1 comments about Mao Zedong (Life&Times).

1. Mao was a peasant farmer's son who became the ruler of China, fostering revolutionary changes which were to transform the country in one of the greatest experiments in history. His leadership and influence - which lasts into modern times - is told in a biographical sketch packed with politics and insights, and is a 'must' for any student of Chinese history.
   
   Diane C. Donovan
   California Bookwatch

1 comments about The Reagan Presidency: An Oral History of the Era, Revised Edition (Presidential Oral Histories).

1. This yet another excellent volume in the Oral History series. No slant--just the views and opinions of those who were there. I must say it focuses way more time on Iran-Contra than the Soviet nuke summits etc. Reagan's visit to Moscow is barely touched upon. Although the Iran-Contra stuff is enlightening, I would have liked more insight on the Reagan-Gorby relationship. Considering there have been entire books written on the subject, I'm sure there were lots of questions to ask.
   
   Anyway--a very insightful book, but a bit Iran-Contra heavy. I highly recommend it.

5 comments about Star-Spangled Men: America's Ten Worst Presidents.

1. This was an exceptionally well written and interesting book. Miller has a genuine knack for writing, as would be expected of someone who is a journalist. He also has a beautiful way of synthesizing historical events related to the presidents under discussion. It's an immensely enjoyable read. Miller explains that his choices for the ten worst presidents are subjective--of course they are. In my opinion, the list of ten is an very good one--with one or perhaps two exceptions. He is very hard on Grant, whose presidency has been rehabilitated by historians in recent years. Miller takes the old-fashioned view of the Grant administration, hammering away on the scandals, which were rightly bad. But Grant did much good for the country, and, contrary to Miller's claims, Grant actually enforced the rights of African Americans against public opinion. He used force when necessary to protect their rights. His administration included more quality men than just Hamilton Fish. Miller also impugns Grant's generalship--another an old-fashioned view. Grant was not just a "butcher" and even if all he had against the confederates was overwhelming force, yet still he was able to use this to win, while many other union generals still faltered with the same overwhelming odds. Finally, Miller is a bit too hard on Coolidge. While doing nothing may be bad from a liberal or Democrat's point of view, Coolidge represented the last president before the era of big government began (yes, government started this track even under Hoover). While unimaginative and provincial, Coolidge believed, as even Jefferson did and as many people still do, that government should not be too large or intrusive. We now have an enormous military industrial complex welfare state that feeds off of 40 to 50% of our nation's income every year. You may approve of that, but Coolidge represented a different era. As a matter of fact, the Great Depression only became "great" because of the Smoot Hawley Tariff and the Federal Reserve raising interest rates. Please, please, don't blame Coolidge for what other presidents or government agencies did. He's also a bit hard on Kennedy. But still an excellent and thought-provoking book.



2. Handicapping best and worst Presidents is a popular pastime for the politically inclined and even Presidents sometimes take turns critiquing our Chief Executives. Nathan Miller, best known for his biographies on Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt, takes his turn here critiquing our ten worst Presidents and there are few surprises to be found here. Miller singles out the usual suspects (Pierce, Buchanan, Johnson, Grant, Harrison, Taft, Harding), but adds a few surprises (Coolidge, Nixon, Carter). Miller addresses each in a chapter making the case against them repeating stories that have been told ad nauseum. Miller adds little that is fresh, insightful or new here and very little in the way of objectivity as Miller focuses on their individual personalities, relationships and temperaments more than actual achievements and failures. Even Harry Truman picked out most of these Presidents as duds in his autobiography and they're regularly on most everyone's list. Miller saves his worst invective for the very end when he lists his two picks for the most overrated Presidents, John F. Kennedy and Thomas Jefferson, which seem gratuitous, especially in Jefferson's case in light of the wonderful "American Sphinx" by Joseph Ellis.
   
   There's little here that reflects great creativity or ingenuity. I'd almost prefer to see someone write a counterpoint highlighting the accomplishments and achievements of these Chief Executives just to refute what was laid out here. In the end this book reads like something I've read before; a good gossipy read that doesn't break new ground. Miller is an excellent writer as demonstrated with his other books and his writing here is lively and engaging. I just find it hard to single out Coolidge and Carter when you have other ample targets like Madison, Fillmore, Tyler, Van Buren, and others.



