WE ARE OPEN - WEEK TWO - PRESIDENTIAL SERIES: LANDSLIDE - December 8th - December 14th - Chapter Two - No Spoilers, Please

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Bryan wrote: "I liked the Lee Marvin bit about him drunk on set and doing the death scene.

Matthew, the Wyman-Reagan relationship is interesting. If you read Perlstein's newest book, Wyman did bad-mouth Reagan..."

Bryan what did you mean by got graduate courses?

[Justin]

Bentley wrote: "Matthew, that is what I have tried to do since the messages in the mid sixties. We are trying to focus on a comparison of Reagan and LBJ in terms of the kind of men they were. I think it is best ..."

Thanks Bentley, enjoyed the article. Always been a Paul Kengor fan but had never read the article. The article lends credence to Darman's position on Reagan being a bore at home probably and worried too much about politics whereas Jane, I'm sure, wanted to be more out in the limelight.

by Paul Kengor

This is a solid book on Reagan.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

You are welcome - when the author's photo is missing - you only have to add (no photo) at the end. Thank you for pointing out another good book on Reagan. I think Reagan and LBJ had one other similarity - they needed an adoring wife. One other thing which I feel was the primary nail in the coffin aside from the death of a child was that Jane was vastly more successful as an actress than Reagan ever was as an actor. For a guy with a big ego - this must have been difficult and I am sure he was difficult about it with Jane. Her star was brighter. However, I want to add this - he did not want the divorce and was devastated by it.

by Paul Kengor (no photo)

[Teri]

Very interesting chapter on Reagan. I never thought of him as being sad or depressed, so this was definitely enlightening to me. I always remembered him as being a happy man with a smile. Even when he was talking seriously on TV during the presidency, I thought of him as a kind, gentle man. I think that is because he had a soft voice. I've always thought of LBJ as strong and gruff, compared to Reagan.

I had to go watch Reagan's Tear Down That Wall Speech to see if I still have that impression. (I do)

Ronal Reagan's Tear Down That Wall Speech

Reagan was the president that told jokes and stories during his speeches and seemed to know how to connect with the public. Here's another neat clip of Reagan telling some of these jokes/stories:

The Best of Ronald Reagan

Then compare to the more stoic and serious Johnson:

LBJ Voting Rights Speech

Even when he is talking about his personal life:

LBJ Cotulla, Texas Speech

I'm sure part of it is that during Johnson's time, the president was expected to be more business and less human, but I think that Kennedy was also able to connect more, like Reagan did.

I think the author is doing a fine job showing the differences (despite some commonality) to the two men.

[Theresa]

I am still trying to figure Reagan out. it is a little disconcerting that the president appears to have been so disinterested in his job. i am trying to reserve judgment until I have read more.

LBJ, however, was a complete micromanager. I have read quite a lot about him and for the most part I can't understand why people stood for it. LBJ was known to provide good jobs for people in return for what he called "loyalty". what it actually was was complete servitude and devotion. he was a master manipulator and controller.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Teri wrote: "Very interesting chapter on Reagan. I never thought of him as being sad or depressed, so this was definitely enlightening to me. I always remembered him as being a happy man with a smile. Even w..."

Great post Teri but maybe you could place this on the glossary thread as well. So it does not get lost from one thread to another.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Theresa wrote: "I am still trying to figure Reagan out. it is a little disconcerting that the president appears to have been so disinterested in his job. i am trying to reserve judgment until I have read more.

L..."

Yes, I agree but he sure could get things done as a President.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Getting their marriage license - he looks quite smitten


1940 Jane Wyman and Ronald Reagan

[Teri]

LBJ did indeed know how to control people. He was known for conducting a lot of business at his ranch in Texas. The people he met there were on his "turf" and he knew how to handle people there.

Theresa wrote: "I am still trying to figure Reagan out. it is a little disconcerting that the president appears to have been so disinterested in his job. i am trying to reserve judgment until I have read more.

L..."

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

For sure Teri.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

There is a lot here guys - music, make the president's list, respond to the discussion questions that are listed or post your own quotes and discuss from Chapter Two. Compare and contrast the style of the two presidents.

You can also discuss any part of the book that came before.

