growth of the Nation of Islam with almost 200 pages of documentation. However, he clearly lost all objectivity toward the second half of the book. Yet, I found this true story to be a compelling one worth reading.



3. Of all the literature I've read concerning the Elijah Muhammad, this is by far the worse. After only two chapters, it becomes obvious that Evanzz developed his analysis of Muhammad and the N.O.I. based upon data presented by the FBI, CIA, New York and Detroit police. Where are the interviews with Muhammad's family, friends, and business associates? Where are the excerpts from any of Muhammad's dozens of books? Where are the accounts from present or former N.O.I. members? Instead this book presents references from government agencies as indisputable fact. Anyone familiar with the clandestine workings of such agencies during the 1950's and '60's (i.e. "CoIntelPro") would surely be suspicious of such "information", and at least attempt to seek out other sources. Evanzz's account fails to make such an attempt and is so one-sided, that it offers the reader no opportunity to intelligently analyze Elijah Muhammad, his organization or those who followed him. This book is closer to "National Enquirer" material, than it is to informative, responsible journalism. Anyone interested in a well-written, balanced account of Elijah Muhammad and the history of the N.O.I., I recommend "An Original Man" by Claude Andrew Clegg III. It's a brilliant work and far superior to Evanzz slanderous writing. Don't waste your time or money.



4. That is all the author did was take declassified FBI records and wrote a book. Most of which the information about WD FARD and Elijah Muhammad were contradictory. Wish I had the time to elaborate. He should be ashamed of writing such. Sad.



5. Sometime ago, I decided to writte a book about the Black Muslims of America, but, being french, I knew little about Black nationalism in the United States. Reading Evanzz was a gold mine that provided many insights on the Black muslims ; It is also so wide ranging and alludes to so many aspects of Black nationalism it is the perfect entrance door for that political aspect of the US black community.
   
   During my own research for the FBI archives as well as with local US newspaper ranging from 1930 to 1975, I was able to cross check and verify many information he provides : they were allways accurate. While he sometimes only alluded to acts of anti-white racism that seemed very important to me (the Zebra Killings for instance) I give him credit for mentionning them. He left no stone unturned.
   
   Evanzz Book is a thick, dense read. It should not be read as a novel but rather as an encyclopedia. Maybe my only critic is that he's a bit too fond of Malcolm X

5 comments about Never Again: Securing America and Restoring Justice.

1. Must read for all Americans. Will help you understand
   how it is that we were attacked on 911, what prevented
   our law enforcement agencies from protecting us & how that
   was rectified to a large extent by The Patriot Act
   and the efforts of those entrusted with our protection
   from future attacks. Even those concerned with our civil
   should read this book so they can see that every effort
   was made to protect our rights & at the same time, prevent
   another such attack.



2. Never Again is very badly written, meaning that Ashcroft probably wrote it himself, as ghost writers are more experienced. The bad writing does its best to support nonsensical ideas. Worst of all, much of the book consists of Ashcroft whining and crying about how anything that doesn't go 100% his way is the fault of various other people such as the media, democrats, "liberal" groups, etc., while avoiding all personal responsibility. This is a terrible book, thats probably why i found it at a 99cent store.



3. My first impression on reading the book is that John Ashcroft is a true American hero. A man of insight, good judgment and integrity.
   
   My second impression is that the book is unusually well written and edited. In just 294 pages (hardbook edition), he tells the story of his time as Attorney General, and makes very powerful points about steps that he took (that were not previously taken) to improve our internal security. Especially impressive (and clear) is his description of the problem of the "wall" between criminal and subversive surveillance operations, which he fought to tear down.
   
   I recommend you read the other reviews here to get a fuller flavor of the book and Mr. Ashcroft (which include less favorable views of both), then I recommend that you buy the book, read it, and decide for yourself.



