President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination

by Richard Reeves

Richard Reeves's acclaimed account of a presidency solves the puzzle of Ronald Reagan -- a man of limited breadth and knowledge who was perhaps the most effective superpower president.

Using the techniques he employed in his bestselling books on Presidents Kennedy and Nixon, Reeves takes us inside Reagan's Oval Office, where we find a charismatic, crafty, focused politician. Astonishing in its intimacy, authoritative in its sourcing, President Reagan is a portrait of modern presidential power that will stand as the definitive study of Reagan in the White House.

Genres: Biography, History, Nonfiction, Politics, Presidents, American History, 20th Century

592 pages, Paperback

First published December 1, 2005

About the author

Richard Furman Reeves was an American writer, syndicated columnist, and lecturer at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles.

Reviews

[Jerry (Rebel With a Massive Media Library) · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm too young to remember Ronald Reagan's presidency; I don't even remember the elder Bush's. The first Chief Executive I remember is Bill Clinton. Still, as a fan of history--especially that of the United States--I decided to pick this up at a garage sale. However, it sat on my shelf for years until I finally decided to start it earlier this week; with everything else going on, it took me until today to finish it.

Despite this being about a very late politician, I was surprised to see many names I recognized from elections and other news stories from my own lifetime: Sam Donaldson, Robert "Bob" Dole, Oliver North, George H.W. Bush, Richard "Dick" Cheney, and especially our current president, Joseph "Joe" Biden. I imagine that the writer of this book, who published this not long after Reagan's death, had any idea that the latter individual would one day be the leader of our nation.

While I didn't care for some of the author's opinions, I have to give it four stars because of its impressive writing and attention to detail. Mr. Reeves definitely did serious research, which, in this era of misinformation, has become all too important.

I do have to warn discerning readers that, like many other political biographies I've read, there were some language issues and obscenity, including usage of the f-word and other profanity as well as sexual references--albeit brief and non-graphic--when discussing the AIDS epidemic. If that bothers you, then, don't read this.

[Tyler · Rating 4 out of 5]

Synopsis: This was the first biography published about President Reagan after his death in 2004 and approximately the 901st biography written about him since his presidency. Reeves has previously written biographies of Presidents Kennedy and Nixon. This book takes the strategy of going through the daily comings and goings in the oval office and describing the President's schedule throughout his presidency. The biography doesn't cover Reagan's life before the presidency nor does it cover his life following the presidency.

My Review: This book was certainly a definitive look at the Reagan Presidency, although I would have really liked to have learned more about the man Reagan growing up, acting and then getting into the political scene in California. Although, this book at 592 pages and something like 20 cds was long enough as it was. It is my opinion that all US Presidents are geniuses in one way or another. Reagan had the uncanny ability to get people to do what he wanted. He was always well liked, but never really had an exceptional grasp of what was going on in the country as a whole. He would go down to the oval office between 8:30 and 9:00 AM and then return to the residence around 5:00 PM each day and finish the day watching the television. Rarely did he work longer hours than that. His schedule as president was generally dictated by his wife Nancy, who would consult her astronomer before approving any travels out of the District. While Reagan ran the country, she wore the pants in their relationship. Lastly, Reagonomics (or at least my interpretion of the description and analysis given in this book) seems like a total bust. The math just never added up and Reagan was always so concerned about giving tax breaks to the rich (including himself)) at the expense of the poor and those at the bottom of the social ladder. An enjoyable read, I love learning about the leaders of this great country.

[Andrew Crouch · Rating 3 out of 5]

Straight-forward and even-handed account of our 40th President. The narrative moves sprightly along (no surprise given the length of the book, covering a two-term presidency), with a balanced presentation of Reagan's accomplishments (detente with the Soviets, recovering some of the people's trust in the federal gov't, especially the White House) and his failures (Iran-Contra, the malaise of the last couple of years, economic instability). I like how Reeves characterizes Reagan's hands-off style, especially compared with his predecessors. I appreciated the emphasis on the relationships between Reagan's staffers and how they fit into the Administration's policy goals. However, I would have liked some more insight into the President as a man. The occasional slivers of insight (such as the analysis of his personality changes after being shot) were more often than not a tease, shallow and fleeting.

