Title: Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty-Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism
Author: Peter Schweizer
Publisher: Doubleday
Date: 2002
Rating: four stars out of five

What this book is / is not
This book is a fast-moving examination of Ronald Reagan and his strong, moral-based crusade to destroy the Soviet Union. The organization of this book couches practically everything in Reagan's life in terms of this battle. The author makes copious and skillful use of previously unavailable primary source material from Soviet and East German archives (see Criticism) to support his thesis, and it is this material that makes this a valuable book.

However, Reagan's War is not a definitive history of the Cold War or of Ronald Reagan. The author assumes reader familiarity of both, so it may not be a good starting point for students new to either subject.

Main thesis
From his early days standing up to Soviet-backed union thugs to his amazing presidency, Reagan believed firmly in the promise of America and the hollowness, corruption and downright evil of the Soviet Union. Reagan became convinced that democracy and capitalism would easily defeat communism in a fair fight – a fair fight being people allowed to choose fairly between both political/economic philosophies. Unlike most of the other Cold War presidents, Reagan did not fear the Soviet Union—which was one of his greatest strengths. Instead, he believed that if America pressured Moscow militarily and economically, and engaged the Soviet empire around the world, the evil empire would collapse under its own weight. Which is exactly what happened.

Reagan began his battle against communism when he was a Hollywood actor by first objecting to the communists' tactics of subterfuge, intimidation and threats used in actors' unions. He soon came to despise communism itself, for, as he said, if communism was so great, how come the Soviets needed walls and fences to keep people inside?  Before he became president, Reagan frequently spoke of the 1 billion prisoners in the Soviet bloc countries that should not and could not be consigned to a life of misery, slavery, poverty and despair, all in the name of "peace." Reagan became convinced that democracy and capitalism would easily defeat communism in a fair fight – a fair fight being people allowed to choose fairly between both political/economic philosophies.

Reagan refused to buy into the cherished belief that the Soviet Union could not be beaten and would always be with us—a belief held by politicians on both sides of the isle. "Containment," "detente," "surrender," "military parity," "get along" with communism—these were all foul concepts to Reagan.  Through spreading his vision at home and abroad, he scared enemies, liberals and even allies with his moral clarity and intellectual certainty that democracy and capitalism would win the day over dead-end Soviet communism--and he never surrendered that belief.

Schweizer's book is interesting, entertaining and enlightening, but moves a little too fast. That said, it is interesting to see how he transforms Reagan from B-movie star and corporate spokesman, to 40th president of the United States and leader of the free world. And it isn't so much a transformation as a continual growth and refinement. For example, Reagan's 1964 speech in support of Barry Goldwater's doomed presidential bid is considered a seminal event among conservative circles. American Heritage magazine declared the speech "overrated" in its annual Overrated/Underrated issue a few years ago and it may just be that, but not for the reasons the magazine gave. Instead, reading Schweizer, one gets the impression that Reagan really presented nothing new in that speech; rather, he had been saying the same concepts for years on the lecture circuit. But "The Speech" did catapult Reagan to further political prominence, leading to the California governor's mansion two years later, and then on to the White House.

Jaw-dropper
What scared the Soviets about Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI, jeeringly referred to as "Star Wars" by liberals and media) wasn’t that it would prevent a Soviet attack, but that it would prevent a Soviet counter-attack. Soviet scientists knew that Reagan knew that a fully operational system was 15 to 20 years away (how right they both were) but they also both also knew that the American economy was broad and deep enough to produce such a system—and the Soviets could never, ever match it.

Liberals who claim disingenuously that SDI was an obstacle to ending the Cold War are simply flying in the fact of the facts—facts given by the Soviets themselves!

Does the author succeed?
For the most part, yes, but only if the reader is familiar with the Cold War, and also because of the sources employed by the author (see Criticism).

