No comments about The Last Lion Part A: Winston Spencer Churchill, Alone, 1932-1940.

1 comments about The New Deal and the Problem of Monopoly: A Study in Economic Ambivalence.

1. This is a detailed examination of New Deal industrial policy and how it attempted to grapple with the problem of "monopoly." The problem, in short, is this: Americans want the benefits of large-scale industrial production such as lower prices, greater economic security, etc. At the same time, we suspect that such a system may threaten individualism and democracy through over-bureaucratization and concentration of power.

   This ambivalence is reflected in the incoherence of New Deal policy. The book traces the evolution of policy from the government-sponsored cartels of the NRA in the early days, to the partial planning in agriculture and transportation, to Thurman Arnold's vigorous antitrust campaign of the late 30s. The final section of the book deals with FDR's response to the 1937 economic downturn, when broad reform programs gave way to deficit spending.

   This is also the story of the conflicting goals of different schools of thought within the Roosevelt Administration: At one end were the planners who saw "bigness" as inevitable and beneficial, but who wanted a more centralized process of economic decision-making. At the other end were those antitrusters who wanted to break up large organizations in the name of "competition." Professor Hawley points out that these conflicting approaches resulted not only from economic theorizing but also from a "clash of values," values inherited from the Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian traditions respectively.

   I recommend this book not only for majors in History or Politics, but also for general readers who want to think more clearly about political economy. Professor Hawley clearly defines his problem and examines the record thoroughly. He offers no neat solutions, but sheds much light through his scholarship.

No comments about The Papers of George Washington: Volume 1, September 1788-March 1789 (Papers of George Washington, Presidential Series).

No comments about The autobiography of James Monroe.

1 comments about The Courage And Character Of Theodore Roosevelt: A Hero Among Leaders.

1. Please be aware: This volume is a retitled reprint in paperback (at the same list price) of the hardcover Carry a Big Stick: The Uncommon Heroism of Theodore Roosevelt (Leaders in Action Series). Below is my review for that edition.
   
   An insatiable reader of books on TR, I was immediately drawn to Grant's TR book by its wealth of quotes from the President (something many authors neglect). Grant is unabashedly hero-worshipping here: no negatives are to be found. If one begins with this in mind it can be accepted and tolerated. Though it is often colored by Grant's conservative ideology (he tags turn of the 20th century politicians with turn of the 21st century labels - and greatly underrepresents some of TR's progressive leanings), it does reveal some facts about Roosevelt's religious convictions and church activities - something that is absolutely ignored in most modern biographies of historic figures. The book is not a chronological account but a look by turns at each facet of the multi-talented and constantly moving President.

No comments about Power, Piety, and Patronage in Late Medieval Queenship: Maria de Luna (The New Middle Ages).

No comments about Papers of John Adams, Volume 13, 1 May - 26 October 1782 (Adams Papers).

5 comments about Marathon: 2Pursuit of the Presidency (A Signet book).