4. Please don't wear your political hat when you judge this book. Whether or not you agree with Mr Ashcroft, you must agree this book provides insider details that are intriguing. Ashcroft spends much of the book vigorously defending the PATRIOT act, with numerous success stories of its use in the war on terror. I think many of these stories have escaped the proper attention that the press should have given them. Mr Ashcroft also provides interesting accounts of his interactions with political enemies in the senate. I found it amusing that some senators would be so vicious in front of the TV cameras, yet cordial with Ashcroft off camera. One thing missing in this book is Ashcroft's views on the war in Iraq, although I would be surprised if he isn't 100% behind the President.
   
   One final thought... Mr Ashcroft comes across as an old fashioned gentleman with good character. I suppose he would value that more than any political accomplishment over his lifetime.



5. In this highly informative and fact-filled chronicle, Ashcroft details how his deeply held faith in Christ, his involvement in crafting the historic Patriot Act and his extraordinary talent for writing inspirational songs about freedom and eagles led to the restoration of justice and prevented further terrorist acts on the U.S..
   
   Although Ashcroft is the only man ever to have been defeated by a dead man in a U.S. Senate race, his faith in soaring eagles and his deep commitment to the Patriot Act make him one of the greatest Americans in history.
   
   Ashcroft is often criticized by many for evading military service (he applied for and received six student draft deferments during the VietNam war). But one must not forget that Ashcroft is the author of one of the most inspiring songs ever written about America, "Let The Eagle Soar." This majestic anthem is no doubt one of America's greatest weapons against the terrorists who hate our freedoms. Ashcroft's glorious love song to our great nation makes it clear that his blessed gift of patriotic tune-smithing more than makes up for his draft dodging. His participation in the senate barbershop quartet with that other great proponent of American family values and Christian morality Larry Craig is also a testament to his patriotism. Even though the people of Missouri decided it would be better to elect a dead man as their senator than Ashcroft, it must be noted that he is the most patriotic of Americans.
   
   His work as Bush's Attorney General will be remembered by historians as restoring a sense of security to the country by providing comfort to Americans by singing "Let the Eagles Soar" at every public gathering he attended.

1 comments about The Pinochet Affair: State Terrorism and Global Justice.

1. On a scale from 1 to 5 Roger Burbach's, The Pinochet Affair rates a six. It is the dramatic story of the downfall of the detested former dictator of Chile, of the many unsung heroes who brought it about, and of the significance of the entire affair to the global human rights movement. Augusto Pinochet, who seized power in a bloody 1973 coup d'état, dissolved Congress, outlawed political parties and the largest labor union in the country, censored the press, banned the movie "Fiddler on the Roof" as Marxist propaganda, publicly burned books ("on a scale seldom seen since the heyday of Hitler," according to the New York Times), expelled students and professors from universities, designated military officers as university rectors and arrested, tortured and killed thousands who opposed his regime. Then in a remarkable series of twists and turns the ex tyrant went from feared strongman to decrepit prisoner. Nowhere has this tale been told so well as in Burbach's book with its rich anecdotal material, compelling characterizations, and meaningful historical insights. Indeed, his book should be put on the must read list of everyone interested in the human rights movement, globalization, Latin America, Chile, or the Pinochet Affair itself.

5 comments about Diana Mosley: Mitford Beauty, British Fascist, Hitler's Angel.

1. "Diana Mosley"-the person and the book-will rivet you and shock you. Not shock in a titilliating, revolving bedrooms way. Though Mosley does leave her devoted husband in her early 20's for a serial womanizer who cheats on her until his death nearly fifty years later, sex plays a minor role in this book. Mosley, after her youthful adultery, remained a one-man woman for the rest of her years. No, the shocking part lies in the lifelong devotion, actually obsession bordering on psychotic, for her lover and then husband, Oswald Mosley and his cause (British fascism). And this obsession led her to embrace both Nazism and a friendship with Adolf Hitler, both of which she defended until her death.
   Diana Mosley was one of the fabled Mitford sisters, born to a minor, eccentric aristocrat and his equally well-born wife. Blessed with a perfect "face" and considered the beauty of her generation, she married early and well at the age of 18 to an heir to the Guinness fortune. She had two boys almost immediately and became a popular London society hostess of the early 1930's. At some point her path crossed Oswald Mosley's, the heir to a British baronetcy and the founder and leader of the British Fascist Movement, and that was that. Even though Mosley was married (happily too despite the infidelities) and had said he would never leave his wife, Diana left Guinness, his fortune and the good opinion of many including her family.

