5 comments about Khrushchev: The Man and His Era.

1. My mom -- white bread, Communist-fearing, life-long Democrat -- has always had a soft spot for Nikita Khruschev. "I just don't think he was that bad. He couldn't have been that bad if he cried after President Kennedy died." This book vindicates my mom. He really *did* cry after Kennedy died -- although it's not clear how much that was due to grief and how much that was due to the realization he'd have to work with a US president with some actual political experience and ties in LBJ. (No word on how my mom knew about the crying thing....KGB files have now been closed).
   
   But even if Nikita Sergeyevitch, right hand man to Stalin, participant(however distasteful) in the Ukraine purges, cold war bully to Kennedy's (and to some degree Eisenhower's) naivete, and shoe banger extraordinaire wasn't Mr. Sentimentality, this book divulges a lot about him we can be grateful for. And in looking at the darker side of this major player of the 20th century, Taubman excels at helping us understand him from all angles: his son Sergei, Khruschev's own papers, the historical record here and in Russia, and indeed the correspondence between Khruschev and Kennedy, which began during the Cuban Missile Crisis and did not end until the fall of 1963 (both undoubtedly expected it to continue).
   
   The last is indeed the most poignant, perhaps just for the American reader, perhaps for all of us, since it does signify the attempts of two great but flawed leaders to struggle with the immense burden on their shoulders and try to come to some kind of understanding for the sake of their nations. In doing so, they seem just about to build a friendship.
   
   I found the book a bit too long, and would like the prose to have gone at a more clipping pace. Better editing may have helped. But I will read it again someday and I'm glad to have it on my shelf. I don't see how it could become outdated or lose its importance.



2. In the last 60's, Krushchev wrote "Khrushchev Remembers", a self-serving memoir. It was interesting to read depsite its heavy slant, but the book didn't provide the reader with a sense of the man, and it was clearly censored by Soviet authorities. William Taubman has written a fine biography that gives us a clear and astonishing picture of Krushchev along with a snapshot of the Stalin-era purges and a superb picture of the Cold War. He uses interviews with Krushchev's former associates and with his son Sergei to great effect. He also uses archives that became available only after the Soviet Union fell apart. As a result of his research and clear writing, we feel like we know the man who darn near blew us all up during the Cuban missle crisis. (Or at least that was the feeling I had in 1962, watching in a college dorm as it all unfolded on TV.)
   
   It's scary to see Krushchev as Taubman displays him. We knew he was a boor when he took off his shoe and pounded his desk at the UN in 1960, but it was fascinating to read about his highly charged, highly politicized encounters with Soviet artists and writers in the early 60s. Taubman shows us the man's temperament, which makes one wonder at how the Cold War failed to cause a nuclear war. It also makes one marvel at the distortion in national policies that come about when one person has such enormous power and is so undisciplined.
   
   Although the character flaws Taubman illuminates are serious and frightening in retrospect, Taubman also shows how important Krushchev was in ending the Stalinist era. In 1953, a politician in the USSR who fell from power would have been shot; in 1964 Krushchev was simply booted out, given a pension and made to shut up.
   
   It's hard to imagine anyone having better access to Khrushchev's contemporaries, and Taubman puts an astonishing story together for us in a beautuifully understated way.



3. This biography is the kind that I like. It's about an intermediate figure and uses that individual's life to frame up the times (ref: my review of Paul Preston's Franco biography).
   
   Taubman does an excellent job of research and a good job at having a view about Krushchev's character and motives. However, the book is just not executed that well. The early years are presented fairly slowly and don't seem as tightly focused given that Taubman does have a thesis about Krushchev the man. This may just be that there are gaps in what he could learn about earlier years. The second half when Krushchev is in charge picks up a great deal. Some of this is just that the stakes are higher plus he has better sources since there are/were people alive to interview. However, even here there is some sloppiness in presentation.
   
   The book is an excellent confirmation that much of what occurs in history is because of the idiosyncracies of individuals. Anyone who has worked in a large corporation would be familiar with unusual decision-making processes based on the personalities of people. That reality is presented clearly here even including how Eisenhower and Kennedy are presented in their dealings with Krushchev. On the one hand, it's almost amazing that war was avoided, But on the other hand, all of these individuals understood the amount of death that would have occurred and worked hard to avoid it. It speaks well that all understood that losing face was just fine compared to killing millions of people. However, it is repeatedly presented that Krushchev was certain that nuclear weapons could not and would not be used so the irony is that it made it easier to threaten with resulting in the view that he was kind of a mad man. It's similar to two bullies ready to fight as long as someone is restraining both of them. The good news is that Krushchev was not fundamentally evil like a Hitler who probably would have used the weapons.
   
   But, this leads to the most interesting question about Krushchev. Taubman clearly speaks to the contradiction of Krushchev participating in Stalin's purges but then subsequently denouncing these crimes. While not overtly stating it, Taubman presents Krushchev as a true believer in communism who is willing to kill to achieve it for the "greater good." I think the book should have more clearly discussed the probability that Krushchev also accepted that killing was necessary for his own personal power. And, if so, could everything have not just been the pursuit of personal advancement/power with communism as a convenient support for that? Did any of these communist leaders (Lenin, Stalin, Mao) actually believe what they were saying? Taubman does not address this.
   
   The other gap I think the book has is that it doesn't really speak much about Brezhnev. Given that Brezhnev maintains power till death, was there a contrast in his approach that would have shed light on Krushchev. My guess is that there probably is and I think it also might have helped answer the question of whether Krushchev ever believed in communism or was just out for himself.
   
   As it is, it is easy to say that Krushchev was not evil in the way that Stalin was. Once he was in charge, it became possible to be retired from the government rather than always branded a traitor and executed. Even to the point, that Krushchev could be forced to retire.
   
   So, this is a worthy read but expect to work a bit to get through it.



4. 
   
   It's about time we had a decent biography of Nikita Khruschev.
   
   Khruschev is a more important historical figure than seems generally appreciated today. He was something of a refreshing presence on the dreary world scene of the late 1950s and early 1960s. I remember his American tour, and you couldn't help but find a kind of pleasant and infectious quality in some of his observations and activities. I believe he sincerely wanted to slow or halt the Cold War the same way he diminished the horrors of Stalinism, an historic achievement.
   
   Taubman doesn't capture the more idealistic sense of Khruschev, which I believe was genuine, because I was a young man through his time and took an interest in events.
   
   Taubman's Khruschev is a bright (Khruschev had considerable analytical ability and a remarkable memory) peasant risen to the top, an extremely crude man, always regretful about his lack of formal education, who never ceases to behave as something of a Father Karamazov. I have no doubt there is truth here, but it provides an incomplete picture.
   
