5 comments about Rethinking Camelot: JFK, the Vietnam War, and U.S. Political Culture.

1. What is missing from Chomsky's book is the notion that if anyone told JFK right to his face precisely what the United States was going to do in Nam for the following ten years (I think George Ball tried to do this), the president himself wouldn't have believed it, and could have told him, "You're crazy . . . " (as I remember this, the president expressed himself with an expletive) and really meant it. Anyone who thinks that American policy in Vietnam ever made sense is underestimating the ability of the government to lie whenever it is trying to picture what its national honor adds up to in evens and odds. I knew that something was crazy when I read in Rethinking Camelot that John Newman had written a letter to "The Nation" in which he said, "Let's get serious." Actually, the policy always begged to be compared with some outrageous joke, and "The Nation" has been great at coming up with jokes (I have even read the admission by Calvin Trillin that he used jokes in his column) to match such situations. Possibly the funniest thing that I ever read just showed up again in the April 10, 2000 issue of "The Nation," in a book review by John Leonard. "It's worth recalling that when Freud finally got permission to leave Vienna in 1938, the Gestapo obliged him to sign a certificate saying that he had been well treated by the authorities. He added a sentence of his own: 'I can heartily recommend the Gestapo to anyone.'" (p. 26) American policy in Vietnam was always a dream of imposing that kind of order in a country in which a majority of the people were not Americans, and might even try to kill Americans, if you want to know the truth. I can name one Kennedy adviser who was willing to tell LBJ in November, 1965, that the odds were about even that things were getting worse in Vietnam, and were going to get a lot worse as the plans at that stage were implemented, but he wouldn't have even been keeping his job if he told everybody what he thought. I'm actually glad McNamara didn't resign in protest, because he knew that other people could do his job worse than he could, and he was willing to sacrifice himself to save the country from the kind of stupidity that was assumed for anyone in his position, of which he was highly aware.



2. Excellent overview of the relationship between American political/corporate culture and the origens of the Vietnam War. In this case, Chomsky looks at the historical revisionism that clouded the discourse on the assassination of JFK. The book does not debunk the notion that a conspiracy in Dallas occurred; rather the emphasis is on how JFK simply continued (and, in some cases,expanded) the basic thrust of American foreign policy. Using mostly the internal record, Chomsky details JFK and his virulent hawkish and anti-communist ideology, a fact which Camelot propogandists attempt to hide or minimize. Once again, the point is to highlight the reality: a single political party exists today to do the bidding for the corporate sector (of which the military-industrial complex is a large component). Remember, JFK had increased defense spending and forced through a great deal of pro-corporate legislation (while also dragging his heels on Civil Rights legislation and scolding the Warren Court for its progressive leanings) prior to the assassination. All in all, another worthy contribution from one of the great American intellectuals of the 20th century.



3. Just finished reading this book and found the portion
   debunking JFK idolators' revisionist history to be well done,
   although rather long winded. The rest of the book is pure paranoia - I was alive during the Vietnam buildup and well remember the motives that led to intervention. Surprisingly,
   Chomsky attributes dark motives to practically everything
   the US did during those times, and virtually never touches on the motives most often at play - the defeat and containment of Communism, which at times looked as though it was going to win.
   Chomsky seems to think that Communism was essentially just a sort of ultra socialism. That is his biggest error in the book:
   a severe naivete about what Communism was and why much was sacrificed to ensure that it didn't envelope the planet. In other words, he displays an extreme case of tunnel vision.



4. Chomsky's pseudo-dissidence is revealed by, among many other lies found throughout his oeuvre, his repeated insistence upon the CIA's unwavering fidelity to successive Presidents. Where the evidence is contrary, he ignores it. Nowhere is the suppression more systematic than in Rethinking Camelot: JFK, the Vietnam War, and US Political Culture. Consider, in particular, his Stalinoid survey of the Vietnam coverage of the New York Times from October 3 to December 4, 1963 (in this paperback edition, pp.82-83). One omission, among many, will suffice.
   
