Rating: 
Summary: A Thank You...
Review: I thank you, Mr. D'Souza, for reminding me how great "great" can be. Though I remember the events and circumstances of President Reagan's two terms, this perspective shows us the historic weave of the fabric that was not evident to us at the time who experienced this unique time in history. This book illustrates what can be done when a real leader arrives on the scene.
Rating:
Summary: One of the 25 most important conservative books
Review: This recent political biography by an outstanding young author will be for future generations the classic study of Reagan written in his lifetime. D'Souza explains the Reagan the liberals (and many conservatives) never understood, and shows why Reagan truly was one of our greatest Presidents.
Rating:
Summary: The Riddle of Reagan
Review: How to understand Ronald Reagan? This biography is the best available guide but still the mystery remains.Many people who read this book (all liberals) will consider themselves Reagan's intellectual superior. How do we reconcile that easy and gratifying self judgement with the reality that we have individually done so little and Reagan did so much. I don't know. I can't explain it. I can't stop thinking about it. Twenty five years after the Second World War we learned that Roosevelt conspired with Churchill to steer the US into war against Hitler. With that realization I considered FDR the American hero of the century. This was true leadership. The President essentially isolated and opposed by so many well respected national leaders takes the nation on a course based on a personal sense of national interest and moral right. Stalin said England gave us time, American gave us money and Russia gave blood. He was wrong, America in the person of Roosevelt also gave the world personal political courage and moral leadership. At the end of the century we can now see that the nation produced another hero in an even more difficult and important struggle. Reagan personnaly led a crusade to destroy international communism and he succeded. I lived through those times and I can hardly believe it. In the seventies Democrats like Jerry Brown and Jimmy Carter (unlike current Democrats, both highly moral men) believed in an era of diminishing expectations. Republicans like Nixon negotiated for Detente because they wanted to buy time for the US as it inevitably declined against the communist world. When Reagan called the Soviet Union the Evil Empire he was called loony. His arms build up was seen a irresponsible and his attempt to provide missle defense was termed a reckless provocation. There were no Democrat allies for this vision and much of the Republican party was uncomfortable with his single mindedness. The media certainly was never sympathic with his agenda to defeat communism. The media delighted in characterizing him as a rather simple former actor who could not grasp the complexities of international relations. And yet his personal agenda prevailed. England without Churchill would have made an accomodation with Hitler. America and the world without Reagan would still have Communism on the ascendancy. Its easy for us to accept the first proposition because we think of Churchill as a monumental intellectual giant. We have trouble with the second proposition because Reagan seems so much less. But both statements are true - we just don't understand Reagan. Maybe we can't. I suspect that Reagan didn't want to be understood. Like Gauss who never published until he could obscure how he reached his results, Reagan seemed to hide his effectiveness behind a screen of affability. The ability to give credit to Reagan is one of the defining traits of our modern citizens. Many liberal Democrats reason that Reagan was stupid, Communism fell, therefore Communism fell spontaneously. Reagan becomes a blind spot that distorts their view of reality. For such people I recommend an alternative syllogism: Reagan was stupid, Communism fell, therefore stupid people can do great things. I don't think Reagan was stupid but he certainly wasn't as smart as Hoover or Carter. Yet the modern Republican party has elevated Reagan above Lincoln as a party hero. They like to forget about Hoover almost as much as the Democrats try to pretend there never was a Carter. It does makes you wonder about the value of intelligence. It makes you wonder about Reagan.
Rating: 
Summary: A worthy tribute to a transformational leader
Review: Mr. D'Souza's book is a rebuttal to all the anti-Reagan revisionist history in the air today. In this respect, the author succeeds splendidly. It is important to remember that before Ronald Reagan, the job desrciption for president was created by Richard Neustadt in "Presidential Power." According to Neustadt's influential work, the presidnent was supposed to be an intellectually brilliant and politically experienced Mr. Fix It. After 1960, when Neustadt's book was published, the presidents from John Kennedy to Jimmy Carter modeled themselves on this premise. The results were mixed, at best. Then came Reagan. He didn't need to prove what an intellectual he was. Because he knew he wasn't. He didn't need to prove that he was a master adminsitrator. Because he wasn't. That's what his aides were for. He didn't need to spend endless hours on the phone persuading relucant congressmen to support his policies. He had the adoration of the American people. In sum, Reagan was the complete opposite of what a president was "supposed" to be. According to Neustadt's updated book, because Reagan didn't follow his prescription for success, he was not successful. Ah, but there's the rub. It would be one thing if Reagan simply did things his own away; the fact that this conservative outsider was perceived as a success makes the pain even more unbearable. Here is where Mr. D'Souza steps in so well. He concludes that Reagan's leadership style - far from an abberation - is the real model for future presidents. Reagan led with conviction, dignity, and true patriotism. Most importantly of all, he left two powerful and beneficial legacies. First, he was the catalyst in the demise of communism, the greatest threat to civilization since Nazism. Second, he started a healthy shift in the American political debate from "socialism lite" to free enterprise and liberty. The reprecusions from these two events are still unfolding to our benefit. Edmund Morris's "Dutch" doesa better job of interpreting Ronald Reagan the man. But if you want to know why Ronald Reagan was a successful, transformational leader you should do yourself a favor and read this fine book.