   Was Khruschev any cruder than what we now know of the private life of John Kennedy, who had prostitutes swimming in the White House pool while Jackie was away, or of the public Lyndon Johnson, who used to conduct interviews and bark orders while relieving himself? I ask this because Taubman repeats the word crude or offers anecdotes about crude behavior many, many times.
   
   Even as a young man I thought many of Khruschev's crudities were not so great as they were treated by America's press. The banging of his shoe at the U.N. is a favorite example. Crude? Yes. But significant beyond style? I think not much.
   
   I enjoyed this book and would recommend it to anyone interested in biography, the period, world affairs, or Soviet history, but I do have reservations about it, and it should be read with some caution.
   
   Taubman weaves into the text too great a sense of the correctness of America's position and policies of the time, giving a sense of Khruschev largely representing an irritating and sometimes dangerous opponent to them. America often behaved in provocative and dangerous ways through the Cold War. Taubman mentions some matters, as Eisenhower's saying that if the Soviets over-flew the United States the way the United States regularly invaded Soviet airspace there would be war, but the week-to-week reality of this is not stressed enough here to appreciate the intensity of the Soviet point of view. There were many such matters, including American submarines actually colliding with Soviet boats.
   
   Taubman gives a lot of attention to Khruschev's well-known habit of rattling his rockets in speeches, but we are not given enough background for why he might do this. The Pentagon actually had plans in the mid-1950s for an atomic pre-emptive attack on the Soviets. Generals like Curtis LeMay, the man who bombed Japan to the point of gratuitous horror, openly advocated nuclear hostilities. And, of course, America had used the atomic bomb, twice.
   
   Taubman's treatment of matters like the Cuban Missile Crisis suffers from this. The U.S. had a huge, generously-finaced terrorist operation going against Cuba at the time, including along more than one track, and that is an important part of the background that Taubman treats with what I believe is neglect. Taubman's words on the ghastly Bay of Pigs does reveal hints of American jingo attitudes. They are not offered loudly, but they are there, and I think they should not be if we want to understand what motivated Khruschev.
   
   One of the great missing chapters in the book is any detail around the Kennedy assassination. The assassination is there but not treated adequately. It was, after all, an epic event which had great consequences on both the Soviets and America. Of course, to treat the assassination adequately involves going into issues that remain murky and controversial.
   
   Despite my reservations, the book is an interesting and worthwhile read, however, I certainly do not agree with the New York Times review which said "Succeeds in every sense...unlikely to be surpassed any time soon...."



5. William Taubman's biography of N.S. Khrushchev won the American prestigious Pulitzer Prize in 2004 for best biography. Although the book is very in-depth and extensive, it is not clear why, since the overall result is far less than outstanding.
   
   The main flaws of the book are its overuse of pop psychology, which seems to come from the interpretation of the writer himself rather than from any established source (although he claims to have consulted with "experts" in this field), which does nothing to enhance our understanding of Khrushchev and his motives, and most of which are arbitrary and subjective opinions of the author. This applies especially to the parts which cover Khrushchev's period in power. The second, and biggest, flaw is the insipid and annoying editorial line employed by Taubman, one of the most vulgar anti-socialist sort and not in the slightest informative or interesting. I do not see the point of writing a book about a leader and major figure in the Soviet Union, a bulwark of Communism, when you are so anti-communist you feel compelled to tell the reader this every other sentence or so. This goes all the more since Taubman's interrupting objections consist of useless comments along the lines of "we all know that human nature is against socialism though" or "he ought to have finally recognized his system was a failure" etc. These are not interpretations or context-giving statements that help one understand Khrushchev, but are only political opinions inserted by Taubman, and silly ones at that. If Taubman wants to expatiate on his political views, he should write an essay book on the topic or somesuch.
   
   The obvious merits of this biography, on the other hand, are its scope (with some 650 pages plus over 100 pages of notes), and the structure of the biography. Taubman uses, apart from the introductory chapter, the chronological method, but is very systematic and leaves nothing out, while at the same time keeping a good grasp on all the material. This allows the reader to get a large amount of information on Khrushchev, both in his political and his personal life, at any stage of the proceedings. Despite the pop psychology interruptions and politicking by Taubman, the descriptions of Khrushchev's decision-making in power are fairly thorough and shed a clear light on how many famous Cold War events looked from the Soviet side. It is also pleasant that Taubman does not, as some authors have done, focus excessively on the foreign policy side, but instead pays all the necessary attention to his reforms (and wavering in them).
   
   Although Taubman has a strong tendency to want to discredit Khrushchev and underestimate his competence, partly because Khrushchev himself was rather insecure about himself, he does manage (perhaps against his intent) to make Khrushchev sympathetic and understandable to the reader. Taubman also involves the various other leaders of the USSR, the intelligentsia, officials etc. with whom Khrushchev interacted often into the story, which gives a bare amount of context for his decisions and policies and how they were received, although there could have been much more on this. Because of this, and the large amount of useful information contained in this vast biography, "Khrushchev: The Man and His Era" cannot be considered a failure. But Taubman's editorializing plus his psychologizing, individualist interpretation of historical events make it certainly not worth awarding prizes to either.

5 comments about John Adams: Party of One.

1. John Adams: Party of One by James Grant is a different look at John Adams than the recent bestseller from historian David McCullough. Grant does often quote from primary sources, but not nearly to the extent that McCullough did. This should make the biography less challenging to readers that found the frequent shifts between McCullough's modern style and primary sources difficult. However, Grant makes the text less accessible by some use of vocabulary unfamiliar to the general audience.
   
   The book is worth reading because it gives a look at Adams using primary sources that have not been available previously just as the next Adams biography will do (the Massachusetts Historical Society has spent years compiling Adams' papers and has yet to complete the task). Grant goes out of his way to give a balanced look at John Adams. In some matters, he is highly supportive of Adams' efforts and methods, such as securing loans in The Netherlands. In others, Grant is highly critical of Adams such as his lack of tact as a diplomat. Granted, that particular opinion will not get much argument. One thing that is unusual for most recent biographies, Grant often discusses Adams' faith and religion, keeping its presense throughout the biography unlike, for example, Walter Stahr's biography of John Jay where his noted strong faith disappears for chapters at a time.
   
   As already mentioned, Grant's style does not lend itself to a general audience, at least one that does not wish to have a dictionary handy. Grant brings a highly analytical style, which makes this biography more than a simple narration of Adams' life. The danger with this is that the objectivity can be lost in favor of only citing sources that support a particular point of view. Grant slips into this commentary several times, which could be a distraction if one does not enjoys this style of biography. The stylistic issues raised in the preceding can be considered positives or negatives depending on the reader's own personal preference.
   