[Helga]

Bentley, I really love how you humanized the Presidents with your sections on their pets. I was enlightened about Ronald Reagen from chapter 2 about his acting career. I will admit I never saw any of his movies or shows. I did not feel sorry for him and his fall from being a movie actor. I think he was ready to move on. He was washed up.
For the timeline, In December 1963, my husband’s cousin, Stanley Donen, directed Charade with Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn, an excellent movie which came out when LBJ became president.

[Bryan]

Bentley wrote: "Bryan what did you mean by got graduate courses? ..."

Hollywood is all about public relations and building a fan-base, so Reagan had a great opportunity to learn some important political skills. I think he also had a natural talent for it, as well.

[David]

When reading this chapter, I couldn't help but think of the 80's Wendy's commercial, "Where's the Beef!". Reagan seems to be more character than substance. Worried more about appearances than anything else. However, I thought one of the telling choices of his career was the choice to go to the TV medium over films. While back in that day, it was considered a step down from being a film actor, he very well may have cemented his image to many Americans by doing this rather than continuing down the B-Movie path. This familiarity may have helped with his public image when running for political office later on.

[Bryan]

So true, David, his work for the General Electric (GE) show gave him some great political skills as he visited all these GE factories around the country. He would give a speech, and then talk with workers. It was a big boost for his political life.

[Ann D]

I am a politics junky, but a lot of people could care less. It's not surprising that Jane Wyman was bored by her husband's involvement in politics. They seemed to have little in common. Ron was used to getting the best looking girl and if he didn't get to keep her in this case, welcome to the world of the rest of the human race.

[Katy]

David wrote: "When reading this chapter, I couldn't help but think of the 80's Wendy's commercial, "Where's the Beef!". Reagan seems to be more character than substance. Worried more about appearances than any..."

So is this the true Reagan, or is our author showing his bias?

[Ann D]

David wrote: "When reading this chapter, I couldn't help but think of the 80's Wendy's commercial, "Where's the Beef!". Reagan seems to be more character than substance. Worried more about appearances than any..."

What do you all think? Could Reagan have had much of an impact without those Hollywood good looks?

It seems to me that he often took credit himself or was given kudos by others when he didn't deserve it.

Regan liked to tell exaggerated stories from an early age. According to Rick Perlstein in The Invisible Bridge: The Fall of Nixon and the Rise of Reagan (pp. 43-48), Reagan claimed that he had put 30 notches on a log, each one representing someone he had saved as a high school life guard. That must have been one incredibly dangerous place to swim!

He was definitely a good speaker who entranced people with his positive, black and white world view, but he was not responsible for the fall of the Soviet empire, as many have suggested. It was rotten internally and efforts to reform it backfired.

Having been very critical of Reagan, I do have to say something positive. I am impressed by how hard he worked as an actor and as a representative of GE. He was ambitious, but you don't get very far unless you are.



by Rick Perlstein

[Martin]

That's a fair observation, David. Reagan did exude character, not that LBJ didn't. Just different flavors.

It's not the first time that a character, with some executive experience at the state level, took the White House over an arguably far more intelligent incumbent.

The incumbent was a highly successful businessman, and other worldly intelligent engineer, who had a gilded resume when elected to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. He was easily defeated by a personality so strong that it was said one had to wash him off one's self after attending a dinner party with him.

That was Herbert Hoover and FDR.

The contrast between Reagan and Carter is not too dissimilar. It takes a little more intelligence to command a nuclear sub than deliver lines opposite a chimp.

But I think in both cases, the better candidate won. This is not to say that Reagan was on the same plain as FDR. He clearly wasn't. But in both instances, the prevailing candidate was the better politician. And that's what the job of president is.

There are other interesting parallels. Hoover actually sought FDR's opinion and involvement before the Democrat was sworn in, which of course would have been a political disaster. FDR didn't bite, but he did adopt some important policies of Hoover's that became part of the New Deal's foundation. (See the Oxford American History's Freedom from Fear).

Reagan also was swept into office by an electorate reacting to the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. And like FDR, he adopted a key element of Carter's economic policies by keeping Paul Volcker as Chairman of the Federal Reserve. It was Volcker's throttle on interest rates that brought inflation down and make economic recovery possible during Reagan's administration. By the bye, Reagan, similar to his "tear down this wall" nonsense, tried similar pleas with Volcker to no avail. Volcker leveraged his independence and did what was needed and was impervious to Reagan's politically motivated pleas.

Another interesting point is that the inflation confronting the incoming Reagan was actually rooted in LBJ's administration as noted earlier here.

