Few American politicians have enjoyed greater popularity than Ronald Reagan. Humor, charm, good looks, an intuitive feel for national concerns, and an extraordinary ability to speak persuasively to millions of people were major assets. But his fundamental appeal went a blend of Catholic and Protestant, small-town boy and famous entertainer, Horatio Alger and P. T. Barnum, traditional moralist and media celebrity, Reagan spoke for old values in current accents.
Robert Dallek presents a sharply drawn, richly detailed portrait of the man and his politics--from his childhood years through the California governorship to the first years of the presidency. It is an essential guide for all observers of the presidential election of 2000, and a starting point for anyone wanting to discover what the Reagan experience really meant.
Robert A. Dallek is an American historian specializing in the presidents of the United States, including Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Richard M. Nixon. In 2004 he retired as a history professor at Boston University after previously having taught at Columbia University, the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), and Oxford University. He won the Bancroft Prize for his 1979 book Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy, 1932–1945, as well as other awards for scholarship and teaching.
I gave this book 2 out of 5 stars because it was boring and useless. It really didn’t give me a good idea who Ronald Reagan was as president. I learned a few things about him, mainly about his childhood, but I still don’t even know when he was president. I think you had to know more about him before you read this book. I think the author was trying to be as unbiased as possible, but I don’t think he succeeded. So unless you want to know how Robert Dallek feels about Reagan’s political career, I don’t recommend this book.
I read an early edition of Dallek's book, written in the middle of Reagan's presidency. It's fairly skewed against Reagan, clearly written in its time as it misinterprets Reagan as historians would later recognize him and his intentions. Dallek's a great historian but not invulnerable to his own bias.
Foe Pete's Sake! This author thinks that everything about Reagan is bad. I could barely get through it, but since I had so many issues with it, writing the book review was easy.