[Danielle · Rating 4 out of 5]

This biography was so well done. Reeves's style was journalistic and objective, yet personal and interesting. He took us through Reagan's time in the White House almost on a day-by-day basis, always backing up his statements with actual quotes from interviews, letters, and Reagan's personal journal.
Reagan is a fascinating figure, and I felt Reeves treated him with personal respect, while maintaining that many of his ideas were untethered to reality.
After reading this book, I have a much more accurate picture of Reagan as a president, and I still think he's a nice guy.

[Samuel P · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a triumphant retelling of the infamous eight years of the conservative titan that ushered in a new era of American politics. Reeves provides an excellent look into how the Reagan administration both needed their elder dreamer to function and how the Whitehouse operated largely autonomously from the President. It is a must-read for any reader curious about the highlights of his reign and the juicy details. The heavy use of quotes created a fluent historical narrative that was informative and read like a novel.

[Omar · Rating 4 out of 5]

Richard Reeves estimates that over 900 books have been written on Ronald Reagan. This is an astonishing output for a man who left office just two decades ago. Unfortunately, many if not most books on Reagan are hagiographies designed to further a right-wing agenda. The most amusing trait such Reagan books have is they all portray Reagan as an uncompromising right-wing ideologue. Read this book to find the real Reagan. Reagan was indeed a conservative ideologically but Reagan was willing to compromise. Reagan's record going back to his days as the governor of California is replete with examples of Reagan shunting aside ideology to make a compromise. Reagan subscribed to the "half a loaf" theory of legislation. Reagan also was not the ideologically consistent paragon his hagiographers paint him to be. Taxation is the best example. Reagan hagiographies point to Reagan reducing the top tax bracket from 70% to 28% but ignore the realities of Reagan's record on taxes. Reagan--realizing supply-side economics was not working and was leading to massive deficits--went back to raise taxes practically every year of his presidency (especially regressive taxes such as excise taxes)! The Reagan administration euphemized these as "revenue enhancements", not tax increases. When Reagan reduced the top rate to 28% in 1986 it was in conjunction with a liberal Democratic senator (Bill Bradley) and they agreed that changes should be revenue neutral (offsetting tax rate reductions with the elimination of tax loopholes).

Reagan mythology matters because every Republican presidential candidate has to conform to this impossible to match myth--a standard Reagan himself could not meet. Reeves is able to cut through the smoke because of his technique of writing presidential biographies in which he focuses on the world as the president saw it. Namely, he focuses on the advise a president is given by his advisers and the information he was aware of before reaching a decision. The Reagan that emerges through the smoke is a pragmatic one. This technique renders Reeves' liberalism to irrelevant. The book is about what Reagan saw, heard, and did. There is not much in the way of analysis of his actions and their consequences, which is the chief reason this book is a 4 star, not a 5 star book.

The most interesting parts of the books are those about Reagan dealing with the USSR in his second term, his first year in office when he successfully forged a bipartisan coalition to pass his tax and budget cuts. The weakest part is, in my opinion, an inordinate amount of time spent on the Reagan administration's covert actions in Central America.

Why is the book called President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination? There is little analysis in this book but what little there is concerns the 40th president's personality. Reagan was a stubborn man who clung to a warped view of the world as he believed it to be. The book shows Reagan's overlooked tendency to flat out make things up--and then to genuinely believe that they were true (the most famous example of this is Reagan believing he fought in World War II and liberating a Nazi concentration camp--when he was in California filming war movies the entire time!). However, Reeves also points out that Reagan was a much harder worker than he was given credit for at the time by his political opponents. Among the Reagan myths shattered in this book is the myth--this one a liberal myth--that Reagan was a stooge controlled by his staff. In this book it is shown that in the end it was Reagan who was running the show, although he rarely concerned himself with the details of governing.

President Reagan: the Role of a Lifetime (Lou Cannon) is the other excellent book on the Reagan presidency. It is probably a superior book. For someone interested in Reagan I would recommend reading that book before this one. However, this book is indispensable in any Reagan library. If you are just a student of presidential history I would recommend this book since its style provides more insight on what it is like to be president than Lou Cannon's book. Both of these books are significantly superior to Edmund Morris' Dutch. Morris is an excellent writer but Dutch's bizarre style renders that book average.

[Clem · Rating 5 out of 5]

I almost passed on this one.