Criticism
The primary drawback to this book is that Schweizer paints every president from Truman to Carter in a slightly to heavily negative light to advance his thesis (although in Carter's case it is richly deserved). Schweizer has a tendency to use positions and statements that either advance Reagan or denigrate his predecessors – but the Soviet sources concerning those presidents nevertheless are damning. Reagan's predecessors often played right into Moscow's hands, especially Nixon, Ford and Carter. But unfortunately, by writing Reagan's War in such a way, Schweizer slips a into hagiography territory, when he needn't have had to. Anyone who thinks that Harry Truman wasn't an adamant Cold Warrior is way off base.  

Another drawback is that this book seems to pigeon-hole Reagan, making his whole life seem like it was wrapped in destroying Soviet communism.  Therefore, the subtitle seems a little pretentious. But then again, the book never claims to be a complete biography of Reagan, so Schweizer can be forgiven the impression.

However, the great strength of this book is the author's use of newly revealed and released Soviet KGB and East German Stasi documents concerning Reagan and the extent of communism inside America (especially in unions and anti-war movements) which prove Reagan right and the liberals wrong. The Soviets feared Reagan unlike any other American president. They didn't fear that Reagan would stupidly launch a nuclear war, as Reagan-hating liberals moaned he would; rather, they feared quite correctly that Reagan would destroy their empire. Not necessarily by using bombs and bullets, but by using economics, politics and idealism, and by military technology they simply couldn't match.

For example, the author highlights how Moscow liked dealing with Nixon and Ford, and absolutely loved Carter. Why? The Soviets said so. Their own internal secret documents and transcripts of top level meetings reveal that the Soviet Union was not interested in détente or peace. They were out to conquer the world. The more the US retreated – especially into Carter's malaise – the better for the Soviet Union. Negotiations with the Soviet Union invariably gave the advantage to Moscow. Everything conservatives had claimed about the Soviet Union's march across the globe was true, by the Soviets' own admission.

Main takeaway lessons
Until George W. Bush came along, Reagan was the liberals' favorite whipping boy. They still dismiss him as an "amiable dunce" and laughably give credit for the end of the Cold War to the last Soviet dictator, Gorbachev – a man desperate to save the Soviet empire. But the Cold War ended victoriously for the United States and her allies primarily because of one man, Ronald Reagan. Did Reagan win the Cold War alone? No! That’s like saying Churchill, FDR and Stalin won WWII without soldiers, navies or bombers.

However, Reagan was the catalyst. He found allies willing and ready to fight, like Margaret Thatcher, Lech Walesa, Vaclav Havel and Pope John Paul II, and forced the world to confront the Soviet Union head-on. He talked (preached, actually) directly to dissidents behind the Iron Curtain, and gave them hope. He took his disgust at communism and its expression in the Soviet Union and turned it into a battle to undo what he considered one of the greatest wrongs in the world.

Reagan wasn't a warmonger, as his detractors claimed. He was, in fact, a peacemaker. "Tear down this wall," Reagan said, so that all men may be free. Not just a privileged few. He was a constant: his ideals and beliefs never wavered, regardless of the audience, and despite perceived political popularity.  In the author's words, "He would not change course, even in the pursuit of personal glory." (p.283)

It seems like Dubya was watching and learning.

Do I recommend this book?
Yes, primarily because of the source materials, which are critical to the continual debate that Reagan, and not the dictator Gorbachev, ended the Cold War. But as written above, those new to the Cold War or Ronald Reagan should seek other materials first.

I'm down in New Orleans for a hurricane relief mission trip for a few days; then I and my group are heading over to Biloxi.

I'm reading McFeely's biography on Frederick Douglass, though I don't know how much I'll get done. Although, I will eventually do a review of this, the only modern full-scale biography of this great American.

Cheers, all.

Title: In Defense of the Religious Right: Why Conservative Christians Are the Lifeblood of the Republican Party and Why that Terrifies the Democrats
Author: Patrick Hynes, founder and proprietor of Ankle Biting Pundits
Publisher: Nelson Current
Date: 2006
Big Mo's rating: 4 1/2 stars out of 5

What this book is / is not
This is primarily a book about politics and, as the title states, a defense of the Religious Right's role in American and Republican politics. It is an examination of the distorted, twisted and often hateful view that the secular, political and religious left has of the Religious Right—and also the misconceptions the political right has of Christian conservatives and their role in Republican victories since 1994.