   In this reviewer's opinion, this biography of John Adams will not appeal to everyone. It will be heartily enjoyed by some for its analytical and direct style, but may be a disappointment to others who are looking for a milder approach. However, this reviewer endorses an attempt at reading this biography because of the quantity and perhaps quality of what it has to offer.



2. Written with clarity and grace, supported by thorough research, and characterized throughout by scholarly care and respect for both primary and secondary sources, this is the large biography of John Adams to read. It is half the length of David McCullough's tome, but far more scrupulous in its treatment of Adams, especially in its engagement with the rich historical scholarship on the subject. Even an expert can learn from this admirable book, and I did.



3. I found a lot here not available in other recent books about John Adams, and I read one chapter in this book then a chapter in a longer book. Two examples on information covered only here are details of the loans he arranged in Europe after teaching himself the financial trade, and his role in the beginning of the Episcopal Church in the United States.
   
   This is not a shorter version of a more detailed book, but a complete biography by an author with expert knowledge of the financial world of John Adams. I recommend this book to anyone interested in John Adams.



4. First and Foremost, Adams is a fascinating subject, and Grant is a highly qualified historian.
   
   However, it is disappointing that several of the reviews of Mr. Grant's book find it necessary to compare it to D.McCullough's effort. Certainly the latter did create a mania of sorts a few years back, which in turn led to a golden period for historians with a Revolutionary preference.
   
   But having read both, the one thing that seems clear is that Adams is difficult to contain.
   
   Grant's work is a nicely crafted, eminently readable depiction of John Adams, and one that features many interesting and unique observations regarding the revolutionary that Americans have only recently, it seems, elevated to an appropriate level amongst the founding deities.
   
   But too often, Grant's book begins to develop around a certain point about Adams' life or achievements, only to suddenly trail off, leaving the thought unfinished, and the reader wondering if perhaps they'd skipped a page. Yet,this is no brief inquiry. Grant covers the great expanse of Adam's adult life, but fails to acutely identify very many of the key productions of that life.
   
   It is as if there is too much about Adams to be treated adequately in this sort of Comprehensive Biography.
   
   McCullough's work in many ways suffered from the same affliction, but I would measure his prose a little more lyrical, if somewhat less inquiring.
   
   Both authors are absolutely convincing in terms of identifying Adams as a major force in the shaping of the nation, a bold and dynamic personality who left his large fingerprints clearly evident on so many chapters of that formation, and definitely deserving of Franklin's famous assessment of the man's virtue and insanity. Each one of the chapters of Adams' life are so worthy of their own in depth analysis that the soup to nuts biography only serves to (as George Clooney's character says in O Brother Where Art THou) arouse the appetite of the reader without taking him or her to bed.
   
   Grant would have done well to get his fingernails a little dirtier on issues like the Alien & Sedition debacle; the Paris years with Franklin; etc., instead of leaving them too soon. Too many unanswered questions. Too many superficial or unfinished portrayals. Adams deserves more.



5. James Grant provides a refreshing new analysis of John Adams that captures his role in the revolution accurately. Adams developed as his own party throughout the years following the revolution. This book can truly stand on its own and covers all the years of Adams life. From his law days in Boston, to the drafting of the Massachusetts constitution to his years as a diplomat in Europe the early years are well covered. The second half looks closer at his time in high political office from vice presidency to presidency to the retirement years. Overall it tracks closely the integral characters of his life. From Abigail to John Quincy to Alexander Hamilton the author develops each well and shows how they impacted John Adams. The one drawback is there are a lot of modern references which are not needed however they are not enough to knock a full star off. If you want a new perspective on John Adams this is a great way to go.

5 comments about James Monroe: The Quest for National Identity.

1. This highly readable book focuses on the foreign policy elements of Monroe's career almost to the point that it is more of a book on diplomacy than a general biography. The portions that detail his partnership with his Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, especially the genesis of the Monroe Doctrine, are where it is at it's best. Unfortunately it gives short shrift to his relationship and feelings to his own slaves, even while giving a very good account of his activities around the Missouri Compromise.



2. I am presently reading a biography of every U.S. President in order. From browsing the reviews of Monroe biographies, Ammon became the obvious choice. I can gladly say that I was not disappointed. Ammon's biography of Monroe is comprehsive, well written, and superbly researched. Ammon's writing style is refreshingly easy to read and the information is very well organized. Monroe emerges as a very important President and, while not as brilliant intellectually as his two predecessors, certainly well suited to be chief executive and arguably the most important influence on American foreign policy until Theodore Roosevelt.
   
   My criticism of Mr. Ammon's volume is that, despite adeptly describing the political life of Monroe and its importance to American history, the biography never succeeds at leading the reader to understand Monroe on a personal level. Perhaps this task is not possible given the research available, but this is the first presidential biography that I have finished feeling that I did not have an adequate understanding of the personality traits behind the subject's actions.



3. I read this book as part of my goal to read the established biography of every President. This was really an outstanding biography on what is clearly an underrated President.
   
   I would consider Monroe the Eisenhower of the 1800s. He did a lot and doesn't seem to get a lot of credit for it. I don't think credit was what Monroe was after.
   
   He played a key role in both the military and political history of the country and the author did a great job in depicting both. I especially liked the authors discussion of Monroe's role in reaching agreements with G.B., France, Spain, Russia, Portugal, etc.
   
   Obviously we all know about the Monroe Doctrine, but the author went into great detail in other key areas and detailed his relationships with other important men from his era.
   
   It may be longer than most would want to read, but if you want to read a really great book on a great President that is well constructed, flows well and is detailed enough to highlight the key and not so key aspects of a Presidency. This is the book on Monroe you should read.



4. Lack of information? This is a good Biog. It does get a little wordy, especially concerning Monroe's foreign affairs work. Personally, I like to study the revolutionary mind, and read about the founding fathers' philosophy concerning politics and life. I just don't think there is as much information about Monroe as some of the others. He seems to have been a somewhat private person. Over all though this is pretty good work. Probably about as good as it gets for the amount of info available.



5. This is one of the best biographies on the not only the life of James Monroe but on the development of the United States role in world affairs. The author clearly assesses not only the role that Monroe played but also the exogenous factors that led to the development of the country. By framing this through Monroe's life we can clearly see his development along with that of the country at clear and critical junctures. From the early days of the revolution to the diplomacy of Europe to his time as governor of Virginia Monroe clearly shaped the outcome of the United States. While not the philosopher that Jefferson or Madison was the legal theories and common sense diplomacy espoused by Monroe was necessary to set the path for growth that the country needed in the early eighteenth century.
   