   On October 3, 1963, the NYT carried a column entitled "The Intra-Administration War In Vietnam." It opened: "The Central Intelligence Agency is getting a very bad press in despatches from Vietnam..."
   
   Its author, Arthur Krock, proceeded to quote extensively from one such despatch, "Arrogant CIA Disobeys Orders in Vietnam", by Richard Starnes of the Scripps-Howard group. The quotes below are from Starnes's courageous and hauntingly prophetic original.
   
   According to Starnes's source, "Twice the CIA flatly refused to carry out instructions from Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge", even though one set had been brought direct from Washington. Likening the CIA's growth to a "malignancy", which he was "not sure event the White House could control any longer", the source predicted: "If the United States ever experiences a Seven Days in May it will come from the CIA" (Washington Daily News, October 2).
   
   Chomsky was, and remains, the creation and creature of the Central Intelligence Agency. Rethinking Camelot represented the cashing of the CIA's most important dissident chip in its unending war against both genuine dissent, and JFK's memory. It is a measure of the fear, corruption and cowardice prevalent in mainstream Anglo-American academia and media that Chomsky's imposture has gone unchallenged for so long.



5. Utilizing the declassified documentary record during the Kennedy Administration, Chomsky makes quite clear the unpleasant fact that John F. Kennedy was essentially no different from Eisenhower, Johnson or even Nixon with regard to foreign policy.
   
   While I am a fan of Oliver Stone's JFK, this book provides a detailed refutation of many claims and assumptions the film implies. For example, the notion that John F. Kennedy was secretly against U.S. intervention in Vietnam (yet the troops remained there the entire 3 years he was in office), and National Security Memo 263 has been totally taken out of context, as Kennedy made it quite clear that he didn't want withdrawal with failure, and that the "overriding objective" was victory in Vietnam. And National Security Memo 273, the memo which essentially reversed the "withdrawal" plan noted in 263, was drafted on November 21st (while Kennedy was still alive), and signed by LBJ on November 26th, clearly indicating that Johnson was simply continuing JFK's policies in Nam. As for his remarks, he gave similar remarks to that of why Bush gives that the US should stay in Iraq. On June 17th, 1963, Kennedy said, "For us to withdraw from that effort would mean a collapse not only of South Vietnam, but Southeast Asia. So we are going to stay there", then saying, "I don't agree with those who say we should withdraw" - that's just a sample. On November 22nd, 1961, Kennedy authorized a large scale attack on South Vietnam (yes, South), napalm and "counter-terror" (U.S. terror). It's interesting that this authorization was signed on November 22nd, 1961, exactly 2 years before Kennedy suffered the fate he authorized - murder.
   
   As well, Kennedy authorized the invasion of Cuba on April 17th, 1961, and authorized Operation Mongoose, and only turned down Operation Northwoods because he was he knew it wouldn't work. Kennedy, according to the official documents, sanctioned crop burnings, germ warfare, sinking fishing boats, etc. John and Bobby knew all about almost everything that happened, and anyone who says otherwise is full of it.
   
   Cross reference everything Chomsky says with the declassified documentary record, which is available in book form in the book The Kennedys and Cuba, assembled by Mark J. White.
   
   Once you learn about Kennedy's policies, his assassination, and all the conspiracies become completely irrelevant because he didn't do ANYTHING different from his predecessor and successors. He wanted Vietnam to be a sphere of influence of the United States, regardless how many civilians died, he wanted Castro to be murdered, and Cuba to return back to being mafia and US Corporation ran, and even implemented the fascist dictatorship of Brazil to take power, which they did in 1964, all of which break international law. But then again, since when does the US observe international law?
   
   This is a must read.
   
   
   Anton Batey
   Anton_Batey@yahoo.com

3 comments about The Voice of Destruction.