1. Jules Witcover has written several excellent books on American politics over the last 35 years. Among them are a moving account of Bobby Kennedy's doomed 1968 presidential bid and a critical look at Reagan's election to the Presidency in 1980. In "Marathon" Witcover attempts to pull a Teddy White and write the definitive account of the 1976 presidential campaign. White became famous in 1961 with the publication of "The Making of the President 1960", his bestselling account of the legendary Kennedy-Nixon presidential campaign. White had the advantage of being the first journalist to write an entire book about how we elect (or elected) Presidents in this country so soon after the election he covered. White then wrote an entire series of "Making of the President" books, covering the campaigns of 1964, 1968, and 1972. By 1976 White was tired of writing about campaigns that he felt made less and less sense and which seemed to be dominated more by primaries and photo ops than by the old-fashioned back-room dealing and campaign barnstorming that he loved to write about. So in 1976 White took a break from covering presidential politics to write his memoirs. That left the field open to other journalists, and Witcover took up the challenge. And while "Marathon" never equals White's eloquence or gift for grasping the overall theme, or meaning, of a campaign, Witcover does provide an entertaining account of a close, hard-fought race. And 1976 truly provided a wealth of stories - Jimmy Carter's rise from almost total obscurity to defeat a host of better-known Democrats and claim the Democratic nomination, thus proving the power that the primaries now had over the nominating process; George Wallace's last presidential campaign, his former racism and Archie Bunker-type qualities now hobbled or changed by his paralyzing gunshot wound suffered four years earlier; the thrilling fight between President Ford and Ronald Reagan for the Republican nomination, a race which was so close it wasn't decided until the actual balloting at the Republican Convention; and Ford's spectacular comeback from a 33-point deficit in the polls in August 1976 to a dead-even race by Election Day in November. Witcover does a marvelous job of explaining the "little moments" that can mean victory or defeat for a campaign - the consistent bad luck of Morris Udall, an Arizona Congressman and Carter's main rival for the Democratic nomination; Ford's complacency after beating Reagan in the first 4 Republican primaries, allowing himself to ease up on Reagan in the North Carolina primary - which allowed Reagan to pull off a stunning upset, save his campaign, and make a comeback to nearly defeat Ford at the Republican Convention; and Carter's verbal gaffes in the fall campaign - including the famous "lust in my heart" remark he made to "Playboy" magazine which led to weeks of ridicule in the national press. My chief problem with this book is its' length - at 700 pages in the paperback edition it is far longer than any of White's books, and includes a great amount of tedious detail that could easily have been left out (does anyone really need to know that George Wallace liked to dump ketchup over everything he ate?). Basically, this book could have used a better editor. However, even given its' length and overattention to detail, "Marathon" is still the best book you'll find on how television and the primaries allowed Jimmy Carter to become President - something that would never have happened just a few years earlier.



2. Though it is often overshadowed by the author's own later collaborations with Jack Germond (as well as the then-contemporary efforts of Hunter Thompson), Jules Witcover's Marathon is one of the unheralded classic works of the political nonfiction genre. Covering the twists and turns of the rather bizarre 1976 Presidential election, Witcover follows the campaign from the very first stirrings of Jimmy Carter's longshot candidacy at the '72 Democratic Convention all the way to the photo finish that finds the nation faced with a choice worthy of Samuel Beckett -- Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Lester Maddox, or Eugene McCarthy? In between, Witcover provides excellent, insightful coverage of the now-forgotten efforts of such diverse men as the tragically witty Mo Udall, the endearingly spacey Jerry Brown, the bizarrely sympathetic George Wallace, and the deliberately enigmatic Ronald Reagan to take their respective nominations away from these men and change the course of American history. If you ever wondered how America eventually produced a political system that could see everyone from Pennsylvania's hapless Gov. Milton Shapp to Oklahoma's radical former Sen. Fred Harris transformed, however briefly, into a legitimate presidential contender, this is the book for you. Years after it was written and, unfairly, neglected, Marathon stands as one of the best books ever written on the subject of how we occasionally stumble into selecting our nation's leader.



3. For those who think Jimmy Carter was a pious Christian and never said a bad thing about anyone, read this book.

   For those who think Gerald Ford was right - or wrong - in his pardon of Nixon, read this book.

   For those who remember the far left policies of Muskie, McGovern, and Humphrey, read this book.

   For those who barely remember Frank Church, Morris Udall, and Fred Harris, read this book.

   For those who want to understand how Reagan learned from his 1976 mistakes - particularly in his selection of a running mate - and won four years later, read this book.

   In short, if you like politics, read this book.




