Customer Reviews

President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime

5 star:		(18)
4 star:		(16)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(9)

 

 

The first thing to say is that this book is not a biography. Almost nothing of Reagan's life prior to 1980 is discussed, and the assassination attempt and the cancer surgery are barely mentioned. This is, instead, an account of the Reagan presidency: how the decisions were made and how policy was executed. Reagan is a difficult man to write a balanced book about, but Cannon has succeeded. He examines Reagan's style, his strengths and weaknesses, his successes and failures, without assuming that Reagan was either a hero or a scoundrel. Cannon's explanations are invariably thoughtful, intelligent, and well researched. My only criticism is that the book seems to focus excessively heavily on just a couple of cases: namely the bombing of the Marines in Lebanon and the Iran-contra affair. Many equally important events get much less attention. Despite that, the book is probably the best account of the Reagan presidency which we have, and I would have given it 4 1/2 stars if Amazon allowed that.

Reagan's campaign autobiography is titled _Where's the Rest of Me?_, based on a line from one of his movies. Unfortunately, Cannon has amputated a lot of Reagan in the second volume of his biography. (The other volume is Governor Reagan, and it is much, much better.)

Much of the book is based on leaks, kiss-and-tell interviews, and the various Iran-Contra reports. As a result, the book is not a fair picture of Reagan but is really the revenge of administration officials. As a result, the book has a lot of inside information, but Cannon has not put it in context.

Even worse, there is very little of Reagan in the book. Most of the material describes what Reagan's staff is doing to each other, and there is plenty of in-fighting. There's very little of Reagan's thoughts or actions. For example, you get David Stockman's understandably bitter view of economic policy, but there is almost no discussion of the longest postwar economic boom, except an attempt to debunk it. Mostly he portrays Reagan as asleep and uncomprehending. It is highly telling that Cannon has not cited in his bibliography any documents from the Reagan library. He only seems to quote Reagan's diary when it was used by the Tower Board during its investigation of Iran-Contra. So this is a book about Reagan's chiefs of staff, counselors, and a few cabinet secretaries. They are interesting people, but it's not a Reagan bio.

My final complaint is that the book is written in stream-of-consciousness. Cannon describes whatever events he thinks of next, so there is little overall organization to the book. He jumps years between paragraphs. For instance, he doesn't mention the air-traffic controller's strike until he is discussing the re-election campaign, when it has only a tenuous connection to the matter at hand. Major events are hardly covered at all, such as the assassination attempt. So I still have no overall understanding of the themes and organization of Reagan's presidency.

Nonetheless, the book does have some strengths. Cannon is an interesting writer, so you'll enjoy his prose. He also has a lot of interesting inside information gained by his years as a reporter for the Washington Post and many years reporting on Reagan in California. For example, he seems to have a good understanding of Nancy Reagan, probably because Michael Deaver was a key source.

Also, he provides insightfuly analysis about Iran-Contra, the MX missile deployment, the 1984 re-election, and the first budget. His discussion of the different types of intelligence and the ones that were strengths for Reagan is very useful.

Note that even the revised version of the book ends with Reagan leaving the presidency in 1989. It also begins with him taking office in 1981.

Overall, I CANNOT recommend the book. It might be a good supplement if you already understand Reagan's presidency well. But if this is the only book you read about him, you'll be left in confusion and with a biased portrait by a reporter who mostly seems to disparage Reagan.

In this book, Lou Cannon expounds the liberal view of Ronald Reagan's presidency better than any other author the reader is likely to encounter. In doing so, he portrays Reagan as a likeable, though simple minded, actor who knew little or nothing about government, economics, and world affairs and cared even less. He contends that by standing where he was told, i.e. "hitting his marks," and by saying his lines correctly, Reagan, like the Wizard of Oz, managed to fool those who could not, as Cannon could, see behind the curtain.

