No comments about The Personal President: Power Invested, Promised Unfulfilled.

5 comments about Inside Putin's Russia: Can There Be Reform without Democracy?.

1. Andrew Jack is Moscow bureau chief of the Financial Times, which is a pro-Big business UK paper. The paper hasn't been particularly focused or interested in Russia, except occasion critical outbursts of FT columnist Quentin Peel. The author is one of the whole crew of young Anglo-American correspondents who felt compelled to write a book after several years in Russia. The sweep of the book is broad - it is the Russia's business elite, GULAG, transitional economy, KGB, communism, city of Moscow, Russian political system, and Chechnya. It is impressive for anyone to cover all these topics in one swift stroke, but inevitably questions arise about a depth of such a book and its usefulness in predicting the Russia's future. The book didn't impress me very much on either of these counts. The author, who is essentially an investigative reporter, has undeniable strengths, which are in his knowledge of details: a date, a name, an event, some important personal detail. But a solid big picture unfortunately is not among them. The book is filled with little nuggets of information about Russia, Russian `oligarchs', and politicians, but I don't think it has a real depth, nor I am convinced that the book offers an objective portrait of `Putin's Russia'. In the book Russia is portrayed essentially as an imperfect, if not unsuccessful, disciple of laissez-faire capitalism practiced by US and UK. Also, the author does not appear to be as peeved as Marquise De Custine, but comes close sometimes.
   
   Jack writes in crisp, short sentences. He is obviously familiar with Russian language and throws lots of names around, but his anglicizing of Russian names is annoying. For example, on page 37 he mentioned `Old' Square in Moscow. In Russian language it is `Staraya' Square. With the same success one could call the Kremlin `the Tower'.
   Many pages are filled with author's personal `disappointments' in Russia from his description of unsuccessful attempts to buy fresh lattice to his accounts of agonizing encounters with Russian traffic police - the feared GAI. A lot of it appears to be a natural frustration of a foreigner, who is just trying to figure out what makes the Russians tick.
   
   The most important weakness of this book is its failure to examine Russia on its own terms, not to try to fit it into `the bed of Procrustes' of Anglo-American model, code of behavior, and virtues of US-style market democracy. Of course, Jack is right then saying that Putin's priority is modernization of Russia, not building a `democracy that bears more than a superficial resemblance to the variance recognizable in the west.'
   But the author's attitude, as shown in his choice of words, is quite wrong. Looking at the examples of countries like Japan and Singapore, how could one say that the Anglo-Saxon way of market democracy is the only way to achieve prosperity and modernization? Why, if fact, it should be desirable in Russia?
   
   The massage of the book is pedestrian `Russia in 2008 is likely to be a country in better shape than some now fear, but not as impressive as it might have been had Putin used his potential to the full' (page 339).
   The tone of patronizing superiority notwithstanding, one doesn't have to go through 350 pages to figure that out. I was impressed with his exercise in semantics when he called Russia a country, which `is shifting from anarchic liberalism towards liberal authoritarianism', but it really explains nothing. `Liberal' means different things to different people. In Russia `Young liberals' is a contemptuous name (even a swearing word) for a group of reformers who carried out `the shock therapy' of the early nineties. Incidentally, these `young liberals' have had little to do with liberalism, but were adherents of rightist Thatcherism, standing for massive privatization, withdrawal of price control, trickle-down economics, and general free-market fundamentalism.
   
   What is particularly puzzling is Jack's failure to notice a most striking feature of Kremlin's policies. It is not Putin's connection to KGB, which makes him noteworthy, but his Russian version of Gaullism. Like De Gaulle, Putin is a nationalistic, populist leader, insistent on a strong presidency, and determent to actively encourage a `multi-polar' world, in order to check US dominance. All these have clear earmarks of French Gaullism a la Russe, and, incidentally, and not surprisingly France has been the closest Russian ally in the world. Mr. Jack who was stationed in Paris before Moscow didn't seem to bother to make a connection.



2. 
   
   Although it was not widely recognised at the time, the choice of Vladimir Putin as Prime Minister of Russia in 1999 appears to have marked the beginning of a transition from chaos to order in the once communist nation. The question is, in moving away from chaos, might the pendulum swing once again towards the repression of the Soviet years?. But while Western political pundits and politicians talk of a return to Stalinism, the majority of Russians appear to be unconcerned; Putin and his nationalist policies enjoy high levels of support.
   
   Despite what many commentators would have us believe, the situation in Russia is complex; fortunately, Andrew Jack's 'Inside Putin's Russia' offers help in understanding it. The book provides us with a well documented and equally well balanced account of the surprising rise of Russia's President, and of the struggle for power and control over an emerging society. Jack, a former Moscow Bureau Chief for the Financial Times, tracks the course of Putin's career, from his rather low-profile time with the KGB, to his development into a more polished and more authoritarian President whose efforts to place the country back under the control of the central government have met with mixed reviews in the West.
   
   Personal history aside, the real value of Inside Putin's Russia is that it provides us with a richly detailed description of the political context in which to judge the man and his actions. Control of the media is one key area. The Russian President has been strongly criticised for bringing independent media under state control, but as Jack points out, the Russian media has enjoyed very few, and very short, periods of independence. At the time of Putin's first presidential victory most 'independent' sources were to a large extent under the control of commercial interests, principally those of 'Oligarchs': the men who gained ownership of much of Russian state assets in exchange for financial or media support of Boris Yeltsin's presidency.
   
   The struggle for control of the television channel NTV, once owned by the Oligarch Vladimir Gusinsky, has been portrayed in Western media as a simple issue of freedom of the press, but as Jack's presentation makes obvious, there are other important aspects. Media independence is an important element in a pluralistic society,it is therefore a problem that much of the Russian media now functions as an organ of the state. However, it would be naïve to assume that the press is free where it is not under state control. The ground rules must be clearly set out, but the question is, by whom, the state or the super rich? In western liberal democracies the answer is also not as clear as we might wish while Rupert Murdoch and Silvio Berlusconi continue to increase their influence over political processes. The Russians are not the only people with problems, and it ought to be more of a concern.
   