Although I thoroughly enjoyed this author’s similar works on John Kennedy and Richard Nixon, there were many reviewers that claimed this book had a heavy liberal bias and was unfair towards Ronald Reagan. That fact shouldn’t surprise anyone when you consider the author is a liberal journalist and Reagan was a staunch conservative. Since biased books aren’t my thing, I was tempted to turn the other way. Fortunately, I chose to ignore my inner ear and read this book. Not only did I thoroughly enjoy it, I also thought it was the best of the Richard Reeves’ Presidents “trilogy”. Yes, the author points out many of Reagan’s faults, but he does acknowledge the good things as well, and sells his audience that Reagan was, indeed, a great communicator.

With a subtitle “The Triumph of Imagination”, one should carefully realize that this moniker can mean more than one thing. When one thinks of “imagination” they might use the word in a highly positive context. Before one can accomplish great things, one must imagine great things. When their imagination becomes a reality, it’s a win-win for all that are involved when results are achieved. However, the word “imagination” can also infer things less kind. Imagination is also a substitute for reality, and when one spends too much time imagining and not enough time doing, there can be consequences. We look at such individuals as living in an alternate reality kin to a fantasy land. Whether or not it was the author’s intentions, he seemed to attribute both of these definitions to Ronald Reagan. Reagan could be an incredible visionary that made many feel great and he reinstalled a state of patriotism throughout the country, but he also seemed more like an actor in a movie reading made-up lines trying to convince a skeptical audience that his fictitious ideas were real.

Like the Kennedy and Nixon books by this author, the style and layout of the narrative focuses on Reagan’s tenure in office as president. We get snippets of life before 1980, but the bulk of this book focuses on all of the major events during his two terms. The great strength of this (and the other two) book(s) by Reeves is that he is a compelling storyteller. He knows how go through the major events of these eight years without boring his readers. We read the good's and the bad's as well as read about the key members of Reagan’s administration. The book seemed to be a perfect length; about 500 pages. Had it been twice as long it would have only been half as good.

We see that Ronald Reagan is brilliant when handling a crowd and talking to reporters during press conferences. I was surprised to read that, early in his administration, he wrote many of his own speeches. In many ways, a leader’s job should be to do just that; lead. The president doesn’t have to be the smartest person in the room nor know the intricacies of the many aspects of government. This is why a president has a Cabinet. It’s impossible to not make comparisons against Reagan’s predecessor, Jimmy Carter. When Carter would be asked a tough question during a press conference, he would often look like a cat that just swallowed a stale mouse and plod his way through an unpleasant, unintelligible answer. Reagan, on the other hand, would shrug his shoulders, tell a funny-one liner, smile, say something along the lines of “aw shucks….” and manage go up five points in the polls overnight.

Of course, there needs to be some substance to go along with that style, and Reeves is clear to point out the bad decisions Reagan made, and the bad advice (whether coming from an insider or an astrologer) Reagan chose to heed. So in addition to a soaring economy, Grenada, and escalating the end of the cold war with Russia, we also read about massive deficits, Beirut, and a heckuva lot of Iran-Contra.

We must then remember that once Reagan became president, he was already and old man. 70 when he entered office, 78 when he left. Although 70 sounds old, 78 sounds a lot older. A lot older. We see the effects of this quite often during the latter years of his administration. We see Reagan confused and frequently falling asleep during cabinet meetings. He didn’t even know where he was at times (‘You’re in the Oval Office, Mr. President…’) It might surprise readers, but this isn’t quite as rare as one might think. Woodrow Wilson was an invalid due to a stroke his last 18 months in office, and FDR was basically at death’s door before his fourth term even began. It’s just that we didn’t have a thing called “television” back then, so these things could be veiled. Although the author doesn’t explicitly state this, it seems Reagan starts falling apart mentally after John Hinkley emptied a gun into him. It’s quite scary to read how serious Reagan’s wounds were, and it seemed touch and go for a while. Since this event happened a mere two months after Reagan takes office, we don’t really have enough information to do a “before and after” comparison. Still, though, judging from what we read, Reagan definitely had much more vitality before the attempted assassination.