4. Journalist Jules Whitcover gives readers a comprehensive look at the 1976 Presidential campaign. Whitcover aptly describes the events, issues, candidates, and the state of the U.S.A. in 1976. President Gerald Ford was an unelected incumbent whose popularity dipped due to a sluggish economy and his pardon of Richard Nixon. Readers see how this made Ford ripe for a strong primary challenge by Ronald Reagan, and then the underdog in the fall campaign. The author shows how former Governor Jimmy Carter of Georgia swept to the nomination over several contenders via adroit primary strategy, luck, and a message of decency and trust. Then the author describes a fall campaign punctuated by mud-slinging, political manipulation, and quite a bit of foolishness. Finally, Carter won narrowly (after losing his big lead in the polls) due largely to his Southern roots and Ford's modest appeal. Readers get a strong feel for politics circa 1976, as well as a look at also-rans like Sargeant Shriver, Nelson Rockefeller, Birch Bayh, Frank Church, Jerry Brown, Henry Jackson, Morris Udall, etc.
   
   Whitcover has written a thorough and very readable political narrative. He doesn't quite match the four MAKING OF THE PRESIDENT (1960-1972) editions by journalist Theodore H. White, but this is a vivid narrative.



5. What bothered me most about "Marathon" was that through 700 pages author Jules Witcover never gets underneath the major candidates' skin (Carter and Ford). This book is much more a long newspaper article than a biography of the powers of 1976. There is little depth, but it is heavy on names and numbers. Witcover seems happy to point out seeming inconsistencies in Jimmy Carter's public statements, but as a scholar he never gets to the nuance. I'm still not sure what Gerald Ford ran on in 1976, how could the author leave this out? As a review of 1976, Marathon is barely adequate--and it is a very far cry from quality leisure reading.

5 comments about Woodrow Wilson: 7 (Penguin Lives).

1. If you don't know much more about Woodrow Wilson than an overview of the important events of his life, this book isn't going to help much. There's very little political analysis, almost no attempt to portray what diffiulties Wilson needed to overcome, and no passion at all in the writing. Actually this book feels a lot like a high school term paper that someone knew they had to write and just wanted to turn in for a passing grade. Auchincloss talks a bit about the two Wilsons (one good one bad) and hints at Wilson's dependance on women, but neither of these positions is fleshed out or used consistently. Maybe Woodrow Wilson's life is just too large for a book this small.



2. This is a reasonable brief introduction to the career of Woodrow Wilson. His upbringing and early academic career are disposed of in short order in the first chapter. Then one chapter deals with his presidency of Princeton, one deals with (or covers the same time period as) his governorship of New Jersey, and the remaining seven cover his Presidency, all in an engaging and chatty style.

   The book's strongest point is describing what happened, although even here there are some strange omissions. It mentions his break with Hibben in Princeton without describing the circumstances, noting that Hibben went on to succeed Wilson as President of the university, or exploring the parallels with his later breaks with House and Tumulty. All of this could have been covered in a single paragraph. In addition, there is no mention of the country's Caribbean adventures in 1915; none of the Red Scare of 1919; and, probably worst of all, nothing about the Sedition Acts and the imprisonment of Eugene Debs, and no discussion of why America behaved worse towards its own citizens during and after the war than either Britain or France did. The first time the book mentions the League of Nations, it doesn't clearly describe what its purpose was (and it would have been nice if it had mentioned that it was actually the idea of the British Foreign Secretary, not Wilson). Still, as an overview of the events of Wilson's life it hits most of the main points.

   The book has less to offer on why things happened. In trying to explain why Colonel Harvey picked Wilson for Governor of New Jersey, it gives two pages on what Harvey got wrong about Wilson, but nothing on what he got right. It also takes at face value the idea that Wilson was offered the governorship "without ... even lifting a hand". It describes Wilson's feeling of betrayal by House when he returned to Paris in March 1919, but not what House had actually done!

   As noted by another reviewer, the book also fails to put Wilson's international achievements in a broader context. His aim of a just, lasing peace with Germany failed; his aim of encouraging self-determination among smaller nations succeeded, and he is still looked on as a hero in many smaller nations of Europe. Some more insight and context, and a more detailed assessment of his legacy, would have been welcome.

   Woodrow Wilson was a fascinating and controversial President. This book helps explain -- and to an extent shares -- the fascination, but it doesn't do enough to help the reader assess the controversies. Still, it's an reasonable starting point for people who know little about Wilson.