3. (original version posted May 8, 2000)
   While the title does offer a warning that this might be a "fluffy," sensationalistic, or overly cynical offering, it's fortunately none of these things.
   
   Unfortunately, that doesn't imply there's a lot of depth to this work. Miller does a competent job of picking ten of our less distinguished Presidents and compiling a lot of well-documented facts about their respective administrations. The book does a satisfactory job of telling us why someone is on his ten worst list. But the facts pretty much do this for us already without the need for much synthesis or supporting argument. In fact, it's hard to argue with any of his choices...with one exception.
   
   I did find Miller's choice for the absolute worst President rather surprising and far too critical considering this President's skills and accomplishments (although I should note that I'm not a big fan of the 37th President). While I understand Miller's point, I really needed some more support for his argument.
   
   Short on interesting arguments, viewpoints, or in-depth analysis, this book could still make for a nice quick read if you're looking for an overview. One last thing... if you're wondering if Miller may have forgotten any of our recent Chief Executives, note that the book was written before 2001.



4. Who is this Nathan Miller to bedevil the reputations of past leaders because they were fat,like he does with Taft,or unsocial,like Ben Harrison,or because they were products of thier time,like Kennedy,jackson,or even a saint like Jimmy Carter?I would think that LEADERSHIP,or the lack thereof,would be the single criteria by which to judge a president,but apparently a doofus like Miller is more interested in making fun of personality traits than in giving any real thought to the achievements,or mistakes of our presidents...Don't buy this book under any circumstance,unless you are one of those worms who enjoy making fun of people based on size,or personality quirk,rather than seeking any understanding as to why these men were either great or mediocore...



5. This book helps you absorb a lot of material in 248 fast pages. The last 10 pages may be the best. A chapter on the 2 most overrated Presidents.
   
   Jefferson purchased 8 additional slaves While President! Also his terrible hatred of Alexander Hamilton, one of our real hero's. Read Alexander Hamilton, by BrookhiserAlexander Hamilton, American I bought The Long Affair: Thomas Jefferson and the French Revolution, 1785-1800 to confirm what Nathan Miller wrote.
   
   And a surprise, JFK. The start of Vietnam, initially cool toward civil rights struggles (Bobby Kennedy was the real force), too many women, and his enduring contribution, raising the curtain on the age of political imagery. I read several books about the Kennedy's, including the lost older brother. (I think that was the Lost Prince?)
   
   If you like those three books you also might like Scam, Jesse Peterson Scam: How the Black Leadership Exploits Black America, Vital Remnants: America's Founding and the Western Tradition, and AMERICA'S REAL WAR

1 comments about Churchill: An Illustrated History (Readers Digest).

1. One of the better biographies of Churchill. Considerable in depth information and well chosen Chuchill quotes.

No comments about Adams: An American Dynasty.

2 comments about My Father Il Duce: A Memoir by Mussolini's Son.

1. This unique short memoir, a best seller in Italy, is really about a son's blind and unconditional love for his father, even if this father had been a member of the grotesque family of 20th-century fascist monsters who ultimately were responsible for the slaughter of millions. In a penetrating introduction by the Italian political culture authority Alexander Stille, the fond recollections of Mussolini as an attentive and loving father who encouraged his son to pursue music, who always "performed" his family duty toward his wife, and who frequently entertained the kids with fabulous family stories, are put into perspective with citations of the cold historical facts. One has to read this brilliant introduction to really get those facts, as Romano Mussolini fails to deliver any of them. In fact, his recollections are about a more or less normal family life, if that can be said, and about the unfair treatment his father suffered at the hands of an ungrateful public who forgot all he did for them. The allies also aren't presented with any love or affection. There are anecdotes here that are worth reading as well, but in the end, one wonders how Romano could have steered clear of all the blood and gore, cruelty and absurd bravado that his father brought into the world. To me, this is more of a psychological study of one man's delusions and prejudices than a historical document. Nonetheless, it's provocative and well worth the quick read.



2. Written by Romano Mussolini, the son of infamous Italian dictator Benito Mussolini, My Father: Il Duce: A Memoir of Mussolini's Son contributes to history by shedding new light into aspects of the private life of "Il Duce". A riveting story of a state figure who went to great lengths to keep his private and public lives separate, who openly stated that he chose "Live dangerously" as his life's motto, and of a family that existed in continual danger of assassination, My Father: Il Duce reveals the human and family side of a complex historical figure. Highly recommended.