   Soon after, Mosley's wife died and her family hated Diana for the rest of their mutually long lives (Diana died in august '03, Mosley's last sister-in-law in '95.)
   Mosley then launched an affair with one of his sisters-in-law while simultaneously romancing Diana. Diana, perhaps to impress Mosley in the beginning, traveled to Germany on many occassions, attended Nuremberg rallies, and befriended Hitler. Her sister Unity Mitford, usually considered the "Mitford" sister most associated with Hitler, was obsessed with the fuhrer in a stalking, almost pathetic way. Diana, cooler, better looking, and far saner, enjoyed talking politics with him (eventually she did negotiate on behalf of the British fascists for a radio wave). Hitler reciprocated the friendship by arranging for her to marry Mosley in secret in Goebbels living room. He attended.
   Well, she paid dearly for this friendship and her love for Mosley-she and MOsley were imprisoned during most of WWII, they were snubbed by many for years, they eventually lived out of the country-yet she never recanted her love for one and friendship for the other. Not after the reveleations of the Holocaust, not after her husband's numerous infidelities.
   De Courcy does an excellent job of describing all aspects of Diana Mosley's life: not just her politics but her lifestyle, her intelligence, her reading, her friendships, her family. De Courcy admits in the beginning that she loved MOsley but saw her flaws...and she is critical, though at times could have been harder.

   Perhaps the most damning section of the book: de Courcy inserts Diana Mosley's exchange with a Prison Advisory committee during her imprisonment. In it, she cooly responds to questions about her friendship with HItler, her dislike of Jews, her criticisms of her cousin Winston Churchill, her belief in fascism. The book ends with this chilling transcript--a fitting endnote to her life.




2. Diana Mosley is one of the most controversial women of the 20th century: this outstanding biography is written with her full cooperation and also includes hundreds of hours of taped interviews, access to her private diaries and letters, and unparalleled ability to achieve intimate revelations. The story of the society darling's notorious departure from an established marriage in favor of the leader of the British Union of Fascists and a notorious womanizer makes for an account which explains much about not only her actions, but the history and politics of the times.



3. Diana was of the fabled Mitford sisters, and with the exception of her suicidal sister, Unity, the most bizarre. Both were completely infatuated with the Fuhrer, and his Germany. Now, in 2004, anyone can state the obvious about Nazi Germany. In the 1930's, this was definitely not as clear as now. Many forget the incredible attraction of the 1930's Germany to many at the time, not all Germans. And there was a deperate need not to have another terrible war between Germany & Birtain. Through her husband, the British Fascist Oswald Mosley, Diana, and Unity, met and befriended many top Nazi leaders. In sum, a really fine book in every way, not least for its insights into the times. A minor complaint is that the author could have written more about Diana's two author sisters, Jessica and Nancy, the 2 real brains in the family, both definitely more "normal" than Diana and Unity.



4. Diana Mosley is one of the most fascinating women of the 20th century - or she is for me, she and her 5 sisters, the Mitfords were among the most beautiful and talented women in Britain in the early years of last century. Nancy, the eldest became a novellist, Diana was an accredited beauty and good friends with many of the artists and literati of the time. Jessica was a communist, Unity a friend of Hitler, and Jessica, later became a duchess. Born into an eccentric family (later immortalised in fictional accounts by Nancy as Love in a Cold Climate and the Pursuit of Love) Diana and her sisters definitely trod their own paths, and her mother said something to the effect that whenever she opened the paper and saw "peer's Daughter" in the headline she knew it must be one of her daughters - and I think generally it was!
   