   One final comment: I'd also have been interested to know how the author is related to the Gordon Auchincloss who attended the Versailles conference -- it's not that common a name, after all.




3. Of all the men who have tried to fill the shoes of Washington and Jefferson, who was the worst? Our current crop of "Hallmarxist" professors consider anyone who would assign Wilson and FDR to the lower depths as deserving a quick commitment with Ezra Pound into loony bin of St. Elizabeth's, and for anyone to hold Lincoln among the worst invites being regarded a simple crank. But Thomas DiLorenzo's _The Real Lincoln_ has finally exposed Old Abe as well worthy of infamy, and Jim Powell's _FDR's Folly_ has corrected the omission of Murray Rothbard's _America's Great Depression_ by exposing FDR as really nothing more than - pardon the pun - Hoover on wheels.
   
   This leaves only Wilson, the man whom Mencken denominated _Doctor Dulciferous_ for his cooing blovations. The lack of a good biography of Wilson that reveals him for what he was - our worst president - or at least a book as good as DiLorenzo's on Lincoln- is not remedied by Louis Auchincloss (hereafter LA).
   
   LA for the first 64 pages gets his facts roughly right and his conclusions quite wrong. For example:
   - LA calls Wilson's claims to being a Southerner "factitious". This is putting it mildly: Wilson in his heart was an utter New England barn burner and witch-hunter, oblivious to the positive achievements of Calvinism (Milton, Rembrandt, and the Jansenist Pascal) and a perfect specimen of non-conformism's worst faults: obstinacy, a cocksure belief in one's moral correctness, a deluded sense that he was the agent of the Almighty, and that his opponents were tools of the Devil.
   -- Wilson's view of blacks can only be called sheer racist, even in a time when "racist" has become a word of cultural socialist McCarthyism - yet LA offers the lame excuse that everyone else from his background thought the same.
   - LA faults Wilson for appointing an Anglophile to the Court of St. James, yet LA's own facts prove Wilson the most Anglophilic of all. He tried to remake Princeton into the image of Oxford and Cambridge. He wanted American government to resemble Westminster, knowing full well that in Britain today the Prime Minister is a dictator, free of any checks. Wilson wanted the same for the President in a manner that would make even a Gaullist blush. Indeed, one of Wilson's many bad legacies is a chief executive out of control. Mencken was right to observe that the US State Dept. was simply an antechamber to the Foreign Office in Whitehall.
   - LA mentions Wilson's stokes, one after another it seems, and tries to blame them, wrongly, for his manifold shortcomings. In fact, I have yet to see in print what seems quite possible: That Wilson - and for that matter Theodore Roosevelt - were really unhinged.
   
   Wilson's 2nd worst foreign policy blunder was his treatment of Latin Americas - a treatment inept when it wasn't contemptible. LA tries to make Bryan the fall guy for Wilson's folly, and considers the Villa fiasco as "necessitated". I pray the Mexicans now flooding into the country have short memories. When it comes to economics, LA really shows himself wanting. He considers the Federal Reserve Act a "great success", giving us an "elastic currency", when in fact the fiscal solvency of the US -- relatively sound after Hamilton's schemes were put down and prior to Wilson - has been a shambles ever since. Need proof? Check the inflation monitor at the Commerce Dept website and see what a dollar in 1950 is worth now. And thank Woodrow Wilson. Desperate for something good to say about Wilson's domestic turn at the helm, LA chooses his tariff reduction - only on the same page to state, rightly, that the taxpayer was now to be equally robbed by the new Federal Income Tax (also a Wilson deed), that tariff reform was aborted by the Great War, and that it was repealed in 1922.
   