No comments about Catherine the Great (Life & Times) (Life&Times).

1 comments about Tiberius (Blackwell Ancient Lives).

1. When I first discovered Robin Seager, it was through his book, "Pompey the Great". This was a book I just couldn't read finding it utterly long-winded and excruciatingly detailed (read: boring!). I did eventually read it, when I was ready, and discovered Seager to be an impressive historian whose fondness for detail I greatly enjoyed. Thus, I picked up Tiberius hoping for more of the same. And I wasn't disappointed. Tiberius was the second Principate of Rome having been adopted by Augustus to take over after his death. He was certainly not the first choice but in the end, Tiberius outlived all the other potential heirs Augustus had chosen. Tiberius was an honoured and respected general who had Republican sensibilities. As Principate, he clashed numerous times with the Senate over its inabilities to make decisions for itself and deferring many issues back to him (after he initially passed onto them). Seager takes us through Tiberius' life from his childhood roots (and the eventual familial-bond that he and Augustus would share) to his selection as Principate. He looks at the different occurrences in Tiberius' early life that set him down his eventual path (but not without some resistance first) and his role as Principate (from determining attacks to his relationship with the people). Seager provides a very comprehensive view of the second Principate's reign and his accomplishments and failures. Many have criticized Tiberius and claimed him a tyrant due to his misuse of maiestas (a sort of treason law), allowing Piso (Tiberius' friend) to bring down Germanicus (the much loved successor to-be of Tiberius if he had survived), his war and subsequent unfair treatment of Agrippina (mother of Gauis, wife of Germanicus) and his allowing of Sejanus to manipulate him for his own ambitions (which were obviously detrimental to Rome and many persons within). Although not excusing his behaviour, especially the later half as his mental reason began to crumble; Seager portrays a man who never had the ambitions to be Principate. Unlike many others, Tiberius wanted to end his days in peace and be left alone. What he got instead was the greatest responsibility, which with his virtues, he couldn't easily let go of. Although a very capable leader, Tiberius' greatest weaknesses were his poor attitude to the Principate position and his arrogance and stubbornness towards others. This is what caused the conflicts with the Senate and allowed people such as Sejanus to rise in power and cause so many problems. Tiberius showed himself initially as a fair and reasonable leader but as time went on, he detached himself from his position and its responsibilities and allowed others to take advantage of it. Seager shows that Tiberius was not a tyrant but rather a man who became too disillusioned and too stubborn to let go.

No comments about Thirty-Six Years in the White House.

5 comments about Bill Clinton: An American Journey: Great Expectations.

1. Once upon a time there was a first-rate biographer named Nigel Hamilton. Twenty years ago he wrote the definitive three-volume life of Lord Montgomery of Alamein, one that is still the essential source for understanding the man. Then in 1993 the first book of his projected multi-volume biography of John F. Kennedy was published, a work that will probably remain the essential source for understanding Kennedy's pre-political life for decades to come.
   
   At some point after that, though, Hamilton changed. Perhaps it was a consequence of immersing himself in JFK's salacious life or perhaps it was some sort of traumatic personal experience, but Hamilton's focus changed. The shift emerged in 2001 with his atrociously-named "Full Monty," a reinterpretation of his earlier subject that focuses on Montgomery's sexual orientation. Now we have his latest book, the first of a promised two-volume life of Bill Clinton that covers his life up to his election in 1992. Like the Kennedy biography it is an "unofficial" life; unlike the Kennedy biography, though, Hamilton did not have access to any of the papers from the Clinton Library, which obviously limits much of its scope.
   
   Even when this is taken into account, though, Hamilton has written a lousy book. His primary focus is on Clinton's personal life, which he covers in salacious detail (enough to ensure that his book will occupy a prominent place on the bookshelves of most Clinton-haters) and follows up with superficial psychoanalysis. While I do not doubt the accuracy of his account, the result is Clinton the libido, with little about the political career which is the reason why he warrants our attention to begin with. I grant that Hamilton did not have access to Clinton's papers, but would it have been so hard to glean something about Clinton's tenure as governor from newspaper accounts and interviews with other Arkansas politicos? Without it, the reader is left with the impression that Clinton was elected president based on his charm - a facile impression that does a great disservice to anybody seeking a true understanding of the man. No doubt that disservice will be continued once Hamilton's second volume is published.



