<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Two presidents not compared often enough
Review: "John Milton Cooper...blends these contrasting and kindred elements into a masterful portrait of two of our most intriguing presidents," David Kennedy in the New York Times Book Review, November 20 1983. TR and Wilson are often considered to be the same, especially in the in the domestic realm. The New Freedom was simply an extension of New Nationalism. But Cooper espouses the differences through analysis of both important domestic debates and the politics of war and internationalism. For anyone interested in studying Roosevelt, Wilson, and the Progressive era this book is an important read.
Rating: 
Summary: An interesting read but requires prior knowledge
Review: I read this book for my history class at The University of San Francisco. It is worth reading if you want a very in depth look at the lives and careers of both Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. The only problem with the book is that it assumes you are already knowledgeable about this era. I found it very helpful to read a history textbook along with the book in order to better understand what was happening at this point in history. Otherwise the book was well written and easy to read. I recommend The Warrior and The Priest to anyone who is interested in the exciting life of TR and his rival Wilson.
Rating:
Summary: Well-reason parallel lives
Review: This is a great work of scholarship dealing with two of the most important figures of the early 20th century. Cooper is able to bring out the differences in the approaches that both men had in setting the US political agenda in the early 20th century. Cooper is always a great treat to read. I must say that the title is somewhat interesting. When looking at Roosevelt or Wilson who is in fact the warrior and who the priest?
Rating:
Summary: Well-reason parallel lives
Review: This is a poor book. Indeed, it is often a bad book. Cooper's idea of a biography comparing Roosevelt and Wilson is a conceit that does not come off. This biography has all the genre's vices. Complex movements like Progressivism are clumsily personalized. Although Cooper is mildly critical of his heroes (particularly their criticisms of each other) he ignores their worst aspects. On Wilson and race: "Wilson belived that blacks were not innately inferior to whites and would eventually, probably in two or three centuries, achieve a measure of economic and political, if not social, equality." (210) I challenge anyone to read Wilson's papers and come up with so emollient a verdict. On Roosevelt's artistic appreciation: "...Roosevelt based his cultural views upon wide cultivation and genuine reflection." (87) Now considering that Roosevelt considered Duchamp trash, viewed the Kreutzer Sonata as obscene and sniffed that James, Dickens, Gorky and Zola were not gentlemen, I beg to differ. Admirers of Roosevelt's foreign policy will not be burdened by any mention of atrocities in the conquest of the Philippines. In fine bipartisan tradition the faked elections in Nicaragua and the massacres in Haiti under Wilson's rule are not mentioned either. Be it Wilson's refusal to pardon Eugene Debs or the dark genocidal streams in Roosevelt's racism, the conservative, reactionary or just downright rotten opinions (on unions, immigration, Mexico, anti-hyphenation) are either ignored or equivocated to death in Cooper's account. Considering America's size, wealth and security, its rise as a world power was almost inevitable after 1865. As such a strictly biographical approach reveals very little. Both presidents were skilled administrators, and especially skilled in belittling liberal causes when they weren't popular, taking credit for them when they were, and trimming one's sails with the conservative tide. As a result they are bestowed the honor and glory that belongs to better and braver men. But one remembers that American history would not be too different if they had never lived and one also remembers not to put one's faith in princes.
Rating:
Summary: ok, but lacks depth and originality
Review: When I picked this up, I thought: hey, why not two bios for the effort of one? Why not indeed: you can't delve deeply enough into these two substantial and complex lives in this context. THere is some useful comparisons made of their careers, but it is way way too ambitious. While you do get many of the factual basics, which were indeed interesting, neither of these past Presidents comes alive. REcommended only for the facts. Look for flavor and pyschological depth elsewhere.
Rating:
Summary: ok, but lacks depth and originality
Review: When I picked this up, I thought: hey, why not two bios for the effort of one? Why not indeed: you can't delve deeply enough into these two substantial and complex lives in this context. THere is some useful comparisons made of their careers, but it is way way too ambitious. While you do get many of the factual basics, which were indeed interesting, neither of these past Presidents comes alive. REcommended only for the facts. Look for flavor and pyschological depth elsewhere.
<< 1 >>
| 