   This was the time of the Bright Young Things, of Evelyn Waugh, and the glittering inter-war years, and of a talented, beautiful woman, and yet I have to say I was not really terribly convinced by the fundamental issue in this - which is Diana's relationship with Hitler and her understanding of his role in the World War II.
   
   After all Diana was an anti-semite herself, her second marriage to Mosely (founder and leader of the British Fascist movement) cemented this. She visited him several times, her sister Unity was one of Hitler's confidants and certainly there is evidence that Unity was aware of and had been present at some hideous humiliations of Jews (although admittedly not deaths). It seems conveniently naive that Diana should not be aware of the extent the Nazi's were going to.
   
   Luckily Diana was more than the sum of her Fascist beliefs, she spent 3 and a half years in jail for that during the second world war - a time in which she was also removed from her new born baby and other children. She was charming, and fascinating, and her life in the prior to this and in the 60 years after these events is wonderfullly readable
   
   De Courcy has written another very readable biography on the Curzon sisters, one of whom (Cimmie) was Mosley's first wife. I preferred that book to this, but this is still very readable and a must for Mitfordites who want to know more of the family. De Courcy was given almost unrestricted access to Diana's diarys and papers, and made hundreds of hours of taped interviews, I just can't help thinking at times Diana did have a convenient memory - and no apology.



5. "It remains extraordinary that a woman of such high intelligence could talk such heartless nonsense" These are the words of author Anne de Courcy upon hearing the 90+year-old Diana Mosley expound on her anti-semitic views.
   
   It is not that de Courcy did not try to discover what lay behind Diana Mosley's repellant beliefs. On the contrary, I believe that de Courcy did perhaps as well as anyone could have done to lay bare Diana Mitford-Guiness-Mosley's psyche. Many writers, when given unfettered access to a subject end up writing hagiographies. Anne de Courcy, on the other hand, has written an objective, clear-eyed account of Diana Mosley and her milieu.
   
   The author did an admirable job of describing the early Mitford household; the parents, sisters and other people who touched their lives are described in more than sufficient detail to lay the historical and psychological ground work for an understanding of the Mitfords' ensuing years. It was apparent that Diana was destined to lead an interesting life owing to her singular beauty and vivacious personality. She attracted the intellectual and wealthy elite like a magnet. The path that she chose for herself was indeed interesting, but often very uncomfortable. One small example of her interesting life is the fact that she was the last person alive to have personally known both Hitler and Winston Churchill. Most uncomfortable would have been her imprisonment and fractured family and personal relationships owing to her political and personal beliefs.
   
   De Courcy spends a fair amount of time describing the life and times of Diana's second husband, Oswald Mosley, and the British Fascist movement. Many early Fascists during the time of Mussolini's rise in Italy began their political lives as Labour supporters. When the Depression came and Fascism promised a better life for the average worker, many working class people joined Fascist organizations, such as the British Union. It seems incredible from a modern perspective that Leftists could suddenly do a flip to become Rightists, but that is indeed what happened to many political activists, including Mosely and to Diana Guinness, who was already under Mosley's control at the time.
   
   It was both fascinating and appalling to read about Diana Guinness falling under the influence of the charismatic Oswald Mosley, and her life-long dedication to Mosley and Fascist ideals. Both were charismatic people whose talents could have been put to far better use. Diana Mosley could have been the predecessor to another Diana, Diana Spencer, had she followed a different path. Instead, she is probably regarded as an unfortunate historical curiosity, much like her friends, the Duke and Duchess of Windsor.
   
   As someone who is frankly more interested in the history of Fascism than in biographies of British wealthy elite, I found this book fascinating. I especially recommend this book to Americans who may not have heard of the Mitfords or the Mosleys before. The photographs alone are worth the price of admission.