Another thing I found interesting while reading this book is how much more cooperative the congress seemed to be then in recent history. Although Reagan was dealing with Democratic majorities, he was able to pass a lot of legislation and there seemed to be a much better spirit of cooperation. Of course, we read about Reagan diligently making phone calls to members of congress whenever there was an important vote, and I would guess the Gipper regularly turned on the charm. Again, this is something that Jimmy Carter could not (nor would not) do. I also found it a bit of an eyebrow raiser to find that many well-known Republicans turned against him after successful negotiations on nuclear disarmament and a reduction in weapons production in 1988 with the USSR. One scathing conservative accused the president’s accomplishments of nothing more than “Liberal Detente”.

So the majority loved the man, the far left hated him, and the author does a brilliant job throughout his book telling us why. I’ll say it again, I didn’t think this book was biased in the least. I thought it was a very fair treatment. In fact, had the author been a strong conservative instead of a strong liberal, I could feasibly see the exact same finished product.

For me, this is a trait of an excellent book.

[David Allen Hines · Rating 4 out of 5]

Literally as a child I loved politics, and I grew up watching Ronald Reagan in fascination. Thirty years after he left office and more than a decade after his death, Reagan remains both an enigma and a figure who rocked history.

Having read Reeves' excellent President Kennedy and even more impressive President Nixon, I was prepared for a good book and was not disappointed, though I do have to say this book is not nearly as good as the ones on Kennedy and Nixon.

This is not a day by day account of the Reagan presidency, but rather, Reeve picks a few key dates and goes into detail on what was going on in the Administration at that time. All my memories of Reagan in childhood came back to life and even though this account jumps around all the key happenings are covered.

It is clear though that Reeves had a negative view of Reagan. Time and time again he uses the word "old" in connection with Reagan, to the point it is annoying. Reeves, like most journalists, remains befuddled (a word he uses to describe Reagan!) as to how a man so uninformed on policy details could time and time accomplish tremendous changes in policy, whether it was a massive tax cut, income tax reform, domestic spending reduction (including the end of revenue sharing); a huge buildup of the military, and actually signing a nuclear weapons reduction treaty with the USSR while doggedly spending the USSR to death.

Reeves tries very hard to portray Reagan as feeble and old and knowing as we do now that Mr. Reagan would ultimately die of Alzheimer's Disease, he tries very hard to make it seem like Reagan was senile while in office. While Reagan surely had some lapses of short-term memory towards the end, it is more likely that his seeming lapses were the result of not hearing because he was very hard hard hearing. Reagan's detailed hand-written diaries showed that in most cases he was more aware than most people even in his own Administration, gave him credit for.

Reagan's deepest failing was the infamous "Iran-Contra Affair" where members of his administration sold arms to Iran in return for hostages and illegally funneled the money to the Contra rebels, which Congressional law prohibited. It's clear Reagan knew about it, but he was too personally popular to be much affected. Reeves covers this failure well, and also the fact that more than 100 Reagan Administration officials would be brought up on charges, though I read nothing about the long-time HUD Secretary, Samuel Pierce, who went down in deep scandal.

Reeves also focuses on Reagan's stunning summits with the USSR leader Gorbachev. Having escalated the Cold War by his "Star Wars" missile defense plan and vastly increased defense spending, Reagan brought an increasingly unstable USSR to a quiet end by agreeing to summits and a nuclear weapons treaty. History has shown that Reagan was right that the basic economics of the USSR were rotten and increased defense spending they could not match would bring about their end.

While not as strong as President Kennedy or President Nixon, and mired by his obvious bias against his subject, this is still a well-written, enjoyable and informative accounts of one of the most significant presidences of the last century.

[Karen R. Dickson · Rating 2 out of 5]

I have enjoyably read several presidential biographies that were much longer and much more compelling than this 490-page tome. This one felt like a chore to get through.

Along the way, there was a lot of well-sourced information about Reagan's presidency; much of it was eye-opening, but in a way that I realized all presidencies have their fair share of turmoil and conflict. Reagan's had quite a lot of illegal junk going on, which we did hear about at the time, but not nearly as much as we thought was happening. Having lived through the Reagan years, it was interesting reading the behind-the-scenes of events I knew of.

