President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime [Hardcover]

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.