5 comments about Alexis de Tocqueville: A Life.

1. Hugh Brogan brings to light on of the most careful and subtle minds ever to ponder the origin and meanings of democracy in American history, the fall of the Ancien Regime, and the the basis for much of what passes for modern political thought.



2. I have been using Tocqueville's teachings in my college classes for years. However, it has been difficult to piece together exactly how his thought process came together. Brogan has brought this process together so beautifully in this book. Thank you.



3. He seems the unlikeliest person to write an incisive study of American democracy: a rather spoiled son of a French aristocrat of the ancien regime, and one who suffered from a sense of futility in his own life. But the amazing truth is the Alexis de Tocqueville was exactly the best qualified man to do exactly that. Scholarly, intelligent, a precise writer, de Tocqueville was the one to write an immortal study of American life that would become in time a classic. Best of all, he wrote his work not in his study, but after an intense journey through America itself in the early 1830s.
   Hugh Brogan's biography is an excellent study of this young author, and probably the very best modern biography. He uses de Tocquevilles' letters and other contemporary writings to illuminate the life and thought of the young aristocrat. And aristocrat he was, his father having stoutly stood by the French crown through its many vicissitudes (and nearly executed by the Jacobins for this). Young Alexis himself clung to the aristocracy until the turbulent days of the July Monarchy, when the Bourbons were unseated by the Orleanists. After this, the young writer lost much of his loyalty to the crown.
   Brogan's book is well written, and covers the political scene in France during de Tocqueville's time quite thoroughly. It is simply a book not to be missed about the world of this very talented young man, who proved to be so influential in studies about America and democracy in general.



4. This very enjoyable book is an excellent study of the very interesting French writer and politician Alexis de Tocqueville. Known best for his analysis of contemporary America, de Tocqueville is a notable figure in the history of political thought and a key source for the history of 19th century America. Brogan's Tocqueville is an essentially conservative figure. The descendent of relatively liberal aristocrats under the Ancien Regime, a number of whom were executed during the Terror, Tocqueville grew up in a legitimist household that detested the Bonapartist state and feared the radicalism that led to the Terror. Tocqueville, however, was too intelligent and preceptive to be a dogmatic Throne and Altar conservative. Following his famous trip to the USA in the early 1830s, he published Democracy in America, a case study in how a liberal society dedicated to political equality, property rights, and respect for law could produce lasting stability. Brogan points out well that Democracy in America, while about American democracy, was inspired by concerns about the role of democracy in France. At the same time, while Democracy affirmed a liberal vision, Brogan is careful to point out that it was a somewhat conservative version of liberalism and that Tocqueville did not really understand important aspects of American democracy. He didn't really understand the role of Congress and appears to have been completely clueless about the crucial role of the party system in providing stability.
   Tocqueville's failure to understand crucial aspects of the American democratic system would prove to be hindrance in Tocqueville's political career. Brogan devotes much of the book to a thoughtful description of Tocqueville the politician. More than anything else, his political career shows his essential conservatism. At times, his fear of unrest led him to support distinctly illiberal policies. Like many of his contemporaries, Tocqueville doesn't seem to understand the changes being brought about by the industrialization of Europe and to his last days, he had a fear of urban unrest and the nascent working class.
   Brogan shows very well that his last great work, the very interesting Ancien Regime and the French Revolution, should be interpreted in good measure as a critique of the Second Empire. Tocqueville's contemporary preoccupations clearly influenced the themes of his last major work.
   Tocqueville is often compared with Montesquieu and this is quite apt. Its clear from Brogan's account that Tocqueville's version of liberalism and democracy was one in the tradition of classical 18th century republicanism. He would definitely have preferred a society with democratic elements but also with institutions that allowed a powerful voice for a principled elite. This vision, shared by people like John Adams and even James Madison in his early constitutional proposals, essentially evaporated in the early years of the American democracy. Tocqueville was pursuing something that had really become anachronistic in his own time.
   Brogan writes affectionately but objectively about Tocqueville. This book is written very well with a nice combination of the primary narrative and enough background information to be informative but not over power the narrative.