This is an interesting view and one which the author takes great pains to support through a seemingly inexhaustible stream of supporting evidence -- a snippet of conversation here, an opinion told in confidence there, another reporters editorial, an anonymous "leak," etc. The, most likely selected, evidence is so one sided that if this was the only book which a reader ever read concerning President Reagan, he or she would have to conclude that the Reagan presidency was a disaster; that Ronald Reagan was an abject failure as president; that everything good which happened during his administration was someone else's idea and, in most instances, happened without Reagan's knowledge; and that every negative episode during his term was Reagan's fault -- no matter that Ronald Reagan dominated the 1980s and that his administration was one of the most successful of the twentieth century.

Given the information set forth herein, it must be admitted, however, that, as a manager, Reagan clearly had his faults. But just as surely, he must have done something right (see "Reagan on Leadership: Executive Lessons from the Great Communicator" by James M. Strock). It has been said, for example that Reagan didn't understand the mechanics of government, that he never put his hands on the levers of power, and that, unlike Jimmy Carter, who gripped those levers tightly, he was a "no hands" manager. Perhaps this is true, but Reagan's policies did bring America out of a recession which was the natural result of Carter's failed presidency, he did restore America's faith in itself, he did rebuild America's military so as to bring the Soviet Union to the bargaining table, he did bring about the first reduction in nuclear weapons, and he did facilitate the break up of the Soviet Union. All in all, not bad. Not bad at all.

What did I like best about this book? I liked the fact that, rather than resort to name calling, as most liberals do, the author took great pains to substantiate his opinions. I also liked the author's treatment of the Iran/Contra Affair and Reagan's negotiations with the Soviet Union, Chapters 19, 20, & 21.

What did I like the least? Let me count the ways. I really didn't appreciate the author's premise that Ronald Reagan was simply an actor playing the part of president. Neither did I appreciate the fact that Reagan was given very little credit and too much blame. It also seemed to me that the author concentrated on the negatives, either ignoring or sloughing over any positives, even going so far as to turn many positives into negatives (the general liberal approach). I also sensed that the author, although fair when it didn't matter, was an unabashed liberal. At least he always sided with the liberal view and seemingly couldn't understand the conservative view. I was also upset by the fact that Cannon appeared to hold Reagan to a much higher standard than he likely would hold any other president. For example: How many presidents know the names of all the world's leaders and have a sense of the history of all nations great and small? How many truly understand all the mechanisms of government? And, how many can put names to all the faces who work for them? I was also perturbed by the fact that Cannon continually harped on the fact that Reagan relied on 4x6 cue cards. Was he unaware that before becoming president, and early in his presidency, Reagan wrote all his own speeches, developed his own form of short hand notation, and personally transcribed it onto his 4/6 cue cards? If so, he never mentioned it. And I was also put off by Cannon's continual claim that Reagan relied so heavily on his advisors and that his aids always made sure that when he traveled abroad everything was orchestrated such that the President was shown in the best possible light. What president doesn't rely on his advisors and what president doesn't want to be shown in the best possible light? It also bothered me that many of Cannon's sources seemed to be the administration's "leakers" and that in his discourse he treated those leakers more kindly than he did the rest, i.e. the conservatives. But, as an aside: let me say this. After reaching this conclusion, It also occurred to me that McFarlane, Poindexter, and North were likely the only ones privy to information concerning the Iran/Contra Affair. Otherwise, that information would surely have been leaked to Cannon and the Washington Post long before it ever became public knowledge.

In any event, this is certainly a well thought out and well documented book which should be of some historical value. If nothing else, it has to be taken as further evidence that historians will be studying and attempting to understand Ronald Reagan, his administration, and his complex personality for many years to come. So, in my view: although this is a big book, it is well worth reading, but I'd do so with an open mind.

After being severely disappointed by the work Morris spent a decade working on--I re-read this book. It is very well written, and unbiased account of the Reagan Presidency and Reagan the man. Lou Cannon didn't need to insert himself into the story to make this book work. History will point to this as the definitive Reagan Presidency biography and Morris may be relegated the ash-heap of poor authorship. As a journalist who covered Reagan as governor of California and as President, Cannon has some interesting insights on a complex Presidency.

Two years ago, as part of my efforts at continuing self-education, I set myself a goal: to read a biography of every President of the United States. The latest addition to the list of Presidential biographies I've read is "President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime," by Lou Cannon. Here is an interesting and often controversial look at the man who became the 40th President of the United States.