   Putin's Russia has also come under attack as being 'undemocratic' but it would be wise to take into account that the country is not, and has no history of being, a liberal democracy. As Jack rightly points out, most of its citizens believe the role of the state to be fundamental, hence the approval of policies involving greater state control. Much of the criticism has its roots in American efforts to pre-empt any future Russian threat, and their need for continued access to increasingly important Russian oil. The campaign has, meanwhile, proved a useful vehicle for more personal agendas. As part of his own anti-Putin crusade, Boris Berezovsky is funding Human Rights groups, some of which paint the Oligarchs - particularly the now jailed Mikhail Khodorkovsky - as 'victims' of Human Rights abuses rather than the beneficiaries of a highly unethical, although technically legal, massive transfer of public funds to private pockets.
   
   The case for respecting Human Rights is more evident in Chechnya. Whether Putin has made a Faustian bargain with the military, allowing them free rein in order to concentrate on other areas, or whether he himself is directing operations, the results of the re-occupation of Chechnya and the 'dirty war' being waged there now the official conflict is over, are brutal. No matter that one unnamed Russian officer is quoted as claiming that the army is 'only' responsible for 50% of disappearances. It remains to be seen if the situation can be changed and the army curbed. For the military, the occupation now appears to have become, as Jack puts it, 'its own raison d'etre', while the roots of the 'Chechen Problem' itself go back beyond the first war of 1994-6, beyond even the chaos and corruption that invaded the region after the collapse of the USSR.
   
   Inside Putin's Russia manages to find a way through the Chechen minefield without veering too much to one side or another. It is to Andrew Jack's credit that he does not lend himself to simplistic analyses and presents information on which we can form an opinion. That does not mean that the tangle of characters and vested interests is always easy to follow, but Jack can hardly be blamed for that, and he has taken the trouble to provide a helpful Dramatis Persona.
   
   As for Putin's legacy, in many respects he deserves credit for curbing the excesses of the Yeltsin period and bringing financial resources back under state control. But the Russian President has questions to answer, in particular over Chechnya, and in his quest for order he may have, or may be tempted to go too far. Overall, Jack is probably correct when he states: "He (Putin) is unlikely to go down in history as a great transformational leader. But he may yet be viewed as playing an essential role of cohesion, stability and predictability - in domestic and even international affairs". After the roller coaster ride of the Yeltsin years, that will be no small achievement.
   
   Gerard Coffey is European Correspondent of the South American journal, Tintaji.



3. There is a tremendous variety of titles on Russia containing much excellent writing... but after more than ten years of traveling and doing business in the CIS, I shouldn't be amazed to again find a well touted book about Russia which is just another sly rant, from just another apparently non-responsible `Journo' with an axe to grind in the guise of investigative journalism. It seems that many of the Main-Stream-Media writers obsessively demonstrate a morbid glee in mixing fact with opinion; focusing on style and challenging power with sophistry in an attempt to enroll and incite the lay reader to mis-apprehended indignation about Russia.
   
   Inside Putin's Russia is a well thought out exercise in sophistry. The author has an excellent command of allusion, half truths and negative spin. No doubt much of the data cited is attached to partial truths, but to lump Stalin's actions of long ago; the still contested Katyn forest incidents, into the same pot with the Russian culture of today is sheer mischief.
   
   I expected a well balanced, objective report of how Russia, as I have personally experienced, has pulled its socks up and is moving forward with hope and big hearts. But by the first few chapters, the opinions disguised as "facts" to slyly condemn Mr. Putin's integrity caused me to read the remaining chapters with a jaundiced eye. It seemed the author's knives were out for Russia in general and this precluded any further attempt to take his marvelous collection of musings over crumbling and gloomy buildings seriously.
   
   What promised to be an exemplary evaluation of the whole of Putin's Russia, turned out to be a narrowly focused, poorly researched letter of scorn effectively damning the hopes and successes of 140 million Russian people. Notably included were negative interviews with Russian people, but the amateurish mistake the author has made is to actually *exclude* positive interviews to balance the reader's evaluations about Putin's Russia.
   
   I am sure there are well-meaning Journalists out there who will write about Russia objectively instead of to damn it out of hand.



4. 
   "[T]he best book ever about Alger Hiss." -- The Wall Street Journal
   
   "Andrew Jack has given us a vivid, sophisticated picture of Russia's political and economic culture under President Vladimir Putin. Jack offers a penetrating analysis of Putin's contradictory path as a modernizer of Russia--and of where this path might lead." -- Mark Medish, former Senior Director for Russian Affairs, U.S. National Security Council
   
   "Inside Putin's Russia provides astute and accurate observations on what Russia has become under President Putin. In a lucid and highly readable book, Jack shows devastatingly how Putin has systematically curtailed democracy in Russia, while capitalism has triumphed. No other book gives such a clear feel of Putin's Russia." -- Anders Åslund, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
   
   "Andrew Jack's work is a valuable contribution to the literature on Russia at the start of the 21st Century: intelligent, fair-minded, and enlivened by the author's experiences as a journalist in Russia, and by his meetings with some of the leading figures there." -- Anatol Lieven
   
   "An extraordinary book, packed with information and fresh insights. Part detective story, part cultural history, part psychodrama--I couldn't put it down." -- Cass Sunstein
   
   "[T]his innovative and brilliant new book...provide[s] the final unmasking of Alger Hiss, and, one hopes, put an end once and for all to the campaign waged on the traitor's behalf." -- National Review
   
   "If you accept Hiss's guilt, as most historians now do, you will profit from G. Edward White's supplementary speculations about why, after prison, that serene and charming man sacrificed his marriage, exploited a son's love and abused the trust of fervent supporters to wage a 42-year struggle for a vindication that could never be honestly gained." -- The New York Times Book Review
   
   "An intriguing portrait of an enigmatic man who stood center stage during the most electrifying moments of the Cold War." -- Library Journal
   
   "A significant contribution to a subject that continues to fascinate Americans...." -- New York Sun



5. In my opinion Andrew Jack's book has some interesting passages, but the book seems to contain too many factual errors to get a high score.
   