But the 2008 financial crisis that Obama confronted at the outset of his administration was rooted in Reagan's business philosophies (depending on how loosely you use the word philosophies) and adoption of the Laugher, ooops, Laffer Curve, a graphic sketched on a cocktail napkin in a Georgetown Bar that illustrated trickle down, or market driven economies.

Reagan played a key role in bringing on the 2008 disaster by appointing Alan Greenspan chairman of the Fed to replace Volcker. Greenspan, who demonstrated great devotion while sitting at the knee of the crazed Russian author Ayn Rand, was Reagan's lasting instrument in implementing his "free" markets approach to managing the economy.

LBJ, on the other hand, was brought into office by the assassin's bullet and inherited JFK's cabinet, including advisors on Vietnam who unanimously supported escalating Vietnam.

Where JFK had what it took to be a minority of one in opposing escalation, Johnson did not. The politician from Texas, among other reasons, thought he could not be characterized as being soft on the commies.

by David M. Kennedy

[Martin]

Ann - Couldn't agree more with you about the stories that have been built up around Reagan, especially the whopper about how he toppled the Soviet.

[John]

Some (just a few -I know there are more, I just wanted to add some to this discussion) alternative viewpoints that discuss Reagan, Gorbachev and the end of Cold War:
this article from a British historian: http://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-...
and from a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School
https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=44...

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

John these are great but since there are more than one book can you place this wonderful post in the bibliography because otherwise it will get lost just on this one thread even though the goodreads software will populate this thread with the author and book cover.

Thank you so much. Great post.

[Bryan]

Darman hints at the difficult time to be an actor in the 1950s and 1960s, just at the time Reagan was struggling. (Darman talks about WWII changing people's taste on p. 43). With TV, it made things harder.

I discovered that Reagan did a Las Vegas show in 1950, and a letter in 1962, he had to turn down a political speech because Universal was under new owners (MCA) and it was crazy to pin down schedules. However, by 1963, his popularity for public speaking was growing. Yet, he was struggling to find a new career. I wonder if he shared that a lot with Nancy...

by Kiron K. Skinner (no photo)

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Despite his gregariousness in public view - he strikes me as a loner and a very private person.

[John]

I think I edited it correctly- I separated the books and posted them to the bibliography thread. Please let me know if not correct. :)

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

You did a great John - super job.

[John]

Also, even though I am really just starting the book, I think it is helpful to think of both men in the context of this time period (I think Bentley alluded to this in an earlier post) and what was going on, rather than ultimately what will be- even though it certainly is food for thought how this time period actually influenced them, Reagan later and ultimately the country. I find it less than helpful to disparage either via political bias. That can be tough with some people, I know, but important to recognize that it exists and do our best to filter it out and look at the information, the people and the history.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Very true John and an excellent point to remember - we have humans who are presidents who have strengths and weaknesses and sometimes we forget that.

[Vincent]

So this chapter went over the misery and uncertainty in the country following the murder of JFK.

Then it very interestingly sets the posture for Ronald Reagan at that time by reviewing his earlier life, career and ideology path.

I guess that I was not thinking that Reagan was in career trouble. It is interesting that he "needed" his political career to continue his economic life.

This of course had been the needed career choice of LBJ.

This of course was not necessary for JFK.

I think we have almost more reading in our commentaries than the book and I am not getting to read all of your notes - sorry

I am also not getting to click all the links.

I will try to go back and catch up over the holidays at the end of this month.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Very true Vince - he was a washed up movie actor.

You should go through the notes Vince - on this thread there is a lot of fun stuff and you will miss it. And the links are great too. You should try to watch the videos - will bring back a lot of memories I am sure.

That is good - no rush but I think you will enjoy them.

[Peter]

I think there's an interesting contrast between the two men in how they expressed their ambition.

LBJ had to dominate every situation - he was literally the kid who took his ball and went home if he couldn't be the pitcher (see Caro's first volume) and LBJ wanted to be President of the US from a very early age.

Reagan was ambitious too, as Darman makes clear, but he seemed less focused in his ambition.

Robert A. Caro

[Jill]

John wrote: "Also, even though I am really just starting the book, I think it is helpful to think of both men in the context of this time period (I think Bentley alluded to this in an earlier post) and what was..."

Thanks, John. It is too easy to fall into political theologies and start throwing stones when comparing two presidents of different parties.