"President Reagan" is not a biography in the traditional sense. Instead of covering the life and times of Ronald Reagan, giving an account of his early life, his first career as a movie star, and his political rise to the top, Lou cannon concentrates on the years 1980-1988 - those years when Reagan served as our Nation's Chief Executive.

Cannon, a reporter for the "Washington Post" for over 30 years, covered Ronald Reagan since the 1970's, when Reagan was governor of California. Cannon was well acquainted with Reagan and his closest advisors, having forged a friendship with all of them. Cannon had unparalleled access to how Ronald Reagan and his team worked, both in Sacramento and in Washington, DC. As a result, he was well positioned to write a book like "President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime."

When I bought this book, I expected a long an detailed account of Reagan's two terms as President. I hoped the book would be filled with entertaining anecdotes of what the Reagan White House was like, and with an analysis of the impact of the Reagan presidency on history. I got what I expected, but not in the "way" I expected. And therein lies my problem with "President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime."

Cannon paints an abysmal picture of Ronald Reagan as President. The entire book is founded upon the premise that Reagan was emotionally and intellectually unprepared to assume the nation's highest office. By the time he assumed office, the septuagenarian Reagan is totally disinterested in the day-to-day affairs of running the country. He permits Cabinet members with rival agendas to battle it out, and does nothing to resolve internal political conflicts. Briefings from his advisors are largely ignored; Reagan actually falls asleep in many meetings! When briefing others, reads from a carefully prepared script, written by advisors on index cards. When asked to deviate from set-piece situation, Reagan flounders. All of these problems eventually lead to conflict and confusion in government policy, especially in the are of foreign affairs.

Cannon gives a number of concrete examples of how government policy was hampered by Reagan's management style. Because he delegated authority to his inner circle of advisors completely, his top advisors - Cabinet members all - acted almost like independent agents within their purviews of power. Results were often disastrous. Budgets spiraled out of control. Arms flowed into Nicaragua. U.S. Marines were killed in Lebanon; and American policy toward terrorism in the Middle East, despite being stated unequivocally as "We will never negotiate with terrorists," was inconsistent.

Reagan constantly shows his lack of a grasp on public affairs in public. Reporters ask questions; Reagan stumbles, stutters, and frequently gives answers that are factually wrong.

When I finished "President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime," I had decidedly mixed feelings. It is a very well written book. Cannon's text is sharp, lively, and interesting. It's also easy to understand, containing none of the "stuffiness" that accompanies many political biographies. It is also very well researched.

My problem with the book stems from having my preconceived notions of Ronald Reagan shattered so bluntly. Now that I've finished reading "President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime," I am pondering: given his popularity and the manifold successes achieved by his administration... was Ronald Reagan really "that" bad a President?

Although I was never a huge fan of Reagan, I tend to think he was actually a pretty good Chief Executive. It's difficult for me to imagine that he lacked even the most rudimentary political and management skills necessary for a successful presidency.

Perhaps the answer to why Reagan was the way he was portrayed in this book lies not with his indifference toward policy making, or managing the executive branch of government. Perhaps the answer lies in the tragic situation in which Ronald Reagan now exists. Perhaps, unknown to him, his wife and children, his advisors, and the public at large, Reagan was already suffering from the degenerative disease that has now completely robbed him of his memory.

What a pity Lou Cannon didn't explore this possibility.

MY VERDICT: a good, solid, readable book that will please some and dismay others. On balance, a fair assessment of Ronald Reagan... well worth reading.