However, In Defense of the Religious Right is not an exhaustive examination of the inner workings and beliefs of the Religious Right, nor is it an in-depth exploration of its growth over the years, or a biographical treatment of key leaders. Those topics are touched upon, but readers wanting meat on those topics should look elsewhere.

Main thesis
Just who IS the Religious Right? "(It is) simply the most maligned group of Americans in the country. They have been blamed, mocked, ridiculed, chastised, libeled, slandered, demonized, scapegoated, belittled, decried, scorned, insulted, smeared, disparaged, and mythologized by opinion leaders and activists who do not know what the Religious Right is, do not understand what it believes, and have personal and political stakes in seeing it marginalized."

So writes Patrick Hynes in a valuable book that explores a hugely misunderstood (and misunderestimated) segment of America: the Religious Right. At 30 million strong, they are also not only the backbone of the Republican Party, which has taken the GOP from the minority to a rather sizable and solid majority status, but also the guardians and defenders of traditional American values.

Before anyone scoffs, Hynes explains that those values have always been an integral part of American life; they didn't just suddenly spring into being in the last 40 or so years, as leftists are repeatedly claiming. The Religious Right is not some interloper group attempting to impose strange and foreign values upon an unwilling America, Hynes asserts. That description justly belongs to the liberals and assorted leftists who are pushing gay marriage, evolution (to the exclusion of all else) and abortion while at the same time attempting to erase God from American public society.

But this book isn't merely Hynes' opinion. What makes the book valuable is he backs up his thesis by drawing on polling data, studies, interviews, analyses, election results and voting trends. Particularly valuable is his delineation of just who the Religious Right is: they aren't made up of "largely poor, uneducated and easily lead" people, as Michael Wiesskopf famously sneered in 1993. Nor is the Religious Right merely Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and the Christian Coalition. In actuality, the Religious Right crosses all races, all levels of education and all income brackets pretty evenly.

"At last count, the Religious Right is 30 million religiously motivated conservative voters. According to exit and postelection polling data, we can conclude that they are roughly 23 million evangelical and conservative mainline Christians and 6.9 million conservative Catholics. They represent the growing wings of their respective denominations and faith traditions. They are black, white and brown. They live in parts North, South, East, and West. They are wealthy, middle class and poor. They are highly educated and poorly educated. They are, in short, Americans." (p.175)

Jaw-dropper
Perhaps the most surprising part is his revelation that a huge key to Bush’s—and the GOP's—victory in 2004 was the hundreds of thousands of small Bible groups that served as impromptu political action groups. They generally share the same values, the same ideals—and the same politics.  And that, Hynes discovered, is how the word spread and things happened all across the country for 2004. Not through massed marches, big celebrity concerts and billionaire bucks that the liberals employed—but word of mouth.

New term
Hynes also coins a wonderful term: the "theophobes"—a word that I will shamelessly co-opt—which simply means anyone who has an irrational fear of conservative Christians. It’s actually a better term than the misnomer "homophobe," because in this case, the secular, political and religious left are actually afraid of everything the Religious Right represents—real or (usually) imagined.

Does the author succeed?
Yes, for the most part, especially through judicious use of sources.

There is little doubt that this book will be poorly received—or ignored altogether—by the political left. But more critical to the main thesis is whether the book will be received well by the right. Will its message be received by the people who need to heed its call?

In a way, Hynes' book serves as a partial response to Cal Thomas’ and Ed Dobson’s 1999 book, Blinded by Might: Can the Religious Right Save America? in which they argue that the Religious Right has been harmful to the cause of Christ in America by cozying up to political causes. The publisher says that authors "insist we must realize that God’s agenda does not rise or fall with political causes" which is very correct "and we must rediscover that our most potent influence is not the ballot booth, but lives that extend God’s grace in the home, in the workplace, and in all spheres of our culture" (words lifted from Barnes and Noble web site). But Hynes demonstrates that by doing just that—through their small groups and faith-based organizations—Christians have affected the ballot box in huge ways!