   LA never mentions Wilson's lasting effect on domestic US politics: Completing the work of Lincoln in the destruction of the Jeffersonian party in the US (I'm grateful to Thomas Dilorenzo and Clyde Wilson for this insight). Prior to Wilson, we had such a party, the Democrat Party - with support for minimal government, subsidiarily, states' rights, low tariffs, originalist construction of the Constitution, Anglophobia, gold standard (at least until Bryan), staying out of European affairs, and a healthy suspicion of banks. Wilson turned this party into a socialist party. In fact, now we really only have the choice between two socialist parties: The Hamiltonian version of the Republicans, and the 100 proof offered by the Dimmycrats.
   
   After page 64, LA offers a complete whitewash. Wilson's utter disaster - still visited upon all of us, and re-uttered in the inaugural addresses of Kennedy I and Bush II - was, or course, his entry into World War I, with all the suffering that this decision caused. LA can only find sympathy for Wilson's views, and wastes a whole chapter of this short book demonizing Lodge. I am reminded by the estimable Clyde Wilson (no relation, certainly!) that Woodrow Wilson was our only Ph. D. president. LA offers nothing better than the socialist and PHuddy-Duddy camorra presiding in our Potemkin universities
   
   So, as we wait for a good biography, anyone who really wants to know the truth of the Old Fool should save his money and buy instead Jim Powell, _Wilson's War_, and Thomas Fleming, _The Illusion of Victory_.
   
   Two stars for being mercifully brief with readable prose.



4. Enjoyed the taped version of WOODROW WILSON by
   Louis Auchincloss . . . it is a brief account of our 28th President
   that gave me insight into how a professor and then college
   administrator could make the leap into politics . . . hearing it
   reminded me a bit the Classic Comics that I read when
   younger, in that much detail was left out . . . however, you
   got just enough information . . . I'd recommend this book
   by Auchincloss, especially for the fascinating tale it told
   of how when Wilson became sick, his wife practically ran the nation.



5. In the annals of American history, few presidents have a more interesting story to tell than Woodrow Wilson. Despite this truth, Wilson's legacy has produced such a terrible collection of biographies. This book is a continuation of that standard of trampling the legacy of the greatest idealist to reside in the White House.
   
   While this book is intended to be a brief biography of Wilson, this characteristic would seem to cause more focus on landmarks in Wilson's life. This does not stop Louis Auchincloss from going off topic for pages at a time. The author repeatedly references Bill Clinton, whose most striking similarity is being a democrat. There also seems to be a lot of speculation on the part of the author, such as speculating that Wilson's childhood illnesses were psychosomatic (p. 7). Like the original source of this fact, he lacks tangible support for his agrument. It is nothing more than an educated guess. Just like the guess that Wilson suffered from dyslexia (p. 6). The chapters on World War I are clumsy because of the digressions. The better chapters focus on Wilson's first and second wives, as well as his years at Princeton.
   
   I initially thought the author loathed Woodrow Wilson, but softened in this stance as the book progressed. Still I wondered why one would write a book about a seemingly undesirable topic? Not that I expected much from this book, but I, like many readers of history, am still waiting for an outstanding biography on Woodrow Wilson.

2 comments about The Inner Jefferson: Portrait of a Grieving Optimist.

1. yet another broad look at jefferson, from political career, near-romantic encounters, family life, friends & correspondences. the writing is crystal clear & fast-paced. you get a snippet of tj's sharp epistolary hand. no huge controversies being discussed here altho i think there were some defenses made for the slavery issue. pick up this book. it's one of the better ones for introducing yourself to tj. good b&w photos of his favorite haunts & some skeletons in the closet.



2. I'm about two-thirds of the way through this book. The content is highly interesting, but it's kind of a difficult read. Definitely not the lighter, "speedy" read of an Ambrose or Vidal book. Burstein is very analytical, with somewhat of a sociologial and/or psychological perspective to this analysis of Jefferson. There is a early section on Love/Emotion (?) which is a bit laborious. However, I will continue to work my way to the end, and do feel that I've gained much insight into Jefferson's background, family life, political affiliations, intellectual interests, his love of the Parisian salon-type intercourse, and so forth.
   This book is definitely NOT for the reader of lighter history.
   Dry and laborious at times.