Canon was the most authoritative columnist and reporter on the Reagan Administration while it played before us. This biography of his presidency will hold up particularly as we get farther away from the events and our own prejudices about this accomplished politician who was praised as a savior and scorned as a dunce. Canon dispels the notion of Reagan as a Johnny-come-lately to politics. Very different from Richard Nixon who remembered every political event of his life or a policy wonk like Bill Clinton, Reagan knew the people he had to lead. In one of the best insights, Canon points out that when Reagan converted from liberal Democrat to Conservative Republican, he kept his outgoing personna and thus did not threaten traditiional Democrats who were willing to listen to his message. Canon enables us to understand why he got as far as he did as President, his surprising turn as a peacemaker in cold war politics, and his failure in the intrigue of Iran Contra

"Since the turn of the century, no president save FDR defined a decade as strikingly as Ronald Reagan defined the 1980s." This is Lou Cannon's remarkable conclusion to this authoritative Reagan biography. In recent years, Ronald Reagan's stock among historians has soared, and this book shows it. President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime, first published in 1991, is a largely critical work punctuated by generous (and recently re-written) introductory and concluding sections.

Reagan fans may not agree with all of Cannon's conclusions. I certainly didn't. For one thing, Cannon virtually ignores Reagan's role in ending the Cold War. At some level, Cannon's omissions here could not be helped. The most compelling voices on this question are those of former Soviet officials who testified to the genuine reckoning the USSR was faced with when it realized it simply could not compete with SDI or Reagan-era U.S. military advances. And these voices were only heard after the book's initial publication.

The economy is another arena where Reagan's reputation now looks better than ever before. The critics called the 1980s a "decade of greed" and our economic future was uncertain when that label was last hurled a decade ago. The subsequent prosperity we experienced only confirmed that Reagan, with the help of the monetarist policies of the Federal Reserve, did indeed launch a lasting new era when he brought to an end the days of stagflation when one out of every three years brought a recession. Democrats also have less room to criticize Reagan after presiding over a prosperous decade where consumer debt, income inequality and corporate profits grew just as much, if not more, than in the 1980s.

Even when Cannon's tone is downbeat, his admiration of Reagan's talents and abilities is sincere. He doesn't make the mistake of underestimating the Gipper -- deriding him as some did as an "amiable dunce." Instead, he draws compellingly on the theory of "multiple intelligences" to suggest that Reagan had an exceedingly gifted intellect in expressing himself and in connecting with people -- something his academic critics could never fully appreciate.

Some day, someone will write a Reagan biography that takes into full account the full historical import of a Reagan legacy that is still unfolding. Until that day, Cannon's work will rank as the defining study of Reagan presidency.

Throughout this mammoth presidential biography, I was continually reminded how unbelievably fair and unbiased it was. I suppose such things should be a given, but too often the politics of the writer interfere with what should be a detached historical assessment. Cannon, more than any non-fiction writer on the scene (also see his "Official Negligence" for a similar lack of ideological grandstanding), respects the reader, knowing that credible (and exhaustive) sources, extensive, multi-facteted research, and a balance of criticism and praise brings the past alive far more than sanctimonious revisionism. As for the Reagan portrayed in Cannon's work, he is as most of America knew him to be: charming, devoid of vanity, genuinely friendly, stubbornly committed, and yes, unmistakably deficient in the realm of day-to-day politics. Moreover, Reagan himself understood his limitations, approaching the presidency as he would a film role, or as the CEO of a corporation. Because Reagan was not equipped intellectually to handle complex policy discussions and position proposals, he advocated (more so than any president this century) a "cabinet government," whereby all major decisions were delegated to who were presumed to be trusted advisors. To his near downfall, Reagan trusted too much and his reluctance (and inability) to tackle matters of high importance in his administration directly led to scandals, abuse of the public trust, and violations of stated goals. Reagan's achievements are given their due, but also the proper perspective, for Cannon is not seeking to deify his subject. Reagan was instrumental in the thaw of U.S.-Soviet relations, but he also missed many opportunities and often held too strongly to ideological positions that often contradicted the facts or what might have been a more pragmatic approach. And, lest we forget, the alleged opponent of big government failed to submit a balanced budget in his eight years in office and could not bring himself to cut valued programs of the New Deal legacy (due in part to a sentimental attachment to FDR). In many ways, Reagan was a complicated man, although his philosophies were anything but, which of course added to his lasting appeal with conservatives. Never a mystery and always up front with his intentions, Reagan was an attractive figure for a party in need of strong, dedicated leadership. However, Reagan was flawed in that he was unable to deal with direct confrontation, rapid change, and facts which came in opposition to his "inner script." In all, Cannon presents a fascinating figure; one worth remembering, but always with a realistic tinge. He gave us our pride, but it came (and continues to come) at a heavy cost.