I also did enjoy many of the personal exchanges that happened out of the camera's recorder. However, many times the flow of the narrative jumped all over the place. Footnotes, when they came, were notated with an asterisk at the end of a long paragraph, so that when you read the footnote, it referred back to something at the beginning of that paragraph that was light years away from what you'd just finished reading about. Confusing to say the least. At times I had to stop and go back to figure out who a pronoun was referring to, as the narrative had lost me again.

Having said all this, I am glad I read this book, as I was looking for something a bit more neutral than all glowing praise. I thought Reeves provided a number of occasions where he shared from pundits at the time both in favor of and in criticism of the president. Overall, however, I think there was a more critical tone than supportive.

[Jeff Keehr · Rating 2 out of 5]

Compared to classic biographies on presidents, this book is mediocre. The author gives very little insight into Reagan himself and simply replays the history of his two terms. I like Reagan more now than I did before I read the book. I recall now that he made jelly beans famous again. (Update 2020: I now think Reagan was a moron. He started this slide into deregulation and partisan politics which is tearing this country apart. He managed to break up the Soviet Union but he was horrible when it came to domestic affairs.)

[Joelle Lewis · Rating 3 out of 5]

Joelle Reads Her Bookcase #63

This is an excellent overview of Reagan's economic policies, the Iran-contra affair, and his determination to defeat communism. It also addresses his memory and faculty issues. However, it completely sidesteps the War on Drugs, and his attitudes towards welfare and rampant racism of minorities.

[Meihan Liu · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting facts like “President Reagan’s used to being a celebrity and seeing his own name in newspapers so he didn’t care much about how newspapers wrote about him in his early presidency.” Hmm. Actor-turned-president is a fascinating phenomenon.

[Erick · Rating 4 out of 5]

A solid look at the Reagan years. Not terribly in-depth. I mean the re-election campaign feels like it's covered in a paragraph. But there's lots of nice behind the scenes info here you may not have heard about before.

[Nathan Albright · Rating 2 out of 5]

Richard Reeves, at least according to his wikipedia page, is irritated when people call him an elitist liberal [1]. The friend of mine who gave me this book, of course, is quite fond of liberal writers [2], and yet the fact that Reeves is an admittedly biased person makes a big difference in this book because the author is praised on the cover by a blurb from the New York Times that says that the book is scrupulously fair, which it is not. In fact, reading this book in light of the Obama presidency is a rather jarring experience, in that the very same things that Reeves critiques Reagan most harshly for--his focus on rhetoric and vision while beings somewhat cold and remote towards others, his desire to present himself as a candidate of hope and change and optimism in a cynical world, his tolerance of high budget deficits on a historic level, and the way that his cabinet officials engaged in illegal behavior involving arms trading and illegal e-mail servers [3]--are precisely those areas where a conservative of an opposite bias to the author's would excoriate Obama for, with at least equal fairness to the author. This book is not scrupulously fair; rather, it represents the efforts of an openly avowed left-wing thinker to seek to capture what was most noteworthy about President Reagan in the attempt that such rhetorical skill and success with the masses could be repeated by a suitable leftist candidate.

While it is fairly unsurprising that the contents of this book would reek with leftist bias, so much so that it is not even worthwhile to begin to document such matters with any kind of detail, given the extent to which the author seeks to use every primary source possible about the president and subject it to the most tortured and liberal interpretation possible, the bias of the author is even more notable in the structure of the book itself, which is worthy of comment. Ostensibly, the book consists of 23 days of the Reagan presidency, more than half of which are chosen in the second term, where a president can be more safely viewed as ineffective and irrelevant due to the lame duck effect. Even more than this, though, the dates are somewhat arbitrary, in that even though they represent some sort of turning point or important event, like President Reagan being shot, or election day, or various important meetings between Reagan and Gorbachev, or the day that Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork lamentably got borked, the author feels entirely free to ramble on like a senile elderly writer in need of focus about whatever strikes his fancy, even as he continually needles Reagan on being senile himself. Pot, meet kettle. That happens a lot in this book, to an irritating degree that makes it far less worthwhile as a source, and far less pleasant to read for anyone who is not drinking the same kool-aid as the author.

