Rating: 
Summary: Very Disappointing
Review: This book was highly recommended to me but I was forced to dissent from popular opinion.While this book was factually interesting, it was also a very glossed-over look at a president who was successful enough that no glossing-over is necessary. Mr. D'Souza needs to learn that it is okay to admit that Reagan was a flesh-and-blood human being like the rest of us and that his accomplishments stand on their own merit. A good story, but not very well written.
Rating: 
Summary: Best Book on Reagan!
Review: I've read about 10 books on Reagan, but this one I've read 3 times! Gives the best picture of Reagan as a person, as well as a president. Not as big as other Reagan books, but gets to the point and is candid--who wants to read 1,000 pages of what Lou Cannon thinks of Reagan anyway? D'Souza's writing style is amazing, and this book is a great gift for Reagan fans and those involved in conservative politics.
Rating:
Summary: A true American!
Review: What can you say? Reagan was the greatest president of the 20th century! The book shows how a young man (Reagan was 69 when he was first elected to the Presidency) turned a tottering country around economically, patriotically, and also changed the world. D'Souza tells the story from Reagan's humble beginnings all the way to the presidency and how a unique personality and sense of humor made him an extraordinary leader. Should be required reading in the public school system (wishful thinking these days).
Rating: 
Summary: they're getting there
Review: [It is the role of conservatism to] stand athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who do. -William F. Buckley, Jr., (National Review, 1955, First Issue) Ronald Reagan recently turned 90 (2/06/01) and the outpouring of praise from nearly every pundit and politician was downright stunning, even coming, as it did, in the midst of Bill Clinton's typically disgraceful departure from a sordid presidency. Granted, the encomiums from even his ideological enemies must have been attributable in part to just Reagan's personal character, which benefits so greatly by comparison to Bill Clinton's, but not entirely. Some of the praise of his opponents, and most of the hosannas from his supporters, were for the ideas that Reagan represented, and which still dominate our politics today. To see how colossal a figure Reagan remains on the political landscape, we need only look at what George W. Bush is proposing to do as president in the first years of the 21st Century : cut taxes, build Star Wars, balance the budget, privatize Social Security and education, limit abortion, allow religious groups to deliver social services, and restore dignity to the Oval Office. Thirty six years after his first major national speech (for Goldwater in 1964), and twenty four years after his first all out bid for the presidency (against President Gerald Ford in the 1976 Republican primaries), the national dialogue today is squarely centered on the ideas that Ronald Reagan introduced or advocated. The only major elements that are missing are winning the Cold War, which he already won for us, and Welfare reform, which was enacted by the GOP class of '94 (his ideological children). And what of the Party that he led ? Ronald Reagan, it must be remembered, ran in the aftermath of Watergate, when the badly battered Republicans were a semi-permanent minority in Congress and on the state level. Now the party controls both houses of Congress, and has for four consecutive elections, completely dominates the governorships and has achieved parity with Democrats in controlling state legislatures. Regardless of what you think of him personally, or of his politics, the United States today is very much Ronald Reagan's America, and to a remarkable degree, we live in a world that he, nearly alone, envisioned. The question for historians is why ? ... The strengths of the book then, and they are considerable, lie in D'Souza's generous reassessment of the Reagan legacy, particularly coming, as it did, before the current lovefest with Reagan began. The weakness, and it too is significant, lies in his failure to adopt the Reagan model in writing the book. If D'Souza had structured the book around the larger theme of Reagan's emphasis on freedom, and then stooped to answer specific criticisms only in this context, it would have helped greatly, would have given it a unity that it sadly lacks. The book is instead a defense of Ronald Reagan as Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton might have written it, absorbed by tiny matters to the detriment of great ones. Ronald Reagan deserves, and hopefully will one day get, a biographer who is himself Reaganesque, who understands that it was the restoration of freedom that mattered, and that everything else--Iran Contra, tax hikes, budget deficits, etc.--important as each controversy may have appeared for a time, was just background noise. But that book, unfortunately, remains to be written. GRADE : B-
Rating: 
Summary: Not a Biography So Much as a Public Relations Move
Review: One day a biography of Ronald Reagan will appear that actually takes Reagan as its object for scholarly purposes. In other words, the work will examine Reagan's place in the political history of post-war America, since few of us care about his days as an actor. D'Souza's book, however, is not scholarly, but rather is the purely ideological product of a rightwing think tank publicist. Reagan would make a fascinating study for a scholar, since he was so patently second-rate that many of us have absolutely no idea how anyone could take him seriously. The scholar's job, though, is not to write hagiography or demonology, but to write something that will enlighten all of us on a subject. D'Souza's book is brown-nosing propoganda and nothing else. I await a biography of Reagan that will explain to me the devotion he has inspired. I still don't get it.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent but brief biography!