2. I tried very hard to like President Clinton's Memoirs. But instead I found myself frustrated at the way his autobiography blames everyone else for Clinton's problems except himself. That being said, while his memoirs frustrated me it causes me to read further about Clinton and fill in the many gaps between the truth and what was presented in My Life by Clinton.
   
   An American Journey is a highly readable, truthfull, and ultimately sympathetic look at Clinton's rise to presidency. The author does not sugarcoat anything and you see the real Bill Clinton: his many strengths and his many weaknesses. I also enjoyed how the author put the situations Clinton was in into the Context of the times and place. I really could not stop reading this book. It is very good and should be read rather than Clinton's memoirs.



3. The forces and dynamics of both the Democratic Party, and the national unrest prevalent during the period that Clinton "rose" to shoulder his duties at the White House during his administration, and the manner in which he went about it suggests that it will be years before the clarity of his personal strengths and weaknesses will be understood fully. Complicated by the number of extraordinary events (including his impeachment process, the innovation of the internet, and the flaws of the political process itself, as they were revealed during the election of 2000, make rushes to judgement less accurate than they are entitled to be in American history. In addition, the unique upbringing of Clinton, his background, and the unusual experiences that preceded his Presidency obscure typical thinking about him within the normal boundaries in which other Presidents have been examined. As one of the most visible of persons, with a staff strikingly involved, and yet removed from his Presidency, it will take years to sort out the important dynamics of his terms, and may be seen as the beginning of an era where Americans, themselves, awakened to the strengths and weaknesses of their democracy to play a greater role in its outcome. He will, no doubt, remain an enigma for years to come both because of what he respresents, and because of his forceful personality, not to mention the importance of his wife, the Senator, who was fully vested in his administration, and continues to play a significant role in American politics as well as American government. It's obvious that Mr. Hamilton's attempts might be much more important in the future, and through development of his second volume, when and if that becomes available in the distance.



4. Bill Clinton is a very debated about politician and Nigel Hamilton takes a great stab at his early life. This book ends in 1992 but does an excellent job talking about his childhood growing up, college years, marriage to Hillary and the turbulent times of governor. It captures the rocky relationship with Carter and the pervasiness of Bill Clinton in his early scandals. It clearly captures the relationship with Hillary and puts out some interesting theories for their marriage and why Bill Clinton feels the need to get involved with other women. I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in how Bill Clinton got to the presidency.



5. Once upon a time there was a first-rate biographer named Nigel Hamilton. Twenty years ago he wrote the definitive three-volume life of Lord Montgomery of Alamein, one that is still the essential source for understanding the man. Then in 1993 the first book of his projected multi-volume biography of John F. Kennedy, JFK: Reckless Youth, was published, a work that will probably remain the essential source for understanding Kennedy's pre-political life for decades to come.
   
   At some point after that, though, Hamilton changed. Perhaps it was a consequence of immersing himself in JFK's salacious life or perhaps it was some sort of traumatic personal experience, but Hamilton's focus changed. The shift emerged in 2001 with his atrociously-named "Full Monty," a reinterpretation of his earlier subject that focuses on Montgomery's sexual orientation. Now we have his latest book, the first of a promised two-volume life of Bill Clinton that covers his life up to his election in 1992. Like the Kennedy biography it is an "unofficial" life; unlike the Kennedy biography, though, Hamilton did not have access to any of the papers from the Clinton Library, which obviously limits much of its scope.
   
   Even when this is taken into account, though, Hamilton has written a lousy book. His primary focus is on Clinton's personal life, which he covers in salacious detail (enough to ensure that his book will occupy a prominent place on the bookshelves of most Clinton-haters) and follows up with superficial psychoanalysis. While I do not doubt the accuracy of his account, the result is Clinton the libido, with little about the political career which is the reason why he warrants our attention to begin with. I grant that Hamilton did not have access to Clinton's papers, but would it have been so hard to glean something about Clinton's tenure as governor from newspaper accounts and interviews with other Arkansas politicos? Without it, the reader is left with the impression that Clinton was elected president based on his charm - a facile impression that does a great disservice to anybody seeking a true understanding of the man.