   
   Overall it is a thoroughly enjoyable read that will answer the questions of those wondering how the identity of the nation was formed.

5 comments about Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy.

1. This book by a Reagan insider reveals in stark detail Bush's hipocracy in using the conservative title. Bartlett shows him as an grandiose opportunist who believes he is guided by God, and making all the errors of judgement that stem from such absurd overconfidence.



2. Well written entertaining hard hitting book on the various failures of the Bush presidency.
   
   This book is packed with facts and logic supporting the author's thesis that George W. Bush is not a conservative president and has done a bad job from a conservative perspective. Rather GWB has been a highly partisan Republican president in the genre of Richard Nixon in that he has pushed liberal policies like expansion of medicare benefits, pouring billions into educations, committing the troops to nation-building of a democracy (which no doubt will end up like Vietnam) in a place where US troops don't belong.
   
   If you are a die-hard Bush fan or a liberal Bush-hater don't bother buying this book as it probably won't provide any enjoyment. But if you are an intelligent open-minded individual who appreciates a frank discussion of policy from the conservative viewpoint you should not be disappointed.



3. Sure, it's easy for those on the left to bash Bush. But when other *conservatives* start taking exception to his policies...
   
   Author Bruce Bartlett considers himself a "Reagan Conservative", favoring small government, free markets, free trade. Bush, on the other hand, favors big government solutions such as Medicare drug program, agricultural subsidies, and tariffs on imported steel. Bush's tax cuts, unlike Reagan's, were not well thought out at all. In short, Bush and the Republican Congress has turned into a money-spending machine similar to the Democratic Congresses of years before....without real revenue to back it up.
   
   Bush, unlike the more affable Reagan, is characterized as a secretive, Nixonian type. He knows what he wants to do, he knows what he wants to hear, and woe betide anyone who tries to present bad news of information to the contrary.
   
   The author, while expressing concerns about the Iraq war, mostly sticks to economic issues. He definitely takes the philosophy that less government regulation is better, spending several pages on Sarbanes-Oxley (corporate governance regulations). He admits that Bill Clinton was better at managing the US budget, while Bush was more like Nixon in the way he spent money.
   
   There will be a tax increase, one way or another, after all is said and done. Bartlett favors a Value Added Tax (VAT), such as used in Canada and Europe.
   
   The book is informative and easy to read, even if you do not have an degree in economics. Bartlett (according to the back cover) lost his job in the Treasury department over the ideas in this book, so that alone should indicate that there is more than "smoke" there....



4. Unhappy is an understatement. He's steamed. As if there weren't enough Bush 43 haters already! Here's Bruce Bartlett, major heavyweight economist, a guy with a resume so solid you could blast it with phasers and they'd just bounce off, speaking out in no uncertain terms.
   
   The only fault I had with this book is that the author sees things narrowly. When you're holding a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When you're an economist, everything looks like money. Not totally, but there's a perceptible bias.
   
   Considering it only as a critique of how our 43rd president has done on the economy, I've no complaint.



5. The purpose of this book to dispel the myth that George W. Bush is a conservative.
   Bruce Bartlett starts out by explaining that many conservative had reservations about this Bush after being disappointed by his father's presidency.
   
   He comments on the war in Iraq on page 10. "Most traditional conservatives had deep misgivings about the war, which was driven mainly by neoconservatives, a conservative offshoot established by former liberals."
   
   Allen Lichtman is quoted on Bush's presidency. "Political revolution in the United States, creating a form of conservative big government that promotes not the general interests of ordinary Americans, but the special intersts of big corporations."
   
   George H. W Bush lost his bid for reelection partly because of the economy. That highlighted his disinterest in economic policy. He focused on foreign policy and neglected domestic policy.
   John Dilulio revealed that there has been a lack of "serious policy fiber" regarding economics in G.W's administration. The economic advisers in the current administration have no clear direcion and very little input in decisions.
   The economic crises that we have today are caused in large part by George W. Bush's ignorance and lack of interest on economic policy or the process of studying options.
   
   There are insider quotes from Richard Clarke and Ron Suskind about the attitude in the Bush White House that come off as arrogant and detached from reality.
   
   I think that Mr. Bartlett has accurately diagnosed the myriad of leadership flaws in the current president and I agree that he is not a conservative by any means, particularly on the economy.
   
   There were some interesting tidbits such as-
   *That Paul Krugman was an adviser to Enron.
   *Columnist Jim Pinkerton noted that Karl Rove got his start in politics during Nixon's 1972 campaign.
   *The author finds multiple similarites between Bush 2 and Nixon on domestic policy and pandering for votes. Bush is definitely a big government-big spender!
   
   Some points that I don't agree with at all are that trade protection is a bad thing for one.
   Protectionism is a great idea if you work in a factory or a textile mill where jobs were or could be outsourced!
   Another is that I don't agree that the E.P.A. and O.S.H.A. are less important that the cost to business associated with their regulations.
   
   Bruce Bartlett does make a compelling case for George W. Bush being an impostor. Bartlett takes a look from a historical standpoint at Bush's economic disaster compared to policies of former presidents. The economic information is rigorous reading but the book overall is worth a read.

5 comments about The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty.

1. I'm not American, so had never even heard of Prescott Bush, let alone many of the other characters in this book. And yeah it's pretty gossipy and Kitty Kelley is obviously no fan, but if (like me) you just want an easy to read overview of the Bush family that doesnt get too bogged down in American politics, I say this is for you. I read every word and came out knowing far more about right wing American politics than I knew before. Let me tell you, it wasnt the Bushes that shocked me, (scratch the surface of any family and you're bound to find pay dirt) it was the ratbag right wing fundamentalists that really gave me the creeps.
   Oooooh, scary.



2. Imagine someone wrote a book about you, and after talking to everyone who hates you, compiled a list of every flaw and every mistake, intermingled with rumor and gossip presented as fact. This is the approach that Kelley takes, and while it does make for an entertaining book that's hard to put down, one feels a need to take a shower after reading it.
   
   A lot of Kelley's dirt is material of which even loyal Republicans were aware: We all accept that George W. is inarticulate, stubborn, and although he might have a high IQ, he's not an intellectual. Everyone knows about his history with alcohol and his checkered past as a businessman - points Kelley pounds at viciously and incessantly. More damning is her accusation that George W. had been cheating on his wife with a Midland prostitute who was threatened by CIA agents, and that he has a history of using cocaine. Is this true? Who knows? Kelley seems very thorough in her sourcing, but one gets the sense that she'd say it even if the source lacked credibility. Even when Bush does something positive, Kelley tweaks her wording to put the worst possible spin on the event, not realizing her book would have more credibility if she showed more evenhandedness.
   