   I'll restrain myself to the following example: On page 18 of the paperback edition he refers to the spy-cases of Aleksandr Nikitin and Grigory Pasko, who according to Mr. Jack were two navy journalists who reported on radioactive waste in respectively the Baltic Sea and the Pacific Ocean. They were, says Mr. Jack, "released from prison, but not technically acquitted" (and implicitly not convicted either). In this short passage there is no less than four factual errors.
   
   First, Aleksandr Nikitin was not a navy journalist, but a former nuclear engineer/submarine officer, who later was the head of the nuclear safety inspection of the Russian Ministry of Defence, a position he quit in 1992.
   
   Second, Mr. Nikitin co-wrote a report on radioactive contemination from the Russian Northern Fleet, which is based on the Kola Peninsula. Thus, his writings did not have anything to do with the Baltic Sea, but rather with the Barents Sea.
   
   Third, Mr. Nikitin was imprisoned and charged with treason through espionage in February 1996. He was released from prison in December that year, and acquitted of all charges first by the St. Petersburg City Court in December 1999, then by the Collegium of Criminal Cases of the Russian Supreme Court in April 2000, and finally by the Presidium of the Russian Supreme Court in September 2000.
   
   Mr. Pasko on the other hand was convicted for treason through espionage by the Court of the Russian Pacific Fleet in December 2001, but was released from prison after having served two thirds of his four-year's conviction (including time spent in pretrial detention) in January 2003.
   
   I hope for the sake of the book that its other sections contains a little less errors. But I am not by any means convinced.

5 comments about William Pitt the Younger.

1. Pitt the younger led his nation through the Napoleonic wars, the first stages of the industrial revolution, and a transformation of Britian, yet all the book seems to talk about is his health, his speaches and where he traveled.
   
   I am sorry, but I selected this book while in Heathrow Airport waiting for a flight back to the US. I knew about Pitt the younger and the times in which he lived. I had hoped for a book that talked about a man in the center of his times. Instead I got an introspective work focused on the triangle between Pitt, Fox and George III. Based on Hague's work they were the only three people who mattered in the world.
   
   I guess I am not the anglophile I thought I was as I found this work admirably written, well researched and understandably proud of Britian's first modern Prime Minister and global leader.
   
   Unforuntaley it was not very interesting -- I am not sure if that is due to Hague's account (I kind of doubt) or Pitt's interior and financially centered life.
   
   It probably has more to do with me being an american and wanting to know more about the man -- the person. The US is after all pretty much a show and tell kind of culture without the reserve for status and class as the UK.
   
   Either way, if you are a strong Anglophile who knows much about the times -- then this is a well crafted detailed account. If you are a part time reader of biographies and history, then you may want to give this one a pass.
   
   No offense intended to our friends in Britian -- Pitt is surely one of the few men who have make the UK great.



2. William Pitt the Younger (or as he was described by some of his contemporaries Billy Pitt) is a book written by a politician about a politician (you may remember that William Hague was an ex-leader of the Tory party). He was indeed an extraordinary politician although a very limited man.
   
   The story is on a grand scale, prime ministers, kings, wars, revolution, disasters, and the central figure, a larger-than-life classic hero.
   
   He came from famous stock, his father, known as the Great Commoner, was an heroic figure who in his own time was the equivalent of the Prime Minister, then known as the First Lord of the Treasury although this particular position was held by the Duke of Newcastle who sat in the House Of Lords. William Pitt the Elder was the leader in the House of Commons. He took office at the age of 48 in 1756, some three years before William Pitt the Younger was born. He served as Secretary of State for the Southern Department, at that time there were two Secretaries of State, the Secretary of State for the Southern Department dealt with matters relating to southern European countries, including France and Spain, the Secretary of State for the Northern Department dealt with Northern European countries such as Russia.
   
   His father came to be regarded as the saviour of the nation and was instrumental in defeating the traditional enemy of the English, the French. He was regarded as the saviour of the nation and was a great orator.
   
   William Pitt the Younger was raised in an intensely political family and learned a great deal from his father's capacity to achieve high office without money or patronage from the King. His father was the more extraordinary because he was, by the standards of the times, incorruptible. Unfortunately this was associated with accumulation of enormous debts, a habit followed by his son. He suffered from a wide range of ailments including gout, bowel problems and similar disorders. He married at the age of 46 and proceeded to have five children of whom only his two eldest survived into their 30s. After leaving office he was eventually persuaded back into office by George III and to reduce the burden on him emotionally and physically he accepted a title and became Earl of Chatham. This eventually proved to be his downfall and damaged his reputation. William Pitt the Younger lived through all these events before he was 10 years old! Even by that age he must have been aware that he belonged to a father and a family that stood apart from and were treated differently from everyone else.
   
   He was educated at home and although uninhibited by peer pressure was required from the outset to meet adult standards. His tutor stated "William never seemed to learn but merely to recollect". His father took an active, usually daily, role in his education. As William Hague says "at no other time in British history has the head of one administration acted as a tutor of another".
   
   His father taught him to speak in a clear and melodious voice by making him recite each day passages from the best English poets, particularly Shakespeare and Milton. As William Pitt the Younger later said " Lord Chatham had bid him take up any book in some foreign language with which he was well acquainted, in Latin, Greek, or French, for example. Lord Chatham then enjoined him to read out of this work into English, stopping when he was not sure of the word to be used in English, until the right word came to mind, and then proceed. At first, he had often to stop for a while before he could recollect the proper word, but he found the difficulties gradually disappear, until what was a toll him at first became at last an easy and familiar task. " It is perhaps, not surprising that he developed early on a highly unusual ability to speak clearly, structure an argument, and think on his feet. He was aided in this by a formidable memory.
   
   He went to Cambridge University at the age of 14. He was a sickly adolescent and spent the summers in Cambridge and the winters with his family. He was intensely attached to his mother and his father and he idolised. There was intense political discussion between himself and his father. He made friends easily, despite his youth, and became part of a large social circle. He made many lifelong friendships. To insiders he was regarded as great fun but to the external world he showed a stern and aloof demeanour, even from an early age.
   