1. These supposed recollections of private conversations with Hitler were shown in the 1980's (see Der Spiegel 37:92-99, 1985), after investigation by a Swiss schoolteacher (Wolfgang Haenel), to be fraudulent. The book was used as evidence at the Nuremberg trials and also cited in postwar histories (e.g., Rise and Fall of the Third Reich), some still in print.
   Richard Pipes, otherwise a splendid historian of the Russian tragedy, also quotes this book.
   Hermann Rauschning met Hitler twice, in public forums, and had no private conversations with him. He had a falling out with the regime and then concocted this "memoir."
   The danger of making Hitler or any other tyrant into such a cartoonish figure is that subsequent generations are lulled into thinking that a potential tyrant would present himself as an obvious neurotic. Quite the contrary.
   Four stars for historical importance, despite its fraudulence.



2. To understand why, read my related essay at: http://www.hashkafah.com/index.php?showtopic=22001



3. This book has also been published in the English language under the title: HITLER SPEAKS.
   
   Covering events mostly from the early to the middle 1930's, this book fills an important gap in the development of Hitler's thinking. It comes after MEIN KAMPF (1923-1925) and the then-unpublished HITLER'S SECOND BOOK (1928), but before HITLER'S TABLE TALK.
   
   Rauschning elaborates on Hitler's attitudes towards Poland. It becomes obvious that the Fuhrer never saw the 1934 Polish-German Nonaggression Pact as anything more than a temporary expedient, and that he never seriously considered accepting Poland as an ally against the Soviet Union (p. 119). This adds refutation against the claim that WWII had been triggered, in part, by "Polish intransigence".
   
   A common Nazi anti-Semitic theme is the one about Jews being vermin (presumably fit for nothing other than extermination). Interestingly, Nazis also thought that way of Poles. Albert Forster, the Gauleiter of Danzig (Gdansk), referred to Poles as lice (p. 110). (So did Joseph Goebbels, in his diaries).
   
   Rauschning elaborates on Hitler's obsession with Jews. He believed that it was driven in part by Hitler's fear of his partial Jewish ancestry (p. 235).
   
   In his MEIN KAMPF and SECOND BOOK, Hitler had vilified the Jews, and presented Slavic lands as ones to be conquered for lebensraum purposes and filled with German settlers. But what exactly was to be done with the Jews and the Slavs was left to the imagination of the listener. Not so here! Hitler makes direct threats against both Jews and Slavs as biological entities. He speaks of using both Jewish property and Jewish lives as hostages in response to the anti-German actions of other nations (pp. 88-89). (This foreshadows his infamous January 1939 statement, in which he said that, if "international Jewry" caused another war, he would destroy Europe's Jews in response.) He first speaks of resettling Czechs in Siberia (p. 38) and then, repeatedly complaining about the great fecundity of the Slavic peoples (p. 33, 137), proposes to solve this problem through such measures as keeping men and women separated for years (p. 137). He quips: "There are many ways, systematical and comparatively painless, or at any rate bloodless, of causing undesirable races to die out." (p. 138). (In time, the Nazis did implement both active and passive genocidal techniques against the conquered Slavs, as discussed by Raphael Lemkin. The Nazis also worked to develop mass-sterilization methods, preferably ones that could be used covertly against the intended victims).
   
   In this book, Hitler develops his anti-Christian themes, but not as strongly as in the later HITLER'S TABLE TALK. In this work, Hitler refers to Christianity as an effeminate, Jewish invention (p. 49, 235). He trusts that the dogma of the Vicarious Suffering of Christ will give way to acceptance of the new Leader-legislator, who will liberate the faithful from the burden of free will (p. 225). Hitler also clearly exhibits the views of a moral relativist: "There is no such thing as truth, either in the moral or in the scientific sense." (p. 223).
   
   Nazism is often misrepresented as a form of extreme nationalism. In fact, Hitler believed that the concept of the nation was a political expedient of democracy and Liberalism (p. 232), and was just as outdated as the concept of the dynastic feudal state that it had replaced. He wanted the concept of the nation replaced by "purely biological values". (p. 233).
   