I read this book a while ago, but thought I would throw out a review due to the passing of the former president. Ronald Reagan is such an icon in American society that it's difficult to find good objective information about his presidency. To the political right he's a saint and often the left derides him as an evil empire unto himself. Coming from a family in which Reagan was revered I remember wanting to find a book that would give me that good, objective point of view I was looking for. A professor of mine at Western Washington University recommended this book as such, and they couldn't have been more right. 

Lou Cannon is a reporter who began covering Reagan during his tenure as governor of California. He continued to cover Reagan for over twenty-five years with The Washington Post from 1972-1998. Despite his coverage of the man for so many years, and the fact that that the press is now calling him a close friend of Reagan, Cannon has been able to keep enough distance to keep impartiality in his writing. He discusses all the sides of Reagan, from the positive views of the man who accomplished great things as president to the man who found himself in the midst of the Iran/Contra scandal. 

The book may seem long especially when one considers that it deals only with the Regan presidency, and leaves Regan's early years and gubernatorial carrier to Cannon's other books. The book is long because of its exquisite detail. Cannon's sources are impeccable, and he has an extensive bibliography. The book contains comments by key staffers including George Shultz and Ed Meese, as well as conversations with Nancy Reagan. For a while now I've considered this book my Reagan Bible. A good book to have for reference on particular issues, even if you don't think you can handle all 764 pages in one sitting.  

With all the books that have come out recently, and all that are sure to come out now, it's nice to have a definitive volume that brings some balance.  

http://www.ragingliberal.org

If you wanted one man to write a book on the Reagan presidency, it would have to be Lou Cannon. Cannon, who covered the Gipper as a journalist for nearly three decades, doesn't disappoint his audience. His book is not an exploration into Ronald Reagan the man. Rather, it is a thorough and lucid trip through the Reagan administration. You'll relive the highlights of the 1980s, including the budget battles of 1981, the invasion of Grenada, and the INF Treaty with the Soviet Union. You'll also be confronted with some of the shortcomings of the Reagan presidency, inlcuding the Iran-Contra affair and the annual budget deficits. Cannon is somewhat detached from Reagan, which can be a positive attribute in a biographer, but the author is too reluctant to embrace his subject. His reporting of the Reagan presidency is first-class but his analysis of the 1980s is too negative. Biographers like to present their subjects as complex characters who do both good and bad things. And indeed, Reagan is no exception. But the balance of information in Cannon's book, whether he realizes it or not, supports the assertion that Reagan was one of our greatest presidencies. Most important was Reagan's instrumental role in peacefully eradicating communism from the earth. He indeed had a vital partnership with Mikhail Gorbachev in this task. Conservatives and liberals do themselves a disservice when they give one man all the credit at the expense of the other. The truth is that both men were crucial to one of the brightest and significant events of the century. Cannon makes this point well. Cannon is a little more reluctant to give Reagan credit for the economic recovery of the 1980s. Budget-wise, this may be a fair judgement. Indeed, Reaganomics turned out to be a false promise. Tax rates in 1989 were the same as in 1981 and government spending was much, much higher. But Reagan deserves credit for holding the line against a Democratic Congress at odds with his vision. Reaganomics was more successful in fighting inflation, where the president gave crucial support to the Federal Reserve in its efforts to restore monetary sanity, and also in defending free trade against protectionists and laying the groundwork for both NAFTA and GATT. Cannon puts too much emphasis on the Iran-Contra affair, which history has denigrated to less than a footnote, but his analysis of U.S. involvement in Lebanon is important and sobering. The overall perspective, however, is a bright one. No man did more to replenish America's confidence and unity, after two decades of despair and disunity, than Ronald Wilson Reagan. A true patriot, Reagan was proud to be an American. His service as president made it possible for millions of citizens to share his faith. After reading Cannon's opus, you'll understand why.