   His father was deeply opposed to the policy of the government which led to the American Revolution. There was great opposition to Roman Catholics leading to the Gordon riots in 1780. It was a dramatic and exciting time. Unfortunately, his father died in 1778 deeply in debt and the family finances were only saved by a grant from Parliament of 20,000 pounds. Pitt trained as a lawyer and indeed practised as such briefly. This was a time of rotten boroughs, large cities with no representation and some electorates with only two voters. Corruption was rampant. The largest seats cost each candidate the equivalent of 5,000,000 pounds in today's terms on electoral expenses.
   
   Over half the boroughs could be purchased in one way or another. However, hehad no money and depended on a patron. One was eventually found who fortunately was not very demanding and he entered Parliament in January 1781 at the age of 22. At that time one in six members were under the age of 30. He quickly established himself as a great orator. He entered a house containing some extraordinary characters including Fox, Sheridan, and William Wilberforce.
   
   The Whigs, including Fox, threw out Lord North because of his disastrous loss of the American colonies and took office. Unfortunately they were violently opposed by George III. The King acted in an unconstitutional way so as to indicate that he had no confidence in his government. This was, even by the standards of the day, outrageous but led to Pitt being offered the position of "Prime Minister" and taking office in December 1783 at the age of 24.
   
   He remained in office, apart from a break between December 1801 and April 1804 (having resigned office for complex reasons including the intransigent attitude of George III to the question of Catholic Emancipation) until his death at the age of 49 in January 1806.
   
   It is astonishing to recognise that throughout much of that time he was Prime Minister with virtually no staff, he was also the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Leader of the House. The House of Commons was his arena of greatness. From a position of running a minority government he quickly gained the ascendancy to such a point that Fox did not attend parliament for some years.
   
   During this time he dealt with the madness of King George. He attempted and then abandoned attempts to bring about parliamentary reform. He revolutionised the running of the government including bringing in the first income-tax. He dealt with the French Revolution and all its consequences and was the first to attempt to put the finances of Great Britain in order using a sinking fund to pay off debt. It is salutary to realise that five future prime ministers served in his Cabinet.
   
   Throughout much of this time he retained his aloof demeanour, he had little contact and no obvious interest in women apart from on one occasion and, if anything, appeared to be an asexual ascetic, except that he enjoyed his booze. He routinely drank three bottles of port per night. William Hague makes the point that bottles of port in those days were about half the size of the standard bottle today. Nevertheless that is a considerable intake and is thought to have contributed to his early death.
   
   He had been made Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports which provided an income of 3000 pounds but his own finances were a terrible mess, in part because of his lack of interest, his lack of time, and because of his refusal to accept any sinecures.
   
   He was the dominating the political figure of his times but was not a popular figure in the House of Commons, he did not socialise with other members most of whom he treated with disdain. There is a telling story of him, in his 40s, playing with two old friends and his niece, who was living with him. They were attempting to blacken his face with burnt cork in a vigorous indoor wrestling match. Two grandees arrived to see Mr Pitt. One of the participants in the struggle saw him straighten himself, put on his public mask as the two grandees approached him bowing, hesitant, and concerned about his response. He treated them with some contempt, scarcely looking at them, dismissed them after answering a query and then quickly returned to the frolic.
   
   Although Sir Robert Walpole is recognised as the first Prime Minister and indeed was longer in office than Pitt nevertheless Pitt first articulated the concept of a prime minister. He also brought great efficiencies to the running of the country and for a number of years before the onslaught of the French revolutionary wars the country was running at a significant surplus. Whilst incorruptible himself he used patronage with great political sensitivity to achieve his aims.
   
   It is extraordinary that he accomplished so much and was dead by the age of 49.
   
   William Hague's biography is the best sort of biography, it is fascinating to read with telling stories about Pitt and his contemporaries and allows us to see Pitt in the context of his times. Hague repeatedly dwells on the sheer volume of work that Pitt was able to get through, his mastery of detail, especially financial detail. He was known for his extraordinary grasp of the classics and his capacity to produce the apt quote at the right time. He was known for giving speeches off-the-cuff lasting up to three hours which were models of clarity, reasoned argument leading to inexorable conclusions without any apparent preparation.
   
   Hague is also fascinated by his ability to manipulate the King, the Prince of Wales, and other influential figures. He made great enemies but had enduring and loyal friends. With the passage of time, Hague makes it clear that anyone in office for any length of time is gradually brought down by the burden of accumulated mistakes, problems, enemies, and the eventual boredom of the populace.
   
   By the way Hague quotes from a letter written by Pitt in which he uses the word " se'nnight". I leave it to you to work out what it means.
   
   This one volume biography provides a fascinating introduction both to politics but also to the history behind such events as the Battle of Trafalgar and the English view of the various phases of the French Revolution. It made me want to read more about Fox, Grenville, George III and other larger-than-life figures. I commend it to you.
   
   Michael Epstein



3. The younger William Pitt lived a life that is not widely known or appreciated in the USA and this well-written and entertaining biography should help to remedy that. It is so unusual for a super-genius to have the opportunity, interest and special aptitude for politics Pitt had that the example deserves much study. We are fortunate that William Hague, the author, did not become Prime Minister himself in 2001 so that he was free to stay in Yorkshire and complete this work.



4. I'm trying to think what I knew about the politics of late 18th century Britain before I read William Hague's well written biography of William Pitt the Younger, imaginatively named just that. Not much. I knew about Edmund Burke and his opposition to the French Revolution. I knew a few military leaders from reading about the American Revolution. I've seen the brilliant film about King George the Third's madness, and I vaguely knew that there were two William Pitts, father and son, who dominated British Political life during that era, and that Pitt the younger was amazingly young when he got elected Prime Minister.
   
   Now I know quite a bit more. For one thing, Pitt was not technically "Prime Minister". Rather, he had been "First Lord of the Treasury" which was the most senior position in His Majesty's government. He had served for some twenty years, and has been a member of the House of Commons for most of his life. He has, indeed, been chosen to lead the British government at age 24.
   