   Nazism is also commonly misrepresented as a form of capitalism. In actuality, Hitler scorned both Communism and capitalism, just as he had done earlier in MEIN KAMPF and the SECOND BOOK. In the present work, he commented: "The classless society of the Marxists, he [Hitler] contended, was madness. Order always meant class order. But the democratic notion of a class order based on the moneybag was equally mad. A genuine aristocracy was not born out of the accidentally successful speculations of bright businessmen." (p. 39).

1 comments about Thomas Jefferson: Draftsman of a Nation.

1. "The most important thing to remember about Thomas Jefferson is that he taught us the power of the word. He taught us that ideas matter -- that words beautifully shaped can reshape lives. Jefferson distilled into one remarkable sentence the essence of our creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...' Indeed, in the words he wrote he changed the shape of our country and became one of the most notable champions of freedom and enlightenment in recorded history. He had a vision of what the world should be.
   "Jefferson speaks not only to Americans today but to people the world over -- particularly in the emerging democracies of Europe. In a sense, his words are responsible for the most liberal reforms, including the eventual end of slavery, the civil rights movement, and the suffrage of women.
   "Even before his death, the language of the Declaration was appropriated by new claimants -- freed Blacks, abolitionists, early advocates of women's rights -- until it received decisive transformation by Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg, when he said: 'We are a nation dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.' Thomas Jefferson wrote that proposition." --from the Author's Note
   
   Having been the oldest grandson -- and (once upon a time) a very well-behaved one at that -- I was regularly dropped off at my paternal grandparents' house on Mulberry Avenue in Garden City for some weekends during the school year and for a week at a time in the summer. The entrance to Hemlock Park was perhaps 25 steps from their back door, and I typically divided my time between The Park, and my grandfather's upstairs office overlooking The Park.
   
   One day during the summer that followed the first coming of the Beatles, being a point in time when I was reading well enough to regularly consume an entire Beverly Cleary or Carolyn Haywood book in an evening, my grandfather, Rex, set up one of those portable card tables with the round metal fold-down legs, set out a yellow legal pad and sharpened pencils, and brought out a book that, at the time, appeared large enough to literally crush a small child.
   
   It was a compilation of the writings of Thomas Jefferson. I was encouraged to sit down at the card table for the purpose of reading and taking notes on the Autobiography portion of the enormous book. Because I lived for pleasing my grandfather, I spent large portions of that week doing exactly that. And what I learned of that autobiography's author caused me to forever since maintain an affinity for all things Thomas Jefferson, a guy whose world-altering reading and writing abilities were complemented by the hundreds of diverse hands-on talents he also acquired during a lifetime that began, as Bober writes in THOMAS JEFFERSON: DRAFTSMAN OF A NATION:
   
   "When William Randolph took his friend Peter Jefferson to visit his Uncle Isham, Peter met Isham's seventeen-year-old daughter Jane. Tall, slender, graceful, and elegant, she had a cheerful disposition and a fine mind. Two years later, on October 19, 1739, she and Peter were married. He was thirty-two; she was nineteen. She brought with her many slaves from her father's plantation. With this union, Peter Jefferson, an man without family prestige or social pretense, became identified with one of the leading families in Virginia. In eighteenth-century Virginia there were two distinct groups: the aristocracy, typified by Isham Randolph; and the yeomanry, who were, for the most part, industrious, belligerently independent, and instinctively democratic. The marriage of Jane Randolph to Peter Jefferson joined the two classes. Of these two strains would come the unique mosaic that was Thomas Jefferson."
   