@Ann....I think Regan's ambition was partially shaped by his experience as an actor........if you are not ambitious, you don't make it. Not that he was a top drawer star because he wasn't but the struggle to get roles takes a burning ambition. It is the public that decides if you are a "star". He fit into the role of President easily and was finally accepted by the public as a "star". He had found his niche!!

[Martin]

John's comment and article he posted got me to thinking (danger, danger, danger as Steve Irwin used to warn). Partisan shills aside, those who argue that Reagan was largely to credit for toppling the Soviet Union, I think tend to base their argument on Reagan's policies and how they affected the Soviets. There seems to be an assumed causal effect. It's not too dissimilar to saying that Reagan went outside, did a rain dance, then it rained; Reagan made it rain.

The obvious flaw in the argument is that it fails to take into account the very admonition that more often than not the context around a president, especially events over which he has no control, actually move the man and events more often than not. For instance, the arch conservative Richard Nixon had a most liberal record of accomplishments, sometimes to a fault (wage and price controls). Those who take this tack factor in events such as the plummeting price of oil and internal politics of the Soviet (Gorbachev's attempt to open the door to reform just a crack).

I can't think of another way that someone who is evolutionarily developed to the point of assuming a vertical posture an come to the conclusion that Reagan toppled the Soviet Union, excepting partisanship. Of course, I maintain the right to be wrong. ; )

[Ann D]

John,
Thank you for posting that article by British professor Michael Cox on Reagan's role in ending the Cold War: http://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-...
I found it very balanced and interesting.

Jill,
Good point about the connection between striving to be an actor and the necessity for ambition.

Reading about both Reagan and Johnson, I started to wonder, what is the relationship between ambition and narcissism? Is narcissism a necessary component of ambition? I can see narcissism both in the exaggerated stories that Reagan liked to tell about himself and in the shockingly bad way Johnson treated subordinates. Or were both men just trying to cover up very deep insecurity?

[Ann D]

Martin,
Reagan didn't topple the Soviet Union, but maybe we should give him credit for seriously negotiating with Gobarchev on arms reductions.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Peter wrote: "I think there's an interesting contrast between the two men in how they expressed their ambition.

LBJ had to dominate every situation - he was literally the kid who took his ball and went home if..."

I wonder about that - he seemed more inwardly focused like a laser beam but in a different way than LBJ who let everybody know his intent.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Martin wrote: "John's comment and article he posted got me to thinking (danger, danger, danger as Steve Irwin used to warn). Partisan shills aside, those who argue that Reagan was largely to credit for toppling t..."

Reagan as a film star had the ability to manipulate and create the visual with what he wanted his message to be.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Ann wrote: "John,
Thank you for posting that article by British professor Michael Cox on Reagan's role in ending the Cold War: http://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-......"

Maybe a little bit of both Ann and you are right he at least brought up the subject with Gorbarchev.

[Martin]

Ann wrote: "Martin,
Reagan didn't topple the Soviet Union, but maybe we should give him credit for seriously negotiating with Gobarchev on arms reductions."

I think that's fair and balanced. I also found the Brit prof's essay credible. Perhaps because I had a little red with a heaping plate of pasta for dinner tonight, I'd even go so far as to allow that Reagan's policies played a contributing role in the collapse of the Soviet, subordinate to other more primary causes. But even top drawer tiramisu couldn't make me concede further than that.

[John]

I think that any successful President, not to mention politician, has to be a manipulator on some level to advance any kind of agenda. You can call it charm, arm twisting or persuasion - but it is all a form of manipulation. LBJ was a master manipulator. The LBJ tapes and photos show someone who knew how use his force of personality, profanity, invasion of personal space, calling in favors and threats to bring votes in Congress, even to get Earl Warren, Russell and Dulles to serve on the Warren Commission together.

As for Reagan and the end of the Cold War- I will just add that it is incorrect to infer that because Reagan was not the total cause of the end, that his work and influence was NO cause. Respectfully, I think such a view is not helpful and born more out of partisanship and rhetoric rather than history or logic. Historians do not say "all the reason" or "no cause whatsoever". His influence cannot be discounted, especially in the Eastern Block countries- just ask Lech Walesa:
http://www.thenews.pl/1/10/Artykul/58...
And
http://www.tommyduggan.com/VP070204le... (this is a transcript I found- the WSJ article is subscription only)
Or any group of people - including my own friends and family from former East Germany and the former Soviet Georgia, and a fellow history professor and colleague from Romania. Not just the US and Reagan's personal and vocal support, but the economic policies, and negotiations and relationship with Gorbachev- but yes, even the "tear down this wall nonsense" - all had a profound affect and all of that along WITH Thatcher, Gorbachev and his efforts within the USSR, cultural exchanges, economic growth of the US and economic decline of the USSR (Afghanistan, etc), and yes, even nuclear arms talks and military buildup all played a role. Together. Reagan is a part of it.