5. I read "Democracy in America" when I was in college and wrote a paper looking at how the issues Tocqueville discussed in the 1830s played out in 1980s America. My conclusion was that many of his insights still had amazing relevance and yet his over-arching analysis of how America functioned as a democracy was pretty weak. He didn't understand the Presidency and Congress and completely neglected the role of political parties. However, his thoughts about American character; the striving for material success, the triumph of mediocrity, our refreshing practicality, the tyranny of majority and most amazingly how America and Russia would one day become polar opposite but competing superpowers were still all wonderfully relevant to modern American life.
   
   Hugh Brogan's book similarly points out the strength and weaknesses of Tocqueville's work so I feel vindicated in my youthful analysis. As a biographer, he is terrific. He has studied Tocqueville for much of his 40 years as a historian but waited to complete this work until he could access much of the Tocqueville archives that had been off-limits until recently. I felt he got inside Tocqueville, revealing his character, his times and feelings with amazing power. He also gave a sense of his many close relationships. I knew how he felt towards his tutor, his parents, best friends and wife. Sadly, he also gives a harrowing description of Tocqueville's last years of illness and the man's relationship to his sickness which was both complex and naive.
   
   I thought he was less successful in helping me understand Tocqueville's intellectual process. He talks about him being insightful but doesn't detail how those insights came about. I also think he could have put Tocqueville's work into intellectual historical context; how did he compare to other great thinkers of his era? What accounts for his ongoing influence when many others have faded away, have become important as indicative of their age or how they changed the way people thought about issues but aren't worth consulting for how we should think about our world today. That quality is what make Tocqueville so special.
   
   I have one other quibble. There is no discussion of why he and his wife didn't have children. Was it because of infertility? Choice? How did they feel about this? I have to believe that during this period and in the aristocratic class, not having children would be a big deal.

5 comments about Grant: A Biography.

1. This is one seriously irritating book. There may be relatively few factual errors (at least, compared to Geoffrey Perret's work on Grant, a masterpiece of unintentional humor,) but McFeely's work is riddled with what I can only believe are deliberately insulting mischaracterizations and misrepresentations, tiresomely pretentious writing, and amateur psychoanalyzing of the most obnoxious sort. McFeely is particularly fond of quoting the words of Grant or his wife on some matter or another, and then proclaiming that--no matter how clear their meaning may have been to us poor dumb non-historians--what they were REALLY saying and thinking was something else altogether. If there is anything I can't abide, it's a biographer who persists in reading a subject's mind and putting words into his or her mouth and thoughts into his or her head that were never said and never thought. McFeely not only obviously believes he is much smarter than Grant (hah!) but more percipient than his readership, as well.

   If this book is worthy of a Pulitzer, then I trust my next grocery shopping list will earn me a Nobel Prize for Literature.




2. McFeely won the Pulitzer Prize for this book in 1982, but the conclusions he reaches about his subject have drawn fire ever since. Those sympathetic to Grant correctly point to errant assumptions and mistakes in character analysis. Most glaring is McFeely's insistence that Grant gloried in carnage, was insensitive to death and suffering, and was an incompetent chief executive.

   Actually Grant was one of the most exquisitiely sensitive men ever born and was nothing like the 'butcher' that McFeely describes. However, the research in the book is quite good and there are very few factual errors to be found, though his chapters on the civil war are relatuvely weak. This contrasts markedly to Geoffrey Perret's 1997 Grant biography, which contained inaccuracies on nearly every page. McFeely is most solid in the period of Reconstruction, though he is usually overly prone to criticize the hapless Grant. Throughout many chapters, it seems the General can't buy a break.