   Prescott Bush, George Sr., and George W. each get roughly a third of the book. (Does anyone really care about Prescott?) As well, the women of the Bush family receive the Kelley treatment - Barbara, Laura, and the twins are all presented in a very negative light.
   
   I bought the 2005 Anchor paperback (although not from Amazon), and the binding fell apart despite gentle handling. I bought a replacement copy, and once again, the binding fell apart and chunks of pages fell into my lap.



3. There's not one nice thing said of any member of the Bush family here. Nope, not ONE nice thing. Across eighty-plus years and a couple dozen Bush figures, Kelley can't uncover a single deed by any of them that in her view merits her penning a single gracious compliment. No mention with any flattery (is there or did I miss something?) of former President Bush's service during World War Two, when the man might easily have stayed in college, no reference to how the current President's grandfather (eventually) opposed McCarthyism, no note conceded to the first President Bush's position among the top five Presidents of last century when it came to foreign policy, not EVEN a kind word for the charms of Millie, the White House Dog!
   
   But...I can't help but come back to one thing about this insomnia-curing exercise in gossip, and that is IF these things are true, then no matter how rude it might be to say all this, isn't it a valid exercise in journalism (stretching the word a bit) to print this?
   
   True tales or outright lies, I cannot like Kitty Kelley. She strikes me as one who glees in other people's troubles and mongers their problems and less flattering moments before all the world. She reminds me a lot of the sort Theodore Roosevelt was talking about a hundred years ago when he cited those types who do nothing on their own but are the first to sit back and criticise and mock those who do make an attempt at something.
   
   Bottom line is this. Most Bush foes will like this book, and most Bush fans will be outraged. Even I, who have little love for our current President, think this is trashy tabloid reporting at its most mercenary. Yet...I also suspect there's more truth here in Kelley's character-bashing than the sometimes ruthless Bush family would like to admit.



4. For those of us who detest the Bushes, there is really no need to look for new reasons to hate. Having said that, I'm glad I read this book because it was enjoyable and cathartic while also serving as food for thought.
   
   It's really an anatomy of the mindset behind conservatism, as the Bushes come across not as instigators of the ugly sort of "conservatism" that now holds sway, but rather as a symptom. The current brand of conservatism that has plunged the USA into such a miserable state is based on the idea of life as a zero-sum game: an unending series of battles that necessarily require a winner and a loser. In this world view, there is no such thing as compromise for the greater good, so it is essential that one be on the winning side.
   
   Consistently throughout "The Family" we see the Bushes taking this stance as a means of becoming and remaining the ultimate victors. From the senior Bush's radical stand against the Civil Rights Act as a means of catapulting himself into the redneck center of Texas politics to his son's co-opting of the religious right to win backing among those he would be leaving economically disadvantaged, the naked cynicism of Bush maneuvering is masterful in that it is completely detached from any sort of a moral compass and instead driven by a keen understanding of people's fears of The Other.
   
   One amazing thing about "The Family" is that it comes across not only as an expose of the Bushes' ugliness but also as an convincing analysis of how they utilized the power of myths and images that easily resonate with Americans. We see exactly how truly despicable people are no more than a crystalization of all that is wrong with America.



5. I'll admit that I did not know what to expect when I encountered this book by Kitty Kelley. I only knew her works by reputation, and her previous subject matter - the Royals, Jackie Onassis, Elizabeth Taylor and Frank Sinatra - struck me as lightweight and gossipy. But I found myself unexpectedly with a few hours to kill and few titles from which to choose. So, I picked up "The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Family," which tells the history of three generations of Bush politicians, Senator Prescott Bush and Bush 41 and Bush 43.
   
   First, let me say that the book is very readable. The only thing that might be a bit difficult is keeping track of the different names, as there are, for example, so many Georges and Prescotts. Kelley does what she can to assist by employing the nicknames used by Bush family itself. Some of them are actually endearing, such as "Poppy." Her prose carries the reader along easily.
   
   Second, let me say that the book was far more substantial than I expected. There was plenty, yes plenty, of politics in it. Kelley brings information together to show coherent patterns, exposing contradictions and lies.
   
   Third, I want to say that the book is, for the most part, fair. Kelley sometimes steps back to admire or acknowledge a deed or two. Prescott is admired for voting to censure Joe McCarthy (an act of political courage, as his constituents may have been pro-Joe). Bush 41 is admired for enlisting on his 18th birthday to fight in World War II (even though his parents were against his fighting in "Rockefeller's War"). Kelley also acknowledges that Bush 41's increase of taxes - and this hurt him badly in the re-election - put the economy in better shape for when Clinton entered office. Bush 43 is acknowledged to believe that he is a sincere Christian (although he rarely attends church). Kelley describes a charming incident, too, when Bush returns some money to a poor woman who contributed to his campaign.
   
   (A parenthetical note: how often do you hear the right-wing media positively acknowledge any deed of those whom they deem liberal? It's very, very rare, and very frustrating.)
   
   Despite these gleams of good, most of the book is negative with respect to the three men. Their talents can be described as mediocre at best, and pitiful at worst. They rarely have empathy for anyone but the Bushes. The lies that they tell - "Pernicious foolery" - expand from one generation to the next. They lie glibly about themselves; they lie viciously about their opponents. They pander to those who will vote for them or contribute to their campaigns. Many of the events have popped up in the media before; it's clear they are not invention. (I admit I was too young for the Prescott incidents.)
   
   A big question is: Why have the Bushes done what they have done? They seem to have mistaken a plaque on the wall for the satisfaction of genuine accomplishment. But they are desperate, almost slavering, to get that plaque on the wall. They lie and pander (to the NRA, for example) in order to get that plaque.
   
   And what's all this about poodles? The poodles are the media (see Kelley's Afterword) admitted to the White House - the poodles who have not done their work and informed the nation. The poodles who, hoping for another doggy biscuit or a chance to sit on the inner sofa, have let so many items go unchallenged. The poodles have hurt the Americans, who, thinking they were being informed appropriately, voted in the Bush-men
   
   Thanks Kelley - for not being a poodle!

5 comments about Ulysses S. Grant: The Unlikely Hero (Eminent Lives).

1. 
   
   
   Military history is often a tragedy the first time around and a farce when it repeats, as this perceptive book makes abundantly clear in outlining and assessing the career of America's greatest general.
   
   Fans of Robert E. Lee may well argue about the "greatest", the blunt fact is that Grant understood Lee better than Lee understood Grant. Korda makes the point again and again that Grant, except on rare occasions, was able to correctly assess battlefield conditions and quickly exploit every indication of weakness.
   
