Reagan's Disciple: George W. Bush's Troubled Quest for a Presidential Legacy

by Lou Cannon, Carl M. Cannon

George W. Bush ran for office promising to continue what conservative icon Ronald Reagan started, and two years into his first term, Bush was still being described as "Reagan's son." Today, with the Iraq War spinning out of control and the Democrats in charge of Congress, Republicans and the conservative movement have all but abandoned George W. Bush. What happened? Did Bush change, or did his party's perceptions? Has the war and Bush's performance on other issues derailed the larger goals of the Reagan Revolution— and even undermined its foundations? Or does the nation remain on a conservative path despite Bush's low standing with his fellow Americans? In Reagan's Disciple , two widely respected reporter/ historians provide an authoritative and concise investigation into these issues. They describe the essence of the 40th and the 43rd presidencies, and compare them to shed new light on the history of the past three decades. They show both how extraordinary a leader Reagan was, and how preposterous the expectations for Bush were from the beginning. As Americans look toward choosing a new leader in 2008, Reagan's Disciple will serve as an instructive tale for Republicans, Democrats, and independents alike.

Genres: Politics

400 pages, Hardcover

First published January 28, 2008

About the author

Louis Simeon Cannon was an American journalist, non-fiction author, and biographer, best known for his books about Ronald Reagan. He was state bureau chief for the San Jose Mercury News in the late 1960s and later senior White House correspondent of the Washington Post during the Ronald Reagan administration.

Reviews

[Dave N · Rating 4 out of 5]

Honestly, the Reagan/Bush43 comparison was not one I'd come across before this book, but Lou and James Cannon definitely make a strong case for how Bush channeled Reagan in a lot of his domestic policy decisions before pulling the rug out from the whole idea and showing how, if that was his intent, he failed miserably. Where the comparison is truly apt is more in their approach to decision-making, which was the same: make a decision based on personal beliefs/ideology and then ask your staff to find post-facto justifications (and to ignore any contradicting information). Bush's examples in this regard (Iraq, the War on Terror, torture) are more glaring than Reagan's (Iran Contra, SDI), but that's more a difference of degree. Highly recommend this one.