   McFeely's greatest admiration for Grant is contained in two areas of his life: his family relationships, specifically his loving marriage to wife Julia, and his abilities as a writer. McFeely leaves no doubt that he regards Grant's 1885 Memoirs as one of the great books ever written and the best part of this biography is in explaining the processes Grant used to produce such a masterpiece, while dying of throat cancer.

   With its flaws and uneven treatment of Grant, McFeely's book cannot be considered definitive, but it is still the only complete biography of Grant written in the past 30 years. Perret's limping entry isn't even in the same league as this book, in accuracy, writing or research. To sum up: overly critical, but a must read for Civil War buffs.




3. The book covers the important parts of Grant's life. The book has good research on Grant's youth.



4. Any good biographer has to have, if not sympathy, at least some understanding of his or her subject. Unfortunately, although this book is well researched, you get the uneasy feeling that Mr. McFeely is examining Ulysses Grant like a bug under a microscope. This is the classic example of an academic who lacks understanding of real life and as a result cannot grasp the dynamics of a man of action, as Ulysses Grant certainly was.
   
   Mr. McFeely also unquestioningly adopts the prejudices of prior historians without thinking for himself. As a result, an historian who DID think for himself, Frank Scaturro in President Grant Reconsidered, has rendered Mr. McFeely's book obsolete. Every biography since Mr. Scaturro has reviewed the Grant Administration with a fresh and generally favorable eye. As the last civil rights President before Harry Truman, Grant certainly deserves that revised opinion.
   
   Mr. McFeely's book is no longer worth reading, if it ever was.



5. I am currently reading a biography of every President in order. I must say that none of the preceding Presidents (even Lincoln) seem to be as difficult to pin down as Grant as to their "definitive" biography. In addition to McFeely's Pulitzer prize winning effort is Geoffrey Perret's offering, which seems to be universally derided as a scholarly farce, Jean Edward Smith's biography of Grant is clearly meant for a more popular readership (indeed Smith's commitment to scholarly research is somewhat dubious himself given he was able to produce a 1,000 page biography of FDR in less than 5 years after writing his Grant bio), and finally Brooks Simpson's projected two volume biography which when complete will certainly be the most comprehensive modern effort. McFeely's biography was the Pulitzer prize winner and that ultimately swayed me in favor of it, although I was a bit concerned about some of the poor reviews it received.
   
   I will state from the outset that I think most of the criticism of McFeely's biography I have read in other reviews is either unwarranted or overstressed. This is a straightforward "old school" biography that is directed by the research and not by some new spin that the author believes will help sell the book. McFeely won the Pulitzer Prize for this work and rightfully so. This is a comprehensive and balanced biography of Grant that is a highly enjoyable read on top of that.
   
   I'm not sure what the negative reviewers expectations were before reading this book. Obviously most feel that Grant is somehow misrepresented by McFeely, however I definitely did not reach that conclusion. I believe this is the best comprehensive one volume biography of Grant available based on extensive research and solid writing.

5 comments about Fallen Founder: The Life of Aaron Burr.

1. Why did I dislike this book? Let me count the ways.
   
   1) In her attempt to rehabilitate Aaron Burr, whom she clearly sees as an early supporter of feminism and a visionary reformer, Ms. Isenberg violates her own rules, She states that we must judge histroic figures against the standards of their times, not ours. She then analyzes Burr's career through the prism of the rampant self promotion of our era instead of the reticent standards of the federalist period.
   
   2) Isenberg puts herself inside the mind of Burr with sentences such as if Burr had known X he would not have done Y. This type of speculation belongs in the realm of romantic fiction, not scholarship.
   
   3) Making a case for Burr, Isenberg paints him in the best possible light while placing all of Burr's contemporary critics in the worst possible light. According to her, George Washington was easily mislead by his aides. Alexander Hamilton was insanely jealous. As for John Adams, Isenberg knows that when Adams wrote about the favorable actions of anonymous members of Congress, plural, Adams had to be writing about that paragon of virtue, Aaron Burr. Why the articulate and forthright second president could not praise Burr by name, had such praise been warranted, is not explained.
   