   How does so young a man become first Minister to the British crown? The answer is, one is picked by the King. George the Third's alliance with William Pitt was one of convenience - he had loathed the other potential political leaders (Primarily Pitt's arch nemesis Charles James Fox). Pitt was the only member of the House of Commons who had credibility enough to form a government, and whom the King felt he could support.
   
   That is not to say that Pitt's talents had nothing to do with with his meteoric rise - far from it. Pitt, a great orator, became a leading presence in the House of Commons. With brilliant tactics (and shameless use of patronage), he formed his own party, and later split the opposition Whig party (with the help of the French Revolution) to rule the house with a huge majority. He had also been one of the first British politicians to care about the views of the majority of Britons not represented in Parliament.
   
   It has been Pitt's very success that made him vulnerable; by 1801, the opposition more or less ceased to exist, and the King felt much less reliant on Mr. Pitt. When the First Lord of the Chancellery clashed with the Monarch on the issue of Catholic Emancipation (giving Catholics the right to vote and be elected), the King felt confident enough to flatly refuse Pitt. Pitt resigned rather then serve without full powers.
   
   In 1804, as the Napoleonic Wars got worse, Pitt returned to office. This time his coalition was shakier, and he probably wouldn't have lasted long as Prime Minister had he not died in January 1806, at the age of 46.
   
   William Hague, a one time would be Tory PM, who had been compared to Pitt the younger by none other then Margaret Thatcher, offer a very readable and compelling biography. His book is not particularly analytical, but it is very well written and researched. I wish Hague would have put Pitt more in context, both of British and International Politics (we get no mention of America after the Revolution, no word of the remaining colonies, and very little about the internal politics of any other country save France), and the industrial revolution. Nonetheless, as someone who doesn't read many biographies, I thoroughly enjoyed this one. Whatever the merits of Hague as a politician, he has a future as a historian.
   
   (By the way, my copy of the book contains a recommendation by British Tory PM John Major "If you only buy one political biography this year, make it this one". Talk about damning with faint praise. I guess it could have been worse "If you only buy one biography of an 18th century British politician named Pitt in December...")
   
   Speaking of Merits, how should we assess the statesmanship of William Pitt the younger? Ultimately, I think Pitt was a very competent, but not great, Prime Minister. In his first decade as prime minister, Britain enjoyed Peace, and Pitt managed to survive as Prime Minister, expand his coalition somewhat, rationalize the tax system, and begin to balance the government's deficit. The reduction of the deficit, with view for its ultimate extinction, was Pitt's greatest achievement, albeit one that was aided greatly by the fast growing economy in the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, and that all but disappeared when the wars of the French Revolution started.
   
   Other then economically, Pitt managed to achieve few if any of the reforms he had supported. He failed to reform the electorate, abolish the slave trade, or (later) achieve Catholic emancipation.
   
   As War leader, Pitt commanded over a mostly unsuccessful war effort, which saw the rise of three coalitions against the armies of the French Revolution, and later Napoleon. French forces defeated all in term, and Pitt died just days after receiving word of Napoleon's greatest Victory in the Battle of Austerlitz.
   
   This is not to say that Pitt was a failure. He had been a strong supporter of the navy, and British control of the Seas became an unalterable fact under his watch, and due to his effort and leadership. Pitt had secured the Unification of the British and Irish Parliament. Both achievements would last for over a century. Politically, Pitt planted the roots of the Tory party, and managed to survive various crises, including the insanity of his patron, George III. If nothing else, Pitt has led his nation through some of the most difficult transformations of its age, internal and external. And while there had still been a long road ahead, by the time Pitt passed away, Britain has surely reached, in Churchill's terms, "The End of the Beginning".



5. William Hague has a pleasant, straightforward and limpid style in which he can convey not only complex political situations, but a warmth of feeling towards his subject and a sensitive and empathic interpretation of behaviour and background.
   
   He begins with Pitt's extremely precocious childhood. He was tutored at home, in large part by his father (whose loving nature may also be something of a revelation to readers). From earliest childhood young Pitt breathed in politics. Hague speculates that he learnt not only from his father's successes (his oratory, his foreign policy), but also from his failures (going to the Lords in 1766, or leaving the post of First Lord of the Treasury to someone else).
   
   There are exciting accounts of several key episodes in his life: his rise to becoming Prime Minister at the age of 24; the Regency Crisis of 1788/9; his resignation over his disagreement with George III over Catholic Emancipation in 1801 (beautifully analyzed), and his promise, after the King's recovery from his recurring malady, never to raise the matter again; the drifting apart between Pitt and his old friend and nominee Addington during the latter's interregnum.
   
   No minister except Walpole has for so long and so completely dominated the House of Commons. Pitt was universally acclaimed as a great orator, though only a very few passages quoted in this book - foremost among them his speech in 1792 advocating the abolition of the slave trade - make for stirring reading these days. Part of the appeal of his speeches is said to have been the cogency of their logical structure and his mastery of detail, which is not so easily conveyed in a book. He was a brilliant manager of the nation's finances - but his own were often in a ruinous state. He could not be bothered to pay much attention to them, and refused to take sinecure offices (except, at the King's insistence, the Wardenship of the Cinque Ports) or a large donation offered by the merchants of the City of London. He was hugely in debt at the time of his resignation in 1801, but he refused all offers of help, from the King, from Parliament, from his successor Addington in the form of sinecure offices, or from the City. Only through help from a handful of his closest friends was the pressure of debt slightly eased.
   
   For Pitt rightly prided himself on his personal probity. He would accept nothing that might be construed as putting him under an obligation; but, though he was personally bored with appeals for his patronage, he did not scruple to allow his lieutenants to manage patronage and bribery on a massive scale, especially at critical moments of his rule. (Hague mentions only in passing his massive inflation of the peerage.)
   