So, ultimately, what is one to make of this bloated book that weighs in at 490 turgid pages of biased reportage? For those on the left side of the political spectrum, this is the sort of work to read as a way of insulting the American populace for electing and then re-electing Reagan over Carter and Mondale, while pretending that this sort of work is scrupulously fair and even-handed in its approach. Even so, for those who do not find anything useful or worthwhile in the author's bias, this book is still noteworthy in that it provides an opportunity to remind oneself that it is not a good thing to idolize any political leader or place them on a pedestal. The author wisely notes towards the close of the book that the office of the presidency is more than anyone can bear on their own, and that those who serve the president, any president, need to avoid doing anything that brings discredit to someone who holds that noble office. The advice is wise advice, even coming from a disreputable source. Those who seek to defend the legitimacy of authority have a responsibility to act in such a way as to bring glory and credit and honor to those above them. We ignore the need to build others up at our peril, and is this book is largely a waste of good paper, it is not entirely without value, despite its authors best efforts.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard...

[2] See, for example:

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...

[3] https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...

[Rodney Harvill · Rating 2 out of 5]

Most presidential biographies I have read have been written by supporters and/or apologists. Mr. Reeves is a die-hard liberal (ok, LIBERAL) writing about a conservative president. He has rightly noted that President Reagan has been placed on a pedestal by his conservative admirers and is trying to knock him off the pedestal by contrasting the man with the legend. However, he appears to go further by trying to replace the pedestal with a crater and deprive the conservative movement of its hero. In doing this, he made even his legitimate criticisms appear to be little more than partisan jabs.

Even the title is a jab. In essence, liberal leaders are visionary; the ideas of conservative leaders are merely figments of a lively imagination.
One consistent characterization of President Reagan was "an old man." He was an old man set in his ways, an old man experiencing early symptoms of dementia and therefore unfit to run a nation. If Hillary wins the presidency in 2016, will Mr. Reeves write a book about her administration that characterizes her as an old woman set in her ways? I think not.

Mr. Reeves was highly critical of President Reagan's "we win, they lose" strategy with regards to the Soviets, claiming that it was not a strategy. Actually, it was a strategy, as playing to win, as opposed to playing not to lose, is a strategic decision. Most, if not all of, the administration's actions relating to the Communist bloc, were offshoots of this strategy. Furthermore, not long after Reagan left office, the Communist bloc house of cards collapsed under its own weight. We won; they lost.

Two areas of legitimate criticisms relate to the deficit spending and Iran-Contra:

1. In the Coolidge administration, there were a series of tax cuts. Because the U.S. was still paying down war debt from World War I, there was unease about the tax cuts, but the cuts spurred investment and increased tax revenues rather than decreasing them. This phenomenon, coupled with tight budget control and limited military spending, led to large budget surpluses allowing for dramatic debt reduction. President Reagan (as well as George W. Bush later) combined tax cuts with a lack of fiscal discipline and elevated military spending. The result was record deficits.
2. The Iran-Contra scandal had roots in two areas of foreign policy. First, the U.S. needed Iran to mediate the release of Americans kidnapped by Hezbollah in Beirut and provided the Iranians with military hardware and intelligence that aided them in the Iran-Iraq war (Based on when these dealings were made public, I cannot help but wonder if the Iraqi attack on the USS Stark was an expression of displeasure at this.) President Reagan also wanted to undercut the Communist Sandinista regime in Nicaragua, but Congress repeatedly declined to budget military aid. To deal with both issues, the Reagan administration sold arms to Iran in an arms for hostages scheme and funneled profits from these arms sales to Contra leaders. Essentially, President Reagan decided not to wait for Congress to act and chose to act unilaterally in this matter. Conservatives rightly criticize President Obama for his end-runs around Congress, but we must be willing to accept criticism of President Reagan's precedent.

Given that I was a teenager during the Reagan administration and paid attention to world events, I was intrigued by the descriptions of the inner workings of government that drove these events. However, I also found it tedious to navigate around a partisan bias so blatant that it could likely be seen with the naked eye from a galaxy far far away.

[M.T. Bass · Rating 2 out of 5]

The buck stops here: I take full responsibility for my disappointment in this book, having been misinformed by my expectations. I really enjoyed the Richard Reeves bio of Kennedy (President Kennedy: Profile of Power), giving it 5 out of 5 stars. I was hoping for more of the same, but what started as a fly-on-the-wall behind-the-scenes look at a presidency in action morphed into an examination of Reagan's reflection as it appeared in the mirror of the news media.

For example, Gorbechev was named Time