Rating: 
Summary: Two Bigots Together how wonderful?
Review: well first of all Dinesh D'Souza is a straight up Bigot.i bet his next book will be on Gulliani? Ronald Reagan was a Joke as President.Jessie Ventura is Governer maybe he will be President as well? there was nothing great about Reagan.his civil rights record took everybody back 50 years.he was Overrated.Tip O'neil called him the Dumbest President ever.Right On! Tip.how can you look up to a Man that had Oliver North Lie on TV? Him,North,Bush,&Clinton should have been Cellys with Nixon instead of treated as Heroes.only a fool would Acknowledge this Man as a Heroe.
Rating:
Summary: Eye Opener For An X-Democrat
Review: I was a Democrat in the 70's. Then entered Ronald Reagan. He Made Sense! The government was too big and the taxes too high. I wonder how much more he could have done if the Democratic House/Congress would have listened to him more! I thank Mr Reagan for bringing back my pride in America, my optimism and for being strong so that we remain free! God Bless Ronald Reagan!
Rating:
Summary: Pure Fiction
Review: In 349 B.C., the ancient Athenian orator Demosthenes wrote: "Nothing is so easy as to deceive one's self; for what we wish, we readily believe." How accurately descriptive of D'Souza's hagiography and the legions of Reagan fans who hold it up as the "definitive" Reagan biography. D'Souza's book merely perpetuates the myth that Reagan was a great man and some sort of knowledgable statesman, and the Reagan fans who wish it were so eat it up like pablum. In truth, Reagan had been a shill for corporate America ever since his B movie career collapsed in the early 1950s. His entire political philosophy was based upon variations of the same stock speeches that were written for him during his days as a spokesman for GE in the mid '50s. Rather than a life of "extraordinary leadership," Reagan was a skilled practitioner of political mountebankery. Hardly something or someone to look up at with unadulterated admiration. People who find this book and its thesis credible simply prove Demosthenes right.
Rating:
Summary: Not the best Reagan book, but good
Review: The best one is What I Saw at the Revolution by Peggy Noonan. Souza's includes some more biographic and historic details (but I suspect WAS influenced by Noonan's). More importantly this book preempts much of the heard crticism of Reagan and his policies, indeed of his intellect (BTW, a testimonial that I saw by Jeanne Kirpatrick should put to rest the Reagan-was-dumb charge, if not for closed minds). With the benefit of hindsight it shows how the world has literally been bettered by Reagan and his work, and how it has transformed even Democrats to think anew of the role of government (liberal-tarians). Re: the criticsm of the previous reviewer, the essence "fallacy." If this is indeed a fallacy, then that reviewer is guilty of it as well, for he too labels Reagan with essential terms! In short, if no-one has an "essence" then biographies ARE ALL USELESS! Most of us agree that people do have principles and goals, and to one degree or another, attempt to adhere to and implement them. That is they have essence.
Rating:
Summary: Fallacious
Review: I realize that by writing this review I am opening myself up to attack from all the Reagan worshipers who, like D'Souza, go through life with blinders on. Nevertheless, I feel I must point out what should be obvious. In this book D'Souza commits what is known as the "fallacy of essences," which means that he assumes from the outset that there is an "essence" or a profound inner core of reality within Ronald Reagan that is greater than anything we can know or see from the outside. According to D'Souza, the facts about Reagan as he (D'Souza) interprets them are so significant that they demonstrate the very existence of the so-called "essence" in question. Reagan, says D'Souza, had a common-sense intellect more deep-felt than anything we could possibly know. What bosh! There was nothing deep or profound about Reagan. The man was a simpleton from start to finish, and D'Souza's loving descriptions of the man do nothing to alter that fact. In truth, Reagan just had the good fortune of being elected president at the end of the disastrous Soviet presidency of the senile Leonid Brezhnev, and luck is not a signifier of some mythical internal intellect. This is a readable biography, that is not in question. However, the book tells us far more about D'Souza and the right-wing mythology surrounding Reagan than it does about the man Reagan really was.
Rating:
Summary: DINESH IS A NEO CONSERVATIVE
Review: READERS! BEWARE! KNOW WHO YOU ARE READING! If you are not well-aware of political gamesmanship, you might be seduced by DeSouza. He can write. What you don't know is that he is a WELL-FUNDED NEO-CONSERVATIVE via Dartmouth College. This book on Reagan is just one more outlet for the carefully crafted mechinations of the superrich. Of course they love Reagan and his trickle down economics. It was a ploy to further enrich them! The book is laden with AGENDA because DeSouza has been bought several times over. You will definitely find he has ties to Dartmouth, William F. Buckley, and various superconservative foundations that wine and dine young intellectuals, then use them dress up their inhumane ideas in attractive colors. He's essentially an intellectual terrorist.
| 