[John]

Excellent point Bryan about his stint at GE and work traveling the country meeting workers, owners etc
By the way - I hope I didn't come off to anyone as antagonistic in my previous comment- that was not my intent at all.

[Martin]

Don't forget the plummeting price of oil and economic rot that is a part of Russia ' s DNA, predominant contributors in the estimation of many, if not most, of credible analysts and historians. You're not antagonistic in the least.

[John]

Excellent point about the oil collapse Martin, and one often overlooked- something that factors into Putin's current agenda and the geopolitics of Russia in general I believe.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

No John you did not - I think you made some good points as well - I always enjoy your posts. They are very reasoned. But I do think out of the two I could see what LBJ wanted to accomplish - he told you. Reagan from my viewpoint watching his speeches aside from the Goldwater endorsement which in some parts was mean spirited was much more obtuse. I think when listening to Reagan and his old speeches, I felt more manipulated than when listening to LBJ.

I think Reagan tried to craft his message with media tricks and inserting jokes which I think were meant to deflect what he was trying to accomplish and make it more palatable. He always had an angle. I think I felt more comfortable with the in your face style of LBJ but I think some folks like to be finessed and I think Reagan did that well. He did have his accomplishments but there were so many theatrics surrounding everything he said and did that for me - his messages would have seemed diluted and I would have felt that he as a speaker was trying to manage me. I personally would not have taken to him as President but as a public speaker and presenter he was entertaining.

[John]

I can definitely see that Bentley.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Here is an article which I just came across which is written by Joe Klein for Time Magazine - some folks love Joe Klein - some do not.

Anyway if you do not know who Joe Klein is - here is a write-up:

Joe Klein

Joe Klein is TIME's political columnist and author of six books, most recently Politics Lost. His weekly TIME column, "In the Arena," covers national and international affairs. In 2004 he won the National Headliner Award for best magazine column.



The next frame of reference that I want to point out to the readers is that this article was actually written in 2004 but since we are looking back at Reagan - it does not matter.

Anyway I was intrigued by the article because I felt similarly to Klein after watching and listening to Reagan in action:

Here is the article:

The Secrets of Reagan's Success
By JOE KLEIN Sunday, June 06, 2004

I interviewed Ronald Reagan once, on an airplane, during the 1980 presidential campaign. I imagined myself an aggressive young reporter in those days, and I had prepared a series of incendiary questions that I have long since forgotten. Reagan was wearing a brown suit; his red foulard was tied in a Windsor knot. His hair swooped dramatically; his cheeks were an odd wax-museum rouge. We shook hands and came out fighting. At least I did. He cocked his head, smiled and flicked me off his sleeve.

An entirely unnerving experience, but not untypical. Reagan's sunny opacity was legendary, especially when it came to relations with the press. His discipline was legendary too. On the trail that year, the press corps would sometimes leave the room when Reagan began to speak and play liar's poker in the hall, a designated notetaker remaining behind in the unlikely event that the man actually said something new.

With Reagan, it was always so rote and mechanical that it was easy to miss the big picture. It was easy to be infuriated by media whiz Michael Deaver's brilliantly insidious manipulation of the media, and lose the simple power of Reagan's message. Deaver, famously, didn't care what the network reporters said about the President as long as Reagan was pictured in upbeat, patriotic settings, preferably surrounded by American flags. The pictures, he knew, were far more powerful than the words. The gauzy, Morning in America mythmaking apparatus was going full tilt from the moment Reagan entered the White House.