   Back in my Book Buyer days, I read a paperback reprint of Natalie Bober's 1988 Jefferson biography, THOMAS JEFFERSON: MAN ON A MOUNTAIN. I enjoyed it so much that I continued on to read her biography of Abigail Adams. A few years later, when Bober's COUNTDOWN TO INDEPENDENCE: A REVOLUTION OF IDEAS IN ENGLAND AND HER AMERICAN COLONIES, 1760-1776 was published, it easily made it onto my Richie's Picks Best of 2001 list.
   
   Now Bober has done something rarely seen in trade publishing: a do-over. As the author states in her Author's Note, "History is an argument without end." Theories in which Bober believed two decades ago, regarding Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings, were essentially proven false by DNA testing. And so armed with new knowledge and a new perspective, the author has now written a new biography of this most complex of forefathers.
   
   "Peter Jefferson had been an example of industry and responsibility, but it was his love of learning more than anything else that was his legacy to his son. The only thing Thomas Jefferson wrote about his father -- almost sixty-four years later, when he was seventy-seven -- reveals what was most important to him throughout his life: '...being of strong mind, sound judgment, and eager after information, he read much and improved himself.' Books would become for his son the means to 'improve himself,' the keys to unlock the mystery of any subject he wanted to learn. Books would become the passion that ruled and shaped his life."
   
   In wrestling anew with the question of how such an amazing man of ideas could create those immortal words about all men being created equal and, at the same time, condone slavery, Natalie Bober combines her skill for impeccable research with an unsurpassed ability to turn history into captivating story. And while that might sound cliche, the fact is that we are lucky if we discover a handful of YA nonfiction titles in a year that are immersed simultaneously in research and story to the degree found in THOMAS JEFFERSON: DRAFTSMAN OF A NATION.
   
   Thomas Jefferson provided my first real inspiration to write about ideas and to internalize the ideals upon which America was founded. It has been truly fulfilling to, once again, spend a couple of days reading and writing about him.

No comments about Lincoln's Moral Vision: The Second Inaugural Address.

1 comments about Jefferson & His Time: Jefferson the President: Second Term, 1805-1809 (Jefferson & His Time (University of Virginia Press)).

1. This book is the fifth volume in Dumas Malone's six volume biography called "Jefferson and His Time" covering the period in Jefferson's second term as President (1805-1809)
   
   This volume was, for me, the most difficult of the series so far, especially surprising since I thoroughly enjoyed the fourth volume covering Jefferson's first term as President. This volume is considerably longer than the others, well over 100 pages longer. In my opinion Mr. Malone makes questionable choices regarding the amount of space to devote to topics, most notably the 160 pages he devotes to the Burr conspiracy, which seems much too long given Jefferson's peripheral relationship to the event, and even more so given Mr. Malone's excessively dry presentation. This occurs at the expense of other topics, such as the Lewis and Clark expedition, which in my opinion is shortchanged (in fact, Sacagawea is never even mentioned). Mr. Malone explains that a thorough treatment of the Lewis and Clark expedition is outside the bounds of a Jefferson biography, but the reader is left to wonder why the equally removed, and much less interesting, Burr conspiracy is treated in such detail.
   
   Ultimately, the first 400 pages of this volume are a laborious read, by far the most difficult of the series. The final third of the book, mostly covering the embargo, is much better, but not enough to save this volume from my lowest rating thus far.

5 comments about Ronald Reagan in Private: A Memoir of My Years in the White House.

1. I've read many book on Reagan and this is one of the best in showing the man. The author had a jumpseat view of history, and you'll finish the book being slightly envious of him for having one of the coolest possible jobs!
   
   It's clear that Mr. Kuhn has a deep admiration for the Reagans but the book comes off as objective.



2. I loved this book. I almost could not put it down once I started. No spin in this book. No touting conservatism, or bashing liberals. What a remarkable insight into America's finest president.



3. This book is well-written and gives a lot of insight on Reagan's campaigns for the presidency.
   Mr.Kuhn was involved in those campaigns dating back to the 1970's.
   The author covers Ronald Reagan's two terms in the White House very well.
   He also details the President's travels and some of the political strategies that came into play with Gorbachev in particular.
   If you are a Reagan fan this book is a great read.
   I would recommend this book over Peter Wallison's book.Mr.Kuhn was around Ronald Reagan a lot longer and covers a longer time period.



4. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book. It is a fair portrait of President Ronald Reagan as he was outside the public view. Written by Reagan's executive assistant, this book gives insight into behind the scenes at the White House, especially focusing on his interactions with staff, his wife and the American public. If you are a fan of Reagan the man and enjoy anecdotes about his time as president--this is the book for you. If you are looking for a strictly political or strictly biographical book, then it is not.



5. I've only made it to Chapter five and I have read nothing but politics, politics, politics. 'Hardly a word about the man Ronald Reagan, of whom the book is ostensibly about. James Kuhn seems to be too preoccupied about what HE has done on these campaigns and has hardly mentioned Ronald Reagan the man. Too boring for me. I can't read it anymore. I highly recommend Peggy Noonan's book "When Character was King: A Story of Ronald Reagan". It really does give you insight on the man.

5 comments about James Madison: The Founding Father.

1. not like Jefferson & Hamilton or celebrated like Washington & Franklin. My fellow reviewers seemed disappointed in this as a biography. But it was not Mr. Rutland's purpose to write a personal story of Mr. Madison's life although his later years were covered quite well. I am glad, however, I took the easy way out by listening to the audio version (unedited). It was as if I was in Mr. Rutland's class as he was giving a lecture. The years after The Revolutionary War, The Federalist Papers, The Constitution & The Bill of Rights, are the real meat of this book. Madison's behind the scenes leadership in Congress was consummate. If we do not appreciate how important he was 200 years later, it seems that he contemporaries did. To his sorrow he was, with Jefferson, responsible for creating the two party system we now operate under. That he wanted to heed Washington's advice against the party system is evident. But he found this advice quickly outdated. As a result Washington, & to a lesser extent Adams were the only unaffiliated presidents in our history. Happily, none of this two-party stuff is cluttering up our Consititution. As Secretary of State under Jefferson & President on his own he was unremarkable. Any one could have mucked things up as well as he did. Indeed his best years were his early years. What seemed to me remarkable was the love, respect & friendship that existed between Madison & Jefferson all of their adult lives. It was an alliance of two great men that never wavered & recreated the "republican" type government of ancient Greece. Mr Rutland was obviously impressed by this relationship & alludes to it several times. I appreciate biographies that teach me something about history I didn't know. How great is this book? Hard to say. But it fit the bill.



2. Read the title: "James Madison: The Founding Father" focuses on Madison's role in the founding of our country. Here we learn little of Madison's youth and upbringing. Although Dolly plays a role in this book, it is a relatively minor part.
   
   This book explains Madison's role in the development and ratification of the Constitution, including his authorship of some of the Federalist Papers. The narration of Madison's leadership in the early Democratic-Republican Party can change the reader's view of history. Whereas we usually think of Thomas Jefferson as founder of the Democratic-Republican Party, Rutland makes a strong case that it was really Madison who united and organized the party from his seat in the House of Representatives. Much as Alexander Hamilton founded the party which elected John Adams, so it can be said that James Madison founded the party which chose Thomas Jefferson as its first standard bearer.
   
   Rutland progresses through Madison's term as Secretary of State and even puts a favorable spin on his two terms as president. This is no easy task, considering that the British burned the White House and Capitol on his watch.
   
   Rutland follows the wind down of Madison's career with his post-White House collaboration in the establishment of the University of Virginia.
   
   I appreciate books which enable me to see things differently. This book meets that test. I had always thought of Madison as, so to speak, Jefferson's underling and less talented successor. Through Robert Rutland's eyes we see him as one of the most influential and talented men of the early Republic. Madison comes across, as a practical political operative, the equal of Hamilton and, in result at least, perhaps his better. In the title, Rutland tells us that James Madison is The Founding Father. In the book he proves it.