   His finances and his speeches made him a great war leader, but he was less so in the actual conduct of the wars. He underestimated France in the early days and overestimated Britain's military (as distinct from naval) resources. He made miscalculations of the kind that Chatham probably would not have made (though Chatham, of course, had faced a far less dynamic France). He twice (1796, 1797) sought for peace with France because of the immense drain on Britain's financial resources, but, encouraged by a string of French setbacks in 1798 and 1799, turned down the peace overtures Napoleon made immediately after seizing power in France in 1799. In this latter refusal he was strongly backed by his cousin, the hawkish foreign minister William Grenville.
   
   Hague brings out the importance of Grenville throughout Pitt's career. A staunch ally until Pitt's resignation, he became so impatient with Pitt's early forbearance with regard to Addington that he joined Fox in opposition - which George III could not forgive. So when Pitt returned to office in 1804, he could not give a post to Grenville, who then practically became a Foxite Whig. As a result, Pitt no longer had the mastery of the Commons or even of the Cabinet that he had had before, and it added to the strain in those years of Ulm and Austerlitz. By that time Pitt was a shadow of his former self, increasingly exhausted and in dreadful health.
   
   It is on the human side that Hague excels, and there is not always scope for that in the story. Much of Pitt's work in government - finance, trade, administrative reform, the shuffling of seats around the cabinet table - gives little scope to more than the thoroughly workmanlike treatment it receives here. Even the account of the wars with France are no more than that. For me, the best parts of the book deal with Pitt's character. He has generally been considered cold; but he had many close friends in whose company he was witty and amusing. A fine chapter discusses this contrast and shows Pitt, when Prime Minister, as relaxed and warm with family and real friends. There is a long and moving letter he wrote to Wilberforce when the latter announced his religious conversion in 1785. There is an astonishing scene a couple of years before his death when at one moment he was larking around with his intimates whom he allowed to blacken his face with burnt cork, and a moment later, quickly cleaned up, stiffly received political visitors. Between Pitt and his mother there was great warmth and affection. In his letters to her he always made light of difficulties or his poor health, not just because he was by nature optimistic, but because he wanted to spare her worries.
   
   It is astonishing that Hague should have researched and written this book of 592 pages inside two years. The masterly ten-page summing up at the end is not only balanced in its judgments, but tells us a good deal about Hague himself. It is clear that he not only admires Pitt, but feels a great affection for him; and he will make many readers feel the same.

2 comments about Leading from the Center: Why Moderates Make the Best Presidents.

1. I was extremely happy with this book. Wonderfully written, it provided a deep and meaningful historical background to the upcoming election, which will clearly be defined by its moderate nominees.
   
   I recommend this book to anyone with an interest in American political history, or with an interest in the 2008 election. It is an extremely engaging account of moderate presidents, and why they were successful. How timely!



2. Bravo Mr. Troy!
   
   What a dynamic read, what a tour de force! Once again, Gil Troy brings his poetic talents to the realm of american political history, and gives us another masterpiece. Whether you agree with his positions or not, you cannot help but be enthralled by his style and respect his talent for debate.
   
   Leading from the Center is a must-read for anyone with an interest in our country's great political traditions. Not only will you learn much about this timely topic, but you'll have fun doing it!

5 comments about Napoleon (Penguin Lives).

1. Johnson does a good job of channeling William Pitt, but a poor job of history in this tendentious, glib, shoddy, but, thankfully ,short volume. It is one thing to shy away from hagiography, quite another to omit facts or invent them to create a historical figure that did not exist.
   
   From the very first pages, Johnson proudly displays his biases. He views the French Revolution as an unnecessary "accident", and announces, without any supporting argument save England's example, that the inequalities it addressed would have been solved peacefully in time by history. The scholarship is extremely sloppy, and Johnson continually contradicts himself and gets his facts wrong. Her are but a few examples:
   
   He says Napoleon was not an ideologue, then proclaims him the progenitor of "a new brand of ideological dictator" like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.
   
   He says that Napoleon "never seems to have grasped the essence of the English constitution", yet during the young Napoleon's school years, the text on which he made the most notes was a history of the English constitution. He also tried to bring the English jury system into the Code Civil, but was blocked by the Directory.
   
   He cites a M. de Remurat as saying that Napoleon "is really ignorant, having read very little, and always hastily." A glance at the reading Napoleon did while in school, the notes he took, and the memoirs he dictated at St. Helena, with their detailed knowledge of history and past political affairs, easily give the lie to this.
   
   He writes that Napoleon "did not understand [the sea's] true strategic significance", ignoring Napoleon's continued respect--and envy--of the British Navy, a service he once tried to join. That strategic knowledge is also what prompted him to deny England's demand for the island of Lampedusa, which Bonaparte knew would give the British Navy control of the Mediterranean.
   
   Johnson says Napoleon "took no notice of air power, though it was then much discussed", yet Napoleon noticed it enough to take balloonists on his Egyptian expedition.
   
   Regarding leaving Corsica, Johnson imputes to Napoleon the following: "So he asked himself , where does the nearest source of real power lie? And the answer came immediately: France." Napoleon was a ten year-old boy when he left Corsica, being sent away to military school. He might have been thinking of glory, more likely he was missing his mother.
   
   Regarding returning to Corsica, Napoleon, Johnson writes, "took no interest in the place once he had left it." Not only did Napoleon order numerous books on Corsica while in school, but he returned to the island in 1791 on leave, then petitioned the War Office to stand for election in the Corsican National Guard. He fought his first engagements as an officer in Corsica.
   
   He states that Napoleon, "made no lifelong friends at the college or the academy"--except for Alexandre des Mazis, who wrote a memoir about Napoleon. Interestingly, Johnson doesn't cite des Mazis, but he does cite Bourrienne's memoirs--which have been totally discredited.
   
   He says Napoleon retired after Toulon and "following his principle of going direct to where power lay, he went to Paris. " Napoleon did not retire; he'd been removed from the artillery and posted to the infantry, when, severely depressed, he moved into a cheap hotel on The Left Bank.
   