   The last straw was Isenberg's narrative about Burr and William Eaton. If all one knows of Eaton is from this book, he or she will come away with the impression that the Barbary Coast War immortalized in the Marine Corps Hymn was a sordid private land grab conducted solely to enrich said Eaton. That's because Isenberg relates Eaton's life story without mentioning the reason for his expedition in North Africa was to stop the Barbary Coast rulers from sanctioning piracy against American ships and the taking of American hostages.
   
   4) Much of the book suffers from a near fatal lack of context. For example, Isenberg clearly thinks it is to Burr's favor that he and his wife were avid students of philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau. She fails to note, however, that during Burr's political career many of his contemporaries associated French political philosophy with the excesses of the French Revolution and the rise of Napoleon's empire. Thus she makes political opposition to Burr's ideas appear to be based entirely upon personal enmity instead of practical concerns that the new American Republic should not also fall into chaos and dictatorship.



2. A brief thought to add to the other many reviews.
   Isenberg has done a brilliant job of difficult research.
   Sadly, in the readability department, it is sorely lacking.
   And, as far as objectivity goes, it strives too hard to drive home the author's desired theme of lifting Burr's reputation - at the expense of the other players.
   One example: On page 93 when speaking of (Scty of Treasury) Hamilton's paying 6% interest on State Debt, the author neglects to mention that according to many other records, Hamilton himself did not gain personally, while other speculated on the expected results. Also lacking is any mention that Hamilton was driven by the need to get the States to support the Federal Government which was by no means solvent or on firm ground.



3. I enjoyed this book and the new information I learned about one of history's great characters. Burr knew all the founders and played a part in our early history. The epilogue to the book was correct: All these men were simply men and they were not doing historical things all of their lives. Another point: The politics of 2008 is not much different from 1800.



4. I finished this interesting take on Aaron Burr which seems to contradict other biographies. Ms Isenberg portrays our "would be 3rd President" as a victim of smears by most politicians of the day. The VP is just an innocent man that is not only disliked everywhere he goes, but also a Republican from a Federalist state.
   
   After the selection of Clinton as VP of Jefferson's 2nd term Burr seems to disappear. The book explains that he was exploring and traveling like any other normal retired person. In fact, most historians agree that he was plotting to overthrow Mexico and then the United States for revenge the way his Government and Jefferson treated him. This is where the book starts throwing factual history out the window and starts making a lot of assumptions to make Burr appear to be the victim once again.
   
   Either Aaron Burr was the unluckiest guy in the world or this book is making a lot of false assumptions. It is sad in that similar to maybe Barry Goldwater, this was a brilliant guy with potential and we'll always wonder . . . what if? Had he been selected as the 3rd President how different, if at all, would America be? No Louisiana purchase, no Lewis & Clark expedition, no War of 1812, no University of Virginia, no James Madison as President . . . . we can only wonder had this unlucky man; Aaron Burr, been selected (he was elected and tied Jefferson) President of the United States.



5. With the exception of those victims of the Parson Weems School of Hagiography it is instructive to read the uncharacteristically wide and evenly divided range of criticism of this book and, I gotta say, almost all are correct. Although Burr was certainly not a "Founder" (Title Hyperbole!!) in the strict sense, he was certainly a "player" and truly one of the more fascinating and complex characters of the early Republic.
   
   The book is obviously well-researched although I'm not sure if it adds anything substantially new. The style is curiously bland and many of the arguments self-serving. After I read Isenberg, I reread my old copy of Gore Vidal's, "Burr". Written in 1973 when Burr's reputation probably could use some rehabilitation, I suspect now, that it was based on substantially the same scholarship. That having been said, those with little knowledge of the subject and an open mind would be well-served to read Isenberg for background and Vidal for style. Her praise for her subject being no more than Chernow for "Alexander Hamilton", she is not as good a writer.