Review: D'Souza paints a decent word picture of Reagan in light of the perceived image foisted on history by generally Liberal historians. He pointed out Reagan's photographic memory (often unnoticed by his adversaries) which allowed him to eschew note-taking in order to negotiate at a crisper, far more complex level than those ego-giants across the table from him - who then called him stupid for not taking notes. Another of D'Souza's documentations was of Tip O'Neill ridiculing Reagan as being a good negotiator in Hollywood, but now was playing in the "Big Leagues." Tip went on to lose almost every negotiation he had with Reagan - as did every other "Big Leaguer" who confronted him. One interesting aspect was how the losers of these negotiations always tried to paint Reagan as somehow winning "In spite of himself." D'Souza's inclusion of the Liberal attempt to saboutage the Reagan Record is frightening... How the editor of Bartlett's intentionally refused to allow in any of the great quotations from "The Great Communicator" because he admittedly "despised" the man. and included two inane statements meant to make Reagan appear petty... How a coven of Liberal and Socialist historians "rated" Reagan as one of the weakest presidents of all time and made sure that rating appeared in schoolbooks presented as fact. D'Souza proved a vary real revisionist attack on Reagan, that stands virtually unchallenged in schools - where children with no personal knowledge of Reagan only see skewed and biased pejorative characterizations of him. One of the weakest aspects of this biography is the lack of understanding of his economical program that lifted the US out of the predicament it got into since 1929. I urge researchers to at least look at the memo to Historians from Jude Wanniski - A Supply Side Historiography: A History of the 20th Century http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/12-31-99.html. I did notice one interesting tidbit, though. When David Stockman was given his head by Reagan to mercilessly cut all components of budget, operations, and beaurocracy - he found only one Congressman or senator who did not demand pork in exchange for his vote: Dick Cheney.
Rating:
Summary: So so
Review: I voted for Reagan twice. I thought he was a fine President. But this biography is such a kiss-up piece of work, and so naive it's almost silly. It's without any objectivity.
Rating:
Summary: A Focused Look at Reagan, Mainly His Presidency
Review: D'Souza's biography of Reagan is highly focused and mainly concerned with his presidency (1980-1988). Apparently, Reagan has been the subject of alot of criticism of late and D'Souza addresses much of this criticism. He argues that Reagan was in fact a tremendous leader and accomplished much good. A few of the early chapters deal with Reagan's growing up, his acting career, and then his Governorship of California, followed by his touring the country as a Motivational Speaker for GM. But it is really all leading up to Reagan's Presidency. Like the previous reviewer says, D'Souza, a conservative/classical liberal, is highly concerned with the development of Reagan's ideas. He portrays Reagan as highly skeptical of government's ability to solve problems and believing in individuals ability to achieve their ends by giving them the freedom to act on their own judgement and receive the consequences, material and otherwise, of their actions. On this note, D'Souza quotes alot of scholars prior to the fall of the Soviet Union on how well it was doing economically, how good its system was, etc... and shows how they were wrong and Reagan's, by contrast, understanding of the economic weakness of Russia. D'Souza concedes that Reagan was not a brilliant thinker but argues that he had the right ideas, and the character to stick to them and put them through in the face of opposition, criticism, attack. He had a vision and what others thought and said about him did not deter him. I agree with some of the earlier reviews, as well as the guy from "Reason Magazine" that D'Souza paints in too broad of strokes and doesn't really portray the weaknesses of Reagan as a man as much as would probably have been accurate. There are passages in the book that make me think that D'Souza's perception of Reagan is slightly overestimating of him, but only slightly. Pleasantly, the book is a good way to pick up on interesting historical happenings of the time period, such as the Iran Contra affair, the Cold War, of course, as well as some of the economic arguments between supply siders and their critics. D'Souza's knowledge of classical liberal political and economic thinking is honed and so it is a pleasure to get these side treats. The book is also fabulously well written, very clear, no waste, to the point, with just enough flesh on the bones to make it a great read. All in all, a really solid effort! -------
Greg Feirman...
Rating:
Summary: Not quite a biography....
Review: This book is more of an analytical biography than a biography per se. D'Souza does not simply recount events in Reagans life, but rather he looks at Reagans ideas, how they affected his leadership and his relationships with the people around him, and has alot of analysis. It is highly reccomended and well worthy of the Gipper.
Rating: 
Summary: Yawn!!
Review: I guess if you are nostalgic for Reagan, this book may make an interesting read. It also may be a good primer for those of you too young to remember those times. I found that I learned nothing new, the writing style was a little stiff, and it just seemed to be a let down from the author's other work. I haven't read the more recent biography of Reagan, "Dutch", which sounded horrible. I don't know if there isn't much to say about Reagan, or if the people who have chosen to write about Reagan have just done a bad job. Come to think about it, Lou Cannon just wrote another biography, which also looks to be pretty bad. Maybe there is something difficult about the subject? I know he has an adviser Martin? something that wrote another book, wow, that was boring too. Well, whatever the case, I haven't seen any really good books about Reagan. Of the mediorce ones, this seems to be the best. I guess I may like Clinton more then I thought. I mean, whatever you think about him, you have to believe that the unofficial biography will be more stimulating.
|