   
   Johnson tries his best to link Napoleon with the twentieth century's dictators. Indeed, it's the centerpiece of his thematic argument. Of the Italian Campaign, which he calls a "looting expedition", he writes that Napoleon's "technique adumbrated the Stalinist methods used in Eastern Europe at the end of the Second World War." The Old Guard was "rather like Hitler's military SS division"--except for the fact that Napoleon's army liberated Jews, instead of murdering them. He cites all the Englishmen who hated Bonaparte and the few who didn't, like Keats and Shelley, who "fell for the propaganda", like "Shaw for Stalin, Mailer for Castro, and Sartre for Mao"! Bonaparte's "monumental schemes were like those of Mussolini and Speer." Yet Johnson offers not a shred of evidence to support his point that Napoleon was the progenitor of the 20th century's great dictators.
   
   (Johnson goes on at length about Napoleon's looting, never comparing it to other empires' spoils, say, for example, those inside the British Museum, which houses the Rosetta stone, discovered by Napoleon's Egyptian Expedition. )
   
   Johnson makes other broad generalizations, again without any support in the text: "The 19th century was in general a time of peace" or "The Revolution created the modern totalitarian state". His prose borders on purple: "He blew himself into the stratosphere of power from the brazen mouth of his own guns." But for the most part, the book consists largely of unsupported calumnies against Napoleon: "He was not a patriot either" ; "The Italians themselves he despised"; "He was not moved by sentiment ; "His sensibilities were blunt. His compassion was shallow." He had "an inability to delegate", which must have been news to those living in an Empire of 40 million!
   
   To Johnson, Napoleon's wives are portrayed as sexually dissatisfied, his marshals as writhing lackeys, his relations hapless rulers, and Napoleon himself a rapist.
   
   Johnson's enmity stems from his contempt for Bonaparte's militarism. He says that Napoleon "unleashed on Europe the most destructive wars the continent had ever experienced", and, "Bonaparte , having once unsheathed his sword, found it impossible to lay it down for long."
   
   But Johnson never once mentions the contribution to that outcome by England's War Party, which refused to make peace with France after 1800. Bonaparte "emerged from a political background where a man's word meant nothing, honor was dead, and murder was routine," and "William Pitt found ... that [Napoleon's ] word could never be trusted". But nowhere does Johnson mention that it was the British--and Pitt's War Party in particular-- who broke their word in the Treaty of Amiens when they refused to leave Malta after Napoleon had left Taranto. The best Johnson can muster here is "Both Britain and France, mutually suspicious, refused to carry out the terms of the treaty."
   
   These oversights are not for lack of space: Johnson spends three pages on Napoleon's wedding arrangement to Marie-Louise, scarcely a paragraph on the Code Civil. Maybe that's what led him to conclude that cultural displays were "the most successful aspect of Bonaparte's dictatorship." As for the Code itself, "Bonaparte did not create it" and "its apparent novelty was not new."
   
   There are a few bright spots: the last 50 pages give a decent rundown of the Spanish and Russian campaigns, but they can't save this Pocket Book of the Bad, Bad Bonaparte. There are no footnotes, no bibliography, but there is one saving grace--the book is less than 200 pages.



2. If you want a short and well researched overview this is it. Not long on battles, strategy, etc.



3. Rule of Thumb: Never! Ever! Trust a Brit to write a truthful account on Napoleon. The British have always written history to favor themselves or make themselves look good! All seven coalitions against France, organized to replace the Monarchy back on the throne against France's will, were all funded by the British. As Emperor Francis said after the battle of Austerlitz: "THIS BRITISH ARE TRADERS IN HUMAN FLESH!" This says it all! The millions who died in those wars can be squarely left at the doorstep of the British. Paul Johnson is in the business as a patriotic Brit, almost expected, to hate Napoleon, and tag him with the label of Tyrant and conqueror. Why? Because Napoleon didn't allow the Royal Familes of Europe to invade France and force a Governement upon then they didn't want? These were wars to Defend France from aggressive neighbors funded by a warmongering Parliament in London. This is bad history.
   I suggest reading:
   
   Napoleon : The Man Who Shaped Europe by Ben Weider and Emile-Rene Gueguen
   or
   The Wars against Napoleon by Ben Weider
   
   Better History, and much more accurate.



4. Paul Johnson has opinions. And he can write -- lucid, crisp, precise.
   
   Johnson sees Bonaparte as a selfish opportunist who took advantage of the Revolution to seize power. Once in office power was the only language he understood.
   
   Johnson blames the ambition of Bonaparte for a host of modern ills: the birth of total warfare, the rise of angry German nationalism, secret police, government propaganda machines, etc.
   
   He also blames Napoleon for ruining France permanently as a world power. It is hard to argue with his logic on this one -- before Napoleon France is Europe's most significant power for centuries. Since Napoleon France has always been second-rate behind Russia, Germany and Britain.
   
   I am amazed at how much Johnson can pack into one paragraph. And yet its an easy read.
   
   No pictured or maps, and only 187pp.



5. Short biography of Napoleon is a good introduction to the man who nearly united and nearly wrecked Europe in stage-setting fashion 100 years before German geopolitical descendants came even closer. Johnson treats Napoleon with respect and at the same time faint distaste for his most extreme actions and amorality.
   
   In the end, while drawing pictures that show Napoleon's smallness of character and stature, Johnson never belittles or pities his charge.

1 comments about Jefferson's Garden.

1. Unquestionably the most interesting garden book I have read in a long, long time, Loewer's Jefferson's Garden is a delight. I can't remember the last garden book I have eagerly read cover to cover. Thomas Jefferson was an inveterate collector of plants and when one embarks on Loewer's virtual tour of the framer's grounds there is a surprise around every corner.
   
   Did you know that Columbus carried seeds when he invaded this hemisphere -- or that the Spanish government decreed that all ships bound for the Indies do the same? The first white settlers in Pennsylvania found wild peaches, almost certainly planted by Native Americans who obtained seeds from the Spanish a hundred years earlier. The seed business was in full swing on this continent in 1760 and less than a hundred years later came the first mail-order seedsman. Loewer offers an easy flow from Linnaean and common nomenclature through bits of plant history to cultivation instructions and soil requirements, all interleaved with Jefferson's plant experiments and garden design.

5 comments about Bush Country: How Dubya Became a Great President While Driving Liberals Insane.