   Grant was bitterly criticized as a butcher, similar to Gen. George "Blood and Guts" Patton in World War II. Veterans of Patton's armies have told me Patton's success was based on "his guts, our blood". But I've yet to meet anyone who regrets having served with Patton. The same is true of Grant; good soldiers always praise a general who wins, dead soldiers don't complain.
   
   Grant understood that victory meant killing enough soldiers to make the Confederate states quit. He understood the war was won at Gettysburg; just as Gen. Dwight Eisenhower knew World War II was won in Normandy. The tragic legacy of Grant is that too many generals since then have copied his "butcher" qualities without understanding his tactical brilliance; thus the appalling slaughter of World War I.
   
   Grant was the perfect American success story; literally a "barefoot" buy who rose to command the armies of the nation and then serve two terms in the White House. He was also the "perfect" American because of his absolute trust in the essential goodness, decency and honesty of others; politicians and business people took cynical and unlimited advantage of these qualities, which left his administration mired in the deep stink of scandal.
   
   In war, Gen. Grant faced one massive task -- victory. Everything was directed to one goal. In peace, President Grant as a politician faced a thousand simultaneous large and petty challenges, something he was never able to handle. His astounding successes were two great single-minded challenges; the war, and writing his autobiography as he was dying of cancer. Facing these two great challenges, he succeeded brilliantly.
   
   The contrast with today's politicians could not be more dramatic. Grant was instinctively drawn to the sound of the guns fired in anger; too many of today's politicians, who blithely send others to war which they cleverly avoid themselves, have never hear a shot fired in anger let alone a voice raised in anger in the White House.
   
   This book, and the story of Grant, is vividly relevant in today's politics. Everyone who reads it will understand at least some of the fundamentals of success, of America's greatest general and the current military incompetence that has led to another quagmire.



2. These amazon reviews have done their job, in convincing me not to bother reading this book. There are two excellent studies of Grant as a politician and president, both by Brooks Simpson: LET US HAVE PEACE and THE RECONSTRUCTION PRESIDENTS. I highly recommend them.



3. The only books I've previously read about the civil war are All For The Union and Company Aytch. I recommend both if you want to read the memoirs of soldiers. Mr. Grant is a fascinating person and Michael Korda tries to capture his complexity of character. I can't say that I learned much more than I already knew from various Discovery Channel shows or visiting the home of U.S. Grant in Galena. As noted in previous reviews, some of the historical data is questionable. For example, is Mr. Korda correct about the position of forces on a battlefield or the several maps and writings I found on the internet that say otherwise? One thing I could do without is Mr. Kordas need to bring in his obvious dislike of president George Bush and anything whatsoever that has any connection to him. Mr. Korda, if you feel a need to vent your Bush-hatred get a job with the New York Times or Washington Post. I don't know about other folks but when I sit down with a book about U.S. Grant I don't expect to be hammered with the non-too-subtle neo-liberal desire to tie everything to George Bush.



4. Factually deficient. Some errors have been cited in earlier reviews here on Amazon. I will only point out that Korda repeatedly referred to Gen. McClellan as Gen. Mckennen. It gives one no confidence if the author cannot even remember the correct name of such a prominent person. Oddly, Korda seems to remember that Grant once remarked that he often wore a private soldier's jacket with stars on the shoulders so that the army might know who their general is. But then Korda triumphantly points to photos of Grant wearing a full general's frock coat in his meetings with Lincoln. Is this supposed to prove Grant was dishonest? Doesn't it occur to Korda that even Grant might think it appropriate to dress up a bit for a meeting with the President of the United States or for a photo? Some analysis! Korda's commentary on Grant's military decisions is on a par with his remarks on Grant's uniform: not worthy of a high school paper. Finally, it was annoying to see the author dip into academic hippy analysis of major events. Somehow, in a biography of Grant, we are to be dragged into Korda's hatred of President Bush. Aren't we sick of this yet? I couldn't--wouldn't--finish this pathetic book. It's in the garbage can. If the rest of the biographies in this series are this deficient, the publisher would do well to abandon the project.



5. This is a tiny book that one can easily read in a few hours, apparently intended for those (90%) of the current US population for whom the name of Ulysses Grant is unrecognizable. And as usual for a British author writing about American history, many of the facts are wrong and he feels compelled to compare Grant and his other American examples to British figures like Churchill, Wellington and Montgomery.
   
   That being said, this would be a reasonable book to give a 8th grader to hopefully interest him in American history. The writing is crisp and the prose flows easily.
   
   Author Korda essentially relies on two (count 'em, TWO) sources for most of his work; the highly controversial McFeely with its many errors and the 1928 work by Woodward. It does not seem as though Korda read Grant's superb autobiography, but he presents a very sympathetic portrait of Grant that might inspire further interest in his subject.
   
   The best parts of the book are the author's depiction of Grant's childhood, his personal bravery, rock-solid marriage, liberal attitudes (at a time when the Republicans were liberal and the Democrats conservative), and the close of his life when he wrote his autobiography. It is well-known that Grant was an abject business failure, putting the interests of others over his own, and showing a great deal of undeserved trust and loyalty. Although Grant was an extreme example of a military man unable to function as a civilian businessman, one should remember that others such as Patton, Eisenhower, Pershing, Lee etc, were never so tested. An uncommonly brave man, Grant saw and understood the tragedies of war and in spite of personal feelings was able to do his duty to the best of his abilities.
   
   Author Korda mentions one of Grant's problems that has been overlooked by almost all historians and needs reinforcement. Grant suffered frequently from debilitating migraine headaches, even almost missing Appromattox as a result. Grant needed his wife or Rawlins when he was incapacitated by a headache, and they kept him isolated in a darkened tent or room until the headache ran its course. Literally all of these episodes were recorded as Grant being drunk or sleeping off a hangover. The incidence of Grant's drinking was probably a small fraction of what was reported, if at all. It must be remembered that at the time, drinking was not considered as bad as having a mental disorder (like having frequent migraine headaches) and Grant himself apparently used drunkenness as a reason for his incapacitation rather than mentioning his headaches.
   
   As far as judging Grant as a military commander or President, this book is simply inadaquate in scope to support the author's conclusions. Nonetheless, he does not miss a reasoned and defensible scholarly analysis by far. Grant did very well in the Civil War, displaying excellent strategic and tactical sense, and a firm understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of his opponents. At Belmont he was only forced to withdraw when his green troops fell away to plunder the Confederate camp, and his campaigns against Fort Donelson and Vicksburg did not offer much opportunity for criticism. He avoided defeat at Shiloh, won easily at Chattanooga, and was the Federal General to finally bring Lee to bay.
   