Criticism
There are only a few minor places where I disagreed with Hynes, or thought he could have made a stronger argument with a few more examples. In Chapter 5, Jan vs. Mel, in which he encapsulates the 2004 election in terms of Janet Jackson’s Super Bowl "wardrobe malfunction" versus Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ, he could have augmented that chapter with another equally stark juxtaposition: the Gipper versus Slick Willie. Ronald Reagan was an intensely Christian man, and Bill Clinton was, in Hynes' words, a "Faker" (see chapter 10). Reagan’s death and funeral in the summer of 2004 and the release of Bill Clinton's narcissistic best-selling memoirs a month later were incredible contrasts of character and faith—and those who flocked to either man were probably just as sharply divided as those who viewed the "wardrobe malfunction" and The Passion of the Christ quite differently.  

Also, because Hynes went to great lengths to explain what Thomas Jefferson actually said and meant—as well as Washington, Franklin and Madison—I thought he should have included several quotes from other founders to bolster the argument that the nation was founded as a Christian nation with Christian values and morals. 

Still, the lack of either of the above does not detract from the overall argument and presentation. Minor factual errors also do not take away from the overall argument and can easily be corrected in subsequent printings.

Main takeaway lessons
Hynes' ultimate conclusion seems to be: If you're Republican, you ignore the Religious Right to your peril, not because it's a voting block to be pampered, but because it embodies Middle America. If you're Democrat, you ridicule them to your despair, because you can't fake it, nor can you win a battle of the Scriptures against them.

Do I recommend this book?
Yes, definitely.  You can purchase it through Ankle Biting Pundits.

Disclaimer
I guess you could say I am a member of the Religious Right, as I am an evangelical Christian, belonging to a Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod congregation, and, although not a Republican per say, usually vote conservative/Republican. Therefore, I am sympathetic to this book. However, if Hynes had done a poor job, I would not recommend this book. Happily, that is not the case.

My reviews are not intended to be Cliffs Notes nor substitutes for reading the actual books, of course. (You do such a thing at your own peril. Trust me: I tried to do that back in high school a couple of times got richly-deserved “Fs” on quizzes.)  

A few of my reviews will be short quick-takes for novels, memoirs or other short non-fiction books. Some will be cursory examinations for collections of columns or speeches and such. Some, however, will be long and thorough, depending on the book and subject matter. So when I review a meaty book on history, current events or evangelical Christianity, I seek to answer seven primary questions:

1. What is the author’s primary point(s) and did he or she make it/them in an easy-to-understand fashion?
2. Does the author arrive at his conclusions in a logical, rational order?
3. Does the author’s data, interviews, research, etc. support his conclusions?
• Do the selected supporting documentation, interviews etc. add or detract from the author’s arguments?
• Is the research original or a rehashing of previously released research?
• Did the author cherry-pick data, interviews, etc. and take quotes out of context to prove his point?
4. Does the author’s personal opinion of his subject become the book, co-opting his research findings?
5. Does the author’s primary research produce a potentially jaw-dropping moment for the reader? (Totally subjective, of course.)
6. Does the book break new ground, or advance the conversation in a chosen field, or provide clarity on a contentious issue?
7. Would I recommend this book?

In other words, in such a meaty book, I’m not interested in mere opinion, nor do I care for sloppy research, gratuitous hit-pieces or books that take things wildly out of context in order to thoroughly trash somebody. (Translation: this eliminates most Bush-bashing books and even some Clinton-bashing books.)

Just because I review a book does not mean I will necessarily agree with its conclusions. For example, I found Thomas Buell’s The Warrior Generals to be one of the best books ever written about the Civil War, but I believe the author’s conclusions about Ulysses Grant are all wrong. I still recommend it anyway.