1. An Untalented Young Mr. Podhoretz owes his position to his father. By himself he is a shallow thinker of a strange category of neocons who would like us to invade the world (themselves, they would not serve) and invate the world.
   A strange policy of keeping our borders open, so that any terrorist can and does enter upon payment of $5K to coyote, while at the same time have our army in Arab lands defending their borders.



2. Three years on, with Podhoretz himself repudiating Bush's views, and with Bush's approval ratings hovering around 30%, it seems clear that Bush cannot be considered a "Great" anything, let alone a leader of the 21st Century. The failures of his Administration are too lengthy and obvious--not to mention depressing--to document. It is small wonder that this hagiography has plummeted down the Amazon sales list like a lead brick dropped from a plane.
   
   In years to come, I suspect that many conservatives will attempt to explain that they really, truly didn't like Bush, or trust him, or believe that he was a "real" conservative in the Reagan mold--we can already see the revisionism beginning as I write this. But when there are books like this out there, it's going to be mighty difficult for Podhoretz and his ilk to run away from their record. I suspect, however, that they will try anyway.



3. Sure, this tome deals with its chief subject quite nicely. But what I really would like to see (in subsequent editions?) is a version that uses more absorbent paper.
   Seriously, one reads, or more appropriately goes through, this book in that "special" room. Is it too much to ask for paper with greater absorbency?
   Think of the readers, and their needs for cleanliness when contemplating the legacy of this character.



4. As I distinctly recall, Bush's campaign slogan was NOT "I will drive liberals insane". It was "I'm a uniter, not a divider."



5. I heard an interview on Christian radio with the author plugging the book. I knew nothing about the book, and doubted many people held the views expressed at this point in history. So naturally I came onto Amazon to see just how old this book is. 2004. Another example of Christian radio's utter lack of concern whether what they throw on the air is true or correct, just put on anything that happens to be laying around however old and currently inapplicable. It was allegedly a call in show also, they did not bother to mention that calls would not be taken because it was previously recorded...or that it was recorded long ago, or that the speaker did not currently subscribe to the beliefs expressed. Don't believe a thing on "Christian" radio, don't donate money, or patronize their advertisers. They are hypocrites, they are not doing the Lord's work.

3 comments about Peter the Great: A Biography.

1. Overall a very nice, concise account of the life of Peter the Great. A very good introduction to those who wish to learn about this period of Russian history but have little starting background. I did think the last chapter which focuses on monuments to Peter since his death was a little dry and could easily have been edited out without affecting the overall quality of the book



2. This book is good for historians, no doubt, but probably not the the rest of the people, like me. I read paragraphs without knowing what I read, and it's hard to glean any interesting information. Consider, for example, this paragraph:
   
   "In an attempt to recover Russia's prestige, gain a stronger bargaining position with the allies and ward off Turkish attacks on Ukraine, in 1695 Peter reopened hostilities ina campaign against the Turkist coastal fort of Azov at the mouth of the River Don. He dispatched two armies, the joint force of Boris Petrovich Sheremetev and the Ukrainian hetman Ivan Mazepa to the Dnieper to delfect the Tartars from the mouth of the Don and a smaller unit consisting of the Preobrazhensky and Semenovsky guards and strel'tsy on river craft down the Don to Azov itself."
   
   I understand it, but I am not excited by all this information. The description is just too dry for my taste. I am very interested in Peter the Great because I know he went around Europe, and even worked as a carpenter. I'll find another biography elsewhere.



3. The best single volume biograghy of Russia's Westernizing Tsar. If you don't want to spend weeks Reading Robert Massie's "Massive" tome, this is the book for you!

No comments about Disarmament Sketches: Three Decades of Arms Control and International Law.

3 comments about To the End of a Career (Grover Cleveland a Study in Courage, Vol. 2).

1. Though a dominant figure in Gilded Age politics, Grover Cleveland is remembered today primarily as a figure of historical trivia for being the only American president to serve two non-consecutive terms. Such a relegation diminishes his achievements and ignores his role in American history, one that was illuminated by Allan Nevins in his biography of the president.
   
   Born in 1837 to an impoverished Presbyterian minister and his wife, Grover Cleveland worked his way through school as a clerk and teacher before being admitted to the bar in Buffalo in 1859. While building a successful practice he served in a number of local offices, rising to become mayor in 1881. Corruption at the state level brought about a call for reform, and Cleveland was seen as the man to answer it. Elected governor in 1882, he ran an administration noted for both its honesty and efficiency. Over the opposition of Tammany Hall he was selected as the Democratic presidential nominee in 1884 and defeated James G. Blaine in the subsequent election.
   
   Cleveland's first administration was noted for his efforts to enlarge the civil service and thwarting attempts by veterans to raid the Treasury for greater pension benefits. Defeated by Benjamin Harrison in 1888 despite winning the popular vote, he won reelection four years later in a rematch between the two men. Cleveland's second term was marred by an economic depression and political battles over the currency, as well as a series of labor troubles. Cleveland's laissez-faire approach to the economic problems and his administration's support for the Pullman Company in their conflict with strikers (which Nevins blames on Cleveland's attorney general rather than the president) alienated many Americans, and he was repudiated by his party at the 1896 Democratic convention.
   
   Though Nevins exaggerates Cleveland's virtues and minimizes his limitations, this is the best biography of the president. Based on the Cleveland papers (which Nevins edited), it provides a stimulating, well-written portrait of the man and his times that rewards reading today.



2. When the dernier cri on Cleveland is 74 years old - and it is - we're all in trouble. Luckily, the crier is Allan Nevins, and you don't get much better than that. This Pulitzer Prize winning biography sets the bar and now, if some aspiring graduate student would just get off MySpace and into the library, we might all benefit from a fresh look at a first-rate president.



3. Cleveland was known for his honesty and admitted to fathering a child out of wedlock. At 49, he married 21-year-old Frances. He was the only president to serve two non-consecutive terms and the only one whose wedding took place in the White House. Cleveland and his young wife stayed together until his death. The Baby Ruth candy bar was named after their daughter, not Babe Ruth.