   Historians have severely criticized his long casualty list in the 1864 campaign against Lee, but it must be remembered that Meade was in tactical command of the Army of the Potomac, not Grant. An often overlooked item was Grant's elimination of prisoner exchanges. Those exchanges worked to the disadvantage of the Federals due to their numerical superiority. Grant's decision was also more humane; as he said, otherwise the only way to deny the Confederates its soldiers would be to kill them (thus raising battle deaths on both sides.)
   
   As President, Grant was a calming influence, and he did forestall another war with England over Canada. This is an episode overlooked by historians, but Palmerston had once thought of offering Canada to the US in return for recognizing the Confederacy and Canada was definitely in play. Following the Civil War there was a great deal resentment against England for aiding the Confederacy and meddling in US internal affairs, and war over Canada could have easily resulted. Yes, financial scandals rocked Grant's terms of office, but there were also many positive things that Grant contributed. Unfortunately, scandals are much more popular among writers wishing to sell books. A modern reader must surely understand that.
   
   There are many mistakes in the book that are jarring. George B. McClellan is repeatedly given as McClennan and the author makes statements such as; "No American ex-president had ever fallen so low, and except for Harding and Nixon, none would ever again." Well, sorry to say, Harding died in office and would never become an ex-president. Also saying that "...MacArthur can be thought of as a latter-day McClellan,..." is simply ludicrous. And finally, is it required for a writer to include a criticism of Bush "(...a sentiment that might usefully have been followed 133 years later by President George W. Bush)" to get good reviews from the media? Ok, I get it!! You hate Bush! Now can we please produce a scholarly historical work of times and personnel before the 21th century without making negative comments about Bush?
   
   I finished the little book conflicted over this author's reasonable and sympathetic presentation of a much-loved American hero of the 19th century but containing his condescending British Empire attitude and contemporary political opinions. In short, the author lost my good offices at the end. I can readily see why this book is rated from 1 to 5 stars. It all depends on the reader, so I compromised with three.

1 comments about John Adams Movie Tie-In.

1. Don't get me wrong, this is a terrific book. David McCullough has written another winner. And Edward Herrmann is still my favorite narrator of audio books. But the engineers must have been on strike because all throughout this audio book you can hear Mr. Herrmann breathing through his nose, smacking his lips and exhaling.
   Still, I'm glad I purchased this audio book in spite of the strange recording. It's wonderful.

5 comments about Gerald R. Ford.

1. My dad enjoyed Gerald Ford as President because of his honesty, integrity, and rare human quality.



2. This is a good book. It makes you realize that Ford was really a hard working, intelligent, well qualified person at the time that he was selected to be Vice President. It also brings to life, the 70's. As the country gets ready to celebrate another birthday, we can also celebrate the persons who have been willing to get involved in service to their country.



3. Writing a short biography on a president who served such a brief time is a difficult proposition. It is to Brinkley's credit that he did not try to do more with his subject than what the subject deserves (such as Kevin Phillips failed work on William McKinley). Fortunately, Ford is not as an obscure, or I should say unimportant, a presidential figure as some others (e.g., Chester Arthur).
   
   The most dramatic issue for Ford was his pardon of Nixon. The author concludes that Ford acted correctly. Perhaps this is true, that is debatable. I lived through the same time (I almost voted for Ford in '76) and I am not sure that the country would not have been better served if a trial did occur. It may have prevented the recent efforts to devise an imperial presidency and the resulting calamity in foreign/domestic policies. Ford thought that a 1913 Supreme Court decision made clear that Nixon accepted the pardon and his guilt. That was not an accurate conclusion. His position would have made more sense if Ford required Nixon to have explicitly agreed with that conclusion. Ford didn't and Nixon spent much of his remaining years still deflecting blame.
   
   Left out of the bio was the significant revelation after Ford's death that he criticized Bush's Iraq War, but he directed that his thoughts not be published until after his death. In strengthening Ford's stature by highlighting his character, the author seems to have conveniently lost the chance to consider if his silence was consistent with the character issue. In fact, Ford was a party man to the death. His silence, therefore, is consistent with that stance, but was that of high character?
   
   Regardless, I too accept Ford as a very decent person and his presidency was at least (but no more) of average significance. His Helsinki agreement is rightly cited in this book as a landmark act. He was, though, a poor national candidate and that prevented an extension of his presidency.



4. Ford was our longest living president at 93, outliving Reagan by 46 days. He became president without a single vote. Nixon put him in office as someone who would grant him a pardon. Ford became known for his clumsiness, tripping and bumping his head at every opportunity. He put his foot in his mouth in a debate with Jimmy Carter when he declared that Poland was not dominated by the Soviet Union.



5. Well known historian Douglas Brinkley has written this brief biography, as a part of the American Presidents series of works. In the series editor's Introduction, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. notes that (Page xv): "The president is the central player in the American political order." Gerald Ford was an accidental president, taking over after Richard Nixon's downfall resulting from Watergate and his subsequent resignation.
   
   Gerald Ford's name at birth was Leslie Lynch King, Jr. His father had a violent temper and the marriage did not last long. His mother later married Gerald Rudolf Ford; after a time, her son was renamed Gerald Rudolph (an Americanized version of the stepfather's middle name) Ford. As a youngster, he excelled at athletics and even had the possibility of a pro football career. However, he chose law school and, shortly after that, electoral politics. He saw action in World War II.
   
   When he was elected to the House of Representatives 1948, he began to formulate the ambition to become Speaker of the House. His chosen career was in the legislature. The book does a nice job profiling his rise in the House, with carefully crafted advancement through the ranks; it also depicts the start of a long-time friendship between Ford and Richard Nixon.
   
   When Ford finally became Minority Leader in the House, he used his conciliatory approach well. As Brinkley says (Page 31), ". . .he played the good coach, giving his squad wide latitude to speak their minds. In exchange, he wanted no bickering. Ford's open forum proved smart strategy." Some tho9ught him rather slow of thought, but his amiability and ability to work with others represented a great strength.
   
   When Nixon was elected President, he tended not to work so well with Congress--including his own Republican mates. Ford did not distinguish himself with his unabating support for Nixon after Watergate became a public matter; after former Attorney General John Mitchell reported that the White House was not involved, Ford clung to that long after so many others had seen through the falsehoods.
   