Unlike other Presidents—except, perhaps, for Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Jackson—Reagan came to power as the leader of an ideological movement: in his case, a fierce conservatism forged and tempered by decades of disdain from the nation's moderate media and political establishment. In retrospect, the movement provided a necessary corrective for the slowly corroding industrial-age liberalism favored by the Democrats who controlled Congress. Reagan's followers were so eager for success that they were willing to tolerate some flagrant inconsistencies in his governance. His big 1981 tax cut was followed by two years of large, if undramatized, tax increases. He didn't shrink the size of the government (Bill Clinton was the only recent President to do that). Reagan was a champion of the religious right, but rarely attended church and never paid much more than lip service to the right-to-life movement. He was a critic of government waste, but routinely lavished more money on the military than the Pentagon asked for—and he stubbornly insisted on funding an utterly preposterous missile-defense program that his detractors, and eventually his supporters, called Star Wars.

As it happened—as Hollywood would have seen fit to script it—the only people aside from Reagan who really believed in Star Wars were the military leadership of the Soviet Union. The Zap! Pow! Bam! comic-book defense strategy reinforced Moscow's growing despair about the future and hastened the end of the cold war. And that, finally, is what has proved most galling to the Gipper's ideological opponents: his glossy Hollywood optimism proved more supple than the professional pessimism of the intellectual left. Ultimately, Reagan's sloppy and often insensitive domestic governance will have little impact on his place in history. His willingness to break the law and defy Congress by funding the contras in Nicaragua and surreptitiously attempting to trade arms for hostages with Iran—these will be footnotes as well. Reagan will mostly be remembered for his unyielding opposition to the Soviet Union, for his willingness to call a regime that murdered at least 40 million of its citizens "evil."

In fact, I didn't understand how truly monumental, and morally important, Reagan's anticommunist vision was until I visited the Soviet Union in 1987. My first night there, I was escorted to the Bolshoi Ballet by two minders from the U.S.-Canada Institute. The Russians were thrilled that I had figured out the Cyrillic alphabet and was able to read the program. The young woman on my left rewarded me with a smile—a rare public act in that terrifying regime—and a whispered encouragement: reform was coming. Glasnost and perestroika, she assured me, were real. The minder on my left, a chunky young man, then nudged me with his elbow. "Ronald Reagan. Evil empire," he whispered with dramatic intensity, and shot a glance down to his lap where he had hidden two enthusiastic thumbs up. "Yes!"

Source: Time Magazine
http://content.time.com/time/printout...

by Joe Klein

[Martin]

How many left hands does this joker have?

[Cary]

Bentley wrote: "Quote concerning Work Ethics - LBJ - Prologue

"Johnson was among the most hyperactive executives the White House had ever seen, always seeking to put his fingerprints on every scrap of administrat..."

I think all three go hand in hand…he was a workaholic that micro-managed anything and anyone around him so that he could be known by the people as the greatest president ever. I will go as far as to say that these traits in him came out more extreme after Kennedy’s death due to a buildup of feeling left out of the picture for so long. The manner in which Bobby treated Johnson after he returned to the White House from Dallas and the cold reception by Kennedy’s secretary added fuel to the fire.

[Mark]

First off, I find this comment thread very interesting, but seriously lacking in balance of political viewpoints, which is really too bad.

I like the contrast of the two personalities so far, but I will say I feel that the contrast is incomplete to this point so I am excited to see him continue.

Reagan is a hard man to figure out. To this point in the book, the way the author portrays Reagan almost feels like he is a bit of an introvert, though he does appear to have some obvious extroverted qualities. As an introvert myself, I feel this book (and a lot of comments on this thread) has painted many introverted characteristics he may had in a misunderstood light.

[Michael]

Martin wrote: "Ann - Couldn't agree more with you about the stories that have been built up around Reagan, especially the whopper about how he toppled the Soviet."

I am finding comments like this a little interesting. We seem to be taking Reagan to task for not living up to his billing i.e. he did not bring down the Soviet. I liked Reagan and believe that he was a good President. However, I liked Carter as well but I do not believe he made a good president. But, can any one man really measure up to the office if they do not have good people around them? We have had many comments along this line Reagan did not fit his billing with regard to what he is credited for in office, however, I believe where Reagan did shine was in the selection of those with whom he surrounded himself. Every President has shown some form of weakness. In Overcoming the Dark Side of Leadership, McIntosh makes the point that many of the things that make one a strong leader can form the very weaknesses that can potentially rob us of our effectiveness. I look up to Reagan for many of the things that were accomplished during his time in office. At the same time a good friend of my mother's worked for Reagan in at the Screen Actor's Guild and did not have much good to say about him. Somewhere in the middle, I would suggest, lies the truth.

Gary L. McIntosh(no photo)