3. I did not really care for this book. Rutland makes the premise that Madison was THE founding father implying that he was the most important. He finishes the book with a quote from JFK that Madison was the most under-rated president yet the book dedicates less than 40 pages to the presidency of James Madison. In those 40 pages, I did not gleam anything that Madison did exceptionally well - it all sounded pretty bad to me. I believe the point that Rutland was trying to make is that Madison was not Jefferson's crony and that it was Madison who actually shaped the early Republican party (early version of today's Democratic Party). This was a point well taken and I might accept that Madison was Jefferson's superior. At that same time, I remain unconvinced that he was THE founding father with such peers as George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin. Important yes but...
   
   The failed argument of Madison's superiority aside, I found the book to brief to be interesting. James Madison was a central figure in the formation of our country, the formation of party politics, and the early days of the republic and to try and tell the story of his entire life in a 250 page book is simply impossible. Many important stories that I have previously enjoyed in book volume detail were reduced to a sentence or two in Rutland's book.
   
   I think this book perfect for a high school student who needs a quick read for a research project but has no real interest in the life and career of James Madison. For a history nut like me, it is a bit too much like reading an encyclopedia.



4. The War of 1812 was fought with Great Britain. The British captured Washington, D.C., and burned the White House. Madison fled. He is known as the father of the Constitution and wrote the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is the first 10 Amendments. The first Amendment guarantees free speech.



5. This is one case where I should have heeded the advice of this site's reviewers.
   
   I wanted to read a Madison biography, but I wasn't looking for a 500-page book, and since my father had this one at his house, I thought, "How bad could it be?" Well, it's pretty shaky.
   
   First of all, Rutland does not make this easy on the readers because he's all over the place. It's not neat and focused like a good biography generally is, perhaps because he tried to cram so much information into less than 300 pages. He just jumped around too much.
   
   For example, the first chapter is a disaster. Rutland barely mentions Madison's upbringing, and even when he does, it's buried amongst other information. You will not get hooked by the first chapter. The last chapter was supposed to be about Madison's post-presidency life, but Rutland continues to mention parts of the presidency. I also really wanted a more focused description of the events leading up to the War of 1812, and what I got were bits of hard-to-follow details here and there. This is just not smooth story telling.
   
   There was some valuable information, such as the detailed outline of the Republican platform during the early stages of the party. And the book was not painfully sympathetic to its subject, but rather a fair account of the great man's life. Perhaps another 100 pages and a more defined overall direction, with chapters addressing a few specific issues rather than bouncing all around, would have made this a decent book.
   
   For those looking to learn about Madison, I don't know what book you should read, but I would not recommend this one.

4 comments about Dear Americans: Letters from the Desk of Ronald Reagan.

1. Great insight into the heart and mind of a great American. The letters contained in this book illustrate Reagan's convictions, humility and sense of humor. His letters to ordinary citizens are the best - gracious responses to both complimentary and negative letters he received. Reagan's love for his country and his fellow citizens is evident throughout. This is a truly heartwarming read.



2. It turns out that Ronald Reagan, often derided for intellectual shortcomings, was a vociferous letter writer throughout his eight years in the White House. This collection pulls together in a single book, many of the letters he wrote on all varieties of subjects and to all manners of persons. There are letters to supporters, letters to opponents, letters to world leaders and letters to Americans who wrote either in support or critically. Most incredibly, there are letters Reagan wrote to a child with whom he maintained a "pen pal" correspondence throughout his time in Washington.