   Then, the unlikely story of his rise to Vice-President and his subsequent ascension to the presidency after Nixon's downfall. The book does a nice job in a brief space noting the major decisions/actions of the Ford Administration, some working out well and some not so well. Here, we read about Whip Inflation Now, swine flu, the withdrawal from Viet Nam, the Mayaguez incident, the Helsinki Accords, and so on. The internecine Republic nomination politics of 1976 essentially doomed him to lose to Jimmy Carter. Then, the amazing life after the presidency and people's changing reflections on his accomplishments. . . .
   
   Another well turned work in the American Presidents series. These short volumes cannot go into the depth that I would sometimes like, but the tradeoff is accessible books for people who might not have the patience to wade through a 600 page tome.

4 comments about Lincoln the Lawyer.

1. Although Lincoln's contribution to history is his handling of public policy, governance, and war, probably most of his time prior to the White House was devoted to his law practice. This book will reward anyone seeking to know how one of America's greatest minds was occupied in the troubled affairs of one ordinary person after another. The solid account is highly knowledgeable but not at all technical, written for inquiring readers rather than legal professionals. Using assorted cases as examples, the author examines the role of attorneys in what was then the American West, giving the book broader scope than just Lincoln's law practice. This is one of the first studies to exploit a recently collected mass of documents relating to Lincoln's law career.



2. All to often, books about great historical figures tend to overemphasize the personality of the figure and forget the essence of the person to history. Also, many authors and historians research a historical figure and find that he is not who the legend claims he is. There is tendency to find this information out and then to immediately start disparaging the figure almost as if the person is taking a personal affront to the real person not being half of the myth.
   
   Thomas Jefferson probably father children with Sally Hemmings beyond a reasonable doubt. John F. Kennedy was a reckless womanizer. These facts do not however change what these people did and achieved. It makes for interesting fodder, but it does not change the fact that the Declaration of Independence was written and the Cuban Missile Crisis was averted. So, there is a trap anytime writers take up great figures. Dirck could have fallen into this trap when writing about Lincoln the lawyer. That the author did not do this is a testament to what an outstanding book this is. This is indeed the no frills Lincoln. Dirck's Lincoln is not a great lawyer nor is a terrible lawyer who represented slaveholders. For the most part, Lincoln the lawyer is closer in truth to the advice Lincoln gave to young lawyers which is cited several times in the book. Lincoln made a comfortable life as a lawyer but as the author points out, he never was unscrupulous in representing a client and was diligent and honest in his dealings through the bar in Springfield and elsewhere.
   
   As Dirck points out, the everyday of lawyering in mid-19th century America was just as exciting as lawyering is today. Wills, Estates, Trusts, debt collection, surety, personal injuries and maybe a smattering of criminal representation was Lincoln's lot in the world of the bar. Overall, Lincoln The Lawyer is a great appraisal of the world that Lincoln knew before anyone could say that he belonged to the ages.



3. What do YOU do all day?
   
   This book is an illustration of the philosophic points made in its own the last chapters. We take the almost superhuman character of Abe Lincoln and view - or interperate - the various instances of his law career in light of it.
   
   Better we should consider what he actually did all day for most of his working life,and it was a real working job, and see what that can tell us about what his character might have been like. I've read a lot of Lincoln bios, this is very informative. Dry as dust, but an A+.
   
   (Oh,bonus,gives you a little history of American law)



4. Dirck tries to do two things here. First he tries to assess Lincoln's law practice in the context of its time and place. Second he tries to evaluate what effect the practice had on Lincoln, both in how the practice suited Lincoln's personality and how it may have helped shape it. He does well on the first task and not so well on the second.
   
   Dirck paints a clear picture of the typical law practice of the day and shows that Lincoln's practice was not much different, except that he was more successful at it than many others. Lincoln had a general practice covering all of the legal areas of the time but largely concentrated on civil cases, most of which were claims for money owed (often on simple IOU's). There were a relatively few forays into criminal law, mostly (with but a few exceptions) minor crimes. In his practice Lincoln was neither a champion of the downtrodden nor a simple tool of corporate interests. Lincoln represented whoever happened to hire him and used all the tools available to a skilled and honest lawyer: Procedural rules, courtroom drama, legal knowledge and persuasive oratory. Lincoln, like all lawyers then and now, also spent a lot of time trying to settle cases before trial. Dirck speaks of this as "grease" (for the system) and seems to suggest that lawyers of the day were conscious of the system's need for "grease" and that Lincoln made special efforts to conciliate disputes. He offers, however, little hard evidence that Lincoln differed significantly from his colleagues in this respect.
   
   Dirck also argues that law was especially congenial to Lincoln because it fit neatly into what Dirck sees as salient aspects of Lincoln's personality (such as his reserve, tendency to avoid commitment, his dislike of conflict, his supposed love of conciliation and so on). Most of what we know, or think we know, of these supposed traits is based on anecdotes gathered by one of Lincoln's former law partners, William Herndon. The testimony was all given after Lincoln's death and apotheosis and is all anecdotal as well as subjective. Here I think Dirck spins too easily into amateur psychologising. The evidence for the conclusions is thin.
   
   Dirck's prose style is quite clear but very plain. He does not seem to have great legal knowledge. He describes a contract case, for example, as having been won on a "technicality" when it was dismissed for lack of "consideration," a legal notion that goes to the essence of contract law because it describes the exchange that makes the bargain. Dirck's book provides a useful overview of Lincoln's actual practice, devoid of myth but not compelling in style.

2 comments about The Portable John Adams (Penguin Classics).

1. Adams was in my American childhood a neglected founding father. Washington was the father of the nation, and Jefferson the great author of the 'Declaration of Independence'maker of the Louisiana Purchase, Madison the great author of the Federalist, Monroe the enunciator of the doctrine which determined US attitudes to the whole of the Americas. But in recent years there has been a great interest in the work of Adams including the outstanding award-winning biography of David MacCullough.
   I have read only bits of Adams, and sense a great intelligence, organization of mind, firm conviction of democratic principle. There is a sense with him as with almost all the founding fathers of their having been somehow on a higher level than our present political leaders.
   I do not know how much time non- scholarly readers will wish to an Adams volume but there is outstanding political writing here, and a selection of his remarkable correspondence.
   Just to give a taste of his language and democratic principles I quote a snippet of his Inaugural Address in 1797.
   
   "For it is the people only that are represented. It is their power and majesty that is reflected, and only for their good, in every legitimate government, under whatever form it may appear. The existence of such a government as ours for any length of time is a full proof of a general dissemination of knowledge and virtue throughout the whole body of the people. And what object or consideration more pleasing than this can be presented to the human mind? If national pride is ever justifiable or excusable it is when it springs, not from power or riches, grandeur or glory, but from conviction of national innocence, information, and benevolence."



2. This was so hard to read I didn't finish it. Was expecting more of a biography than a collection of letters.