I've posted the review of Pat Hynes' In Defense of the Religious Right on Amazon.com per the initial arrangement. (I didn't receive any money for this, in case you were wondering.) My short review was quite favorable. I'll be doing a longer, more detailed review and analysis very soon.  

Who I am

Some people might recognize my handle from places like Wizbang, World Magazine, Ankle Biting Pundits and, up until the "Monday Massacre," Polipundit.  I live in St. Louis, Mo. I’m a professional writer/editor, a former journalist and I love to read books.  Not much that I learned at the University of Missouri-Columbia truly prepared me for the real world, but I did pick up a habit of absorbing thick history books: I can go through them like others go through romance novels.

About five years ago, I read selections of James Stokesbury’s A Short History of World War 1 primarily because I wanted a quick overview of the great naval battle of Jutland.  Deciding that the whole book was a worthwhile cursory examination of the war, and not wanting to forget what I read, I took copious notes while I finished the book. I’ve done that ever since. (OK, so that's one skill from college that I've carried on.)

Why book reviews

In June, Pat Hynes of Ankle Biting Pundits put out a call for reviewers of his new book, In Defense of the Religious Right. A liberal placed a “review” of the book on Amazon that was nothing more than a diatribe against Christianity, and had nothing to do with Hynes' book. In response, Hynes offered free copies to five people willing to do tough but fair reviews of his book for Amazon.

I volunteered, he sent me a copy, but I want to do more. I’ve decided to share my book reviews with the world, not that anybody’s asked. Usually, I’ve been keeping them in a journal that I’ve been saving for my sons and their children (God willing), but Hugh Hewitt’s move to Townhall has encouraged me to start this blog on book reviews.

I hope to put up one new review a week. Some of the titles will be recent books, and some will be older. Just because a book is older, though, does not mean its worth is passed. If you like what you read, and you believe that I am tough but fair, feel free to send me your book for review.

Book types

I’m most interested in books concerning:

• American presidents, especially Ulysses S. Grant, Abraham Lincoln, Grover Cleveland, Harry Truman, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush (please, no Bush-bashing books.  If you have an anti-Bush book, it must be reasonable and not from the fever-swamps. I have yet to see one.)
• Evangelical Christianity
• Current events and politics from a center/right-of-center perspective
• General American history of the “big picture” sort
• Occasional fiction

I usually draw lessons from the past and apply them to the present age, where applicable. For example, Ulysses Grant and Grover Cleveland are two of my favorite presidents – and they could be forceful and positive standard bearers for the modern conservative movement. Stay tuned to find out why!

Planned upcoming reviews

Patrick Hynes, In Defense of the Religious Right: Why Conservative Christians Are the Lifeblood of the Republican Party and Why that Terrifies the Democrats (2006) (note: a smaller version of this review will be appearing on Amazon before it appears here, per my obligation to Pat Hynes).

Peter Schweizer, Reagan’s War: The Epic Story of His Forty-Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism (2002)

Hank Hanegraaff and Paul Maier, The Da Vinci Code: Fact or Fiction? (2004)

Fred Anderson, The Crucible of War: The Seven Years War and the Fate of Empire in British North America, 1754-1766 (2000)

Philip Yancey, The Jesus I Never Knew (1995)

Triple review: Jean Edward Smith, Grant (2001); Josiah Bunting III, Ulysses S. Grant (The American President Series) (2004); and Frank J. Scaturro, President Grant Reconsidered (1998)

Henry F. Graff, Grover Cleveland (The American Presidents Series) (2002)

John MacArthur, Hard to Believe: The High Cost and Infinite Value of Following Jesus (2003)

Bill Sammon, How George W. Bush Is Defeating Terrorists, Outwitting Democrats, and Confounding the Mainstream Media (2006) (note: this is the only one on this list I haven’t read yet)

Schedule

The first review will appear by the end of July. I have a mission trip to N’awlins and Biloxi to take care of first (plus finish Hynes’ book.)