   These letters, many with handwritten additions or paragraphs were Reagan's personal correspondence, not edited or ghost written by speech writers or other advisors. They reveal a man who was not detached from either the day to day workings of his administration or the policy arguments the administration was engaged in. Many of the letters are touching or filled with humor. Many times I found myself chuckling. For example, when Reagan gently let down a boy who was hoping to receive federal cleanup funds because his mother had declared his room a "disaster area." Some have a hint of anger or defiance. Many of the letters are responses by Reagan to individual citizens who wrote to him critical of a certain policy. His replies were always polite and respectful of alternative opinions. But he seems to have made the effort to convince these people of their mistakenness. The letters reveal much about Reagan the man. The book is arranged in chronological order with an introduction written by the editors detailing each year of the administration and the main issues Reagan faced both personal and professional. In this manner the book reads like a memoir of Reagan's time in Washington. I do not intend to discuss whether Reagan was right or wrong in his views or his actions. Obviously, Reagan believed he was correct and his letters reflect this belief. Others certainly disagree and may well be right to do so. But it will be helpful to an understanding of Reagan and his times to put to bed the myth that Reagan was a scripted movie actor. These letters prove this is not so. History will be served if Reagan's opponents can criticize the actions he took or the views he held and not re-hash a phony mythology. I recommend this excellent collection to anyone, friend or foe, interested in Ronald Reagan and his times.




3. truly warm and wonderful person and this book captures so much of his character! Only a sampling of the thousands of hand-written letters composed during his eight years as president; these documents give us an insight not only to a President and the issues of the times; but also an insight to the very human side of this remarkable man.
   
   Do not read this from a partisan point of view because it was not written for that purpose. The authors compiled this work to show the many facets of the man chosen for the highest office in the United States. His love of country, his love for his country's people, his fantastic sense of humor, his concern for every issue that passed his desk and his sincere desire to answer all who wrote to him in a clear and concise manner (from children to the aged), show the full picture of Reagan, the person, Reagan the President, Reagan the husband and father and Reagan the flag bearer for this country.
   
   You don't have to agree with him; you don't have to be Republican nor do you have to see him in any particular light. I believe that if you read his letters, you will find it both enlightening and fulfilling. I enjoyed and hope you will also.



4. All the letters published in this wonderful book were handwritten by President Reagan, typed by secretaries and mailed to the correspondents. The correspondence includes letters to private citizens, famous and obscure lifelong friends, and heads of state. They reveal a noble spirit, a kind and decent man who took a personal interest in the lives of ordinary people.
   
   The book starts with an introduction and editorial notes. The correspondence is divided into chapters for every year from 1981 to 1988/1989. Each of these aforementioned chapters has an introduction of the year concerned, discussing the major evens of that year, thus providing a historical background to the themes of the letters.
   
   The correspondence displays a tapestry of Ronald Reagan's wisdom, resolve, decency, optimism, humanity and humour in his replies to young people, unemployed workers, press columnists, Hollywood friends, Soviet leaders, sports figures, relatives of soldiers and critics of government policies. It shows his positive approach to the economy, his frequent frustration with the media and an obstructive Congress, and his determination to halt Soviet expansionism, to reduce taxes and to rebuild the military.
   
   Reagan's style was warm and down to earth and often gently humorous. Replies to his critics were factual and respectful. There are 14 black and white photographs that include pictures of Reagan with William Buckley, Michael Gorbachev, chief of correspondence Anne Higgins, personal secretary Kathy Osbourne and Reagan's young friend Rudolph Hines.
   
   Unlike the impression created by certain elements in the media at the time, Ronald Reagan was a highly intelligent man with a keen insight into domestic issues and international relations. Moreover he had the gift to translate those insights into language that everybody could understand. But most important of all, Reagan was wise.
   
   Besides being the Great Communicator, he was also the Great Correspondent as this volume demonstrates. What a lovely and admirable human being Reagan was. I also recommend the books When Character Was King by Peggy Noonan and Ronald Reagan: How An Ordinary Man Became An Extraordinary Leader by Dinesh D'Souza. God bless the memory and legacy of Ronald Reagan, the greatest president of the 20th century.

No comments about Millard Fillmore - The Accidental President (Biography).

No comments about Jan Smuts - British South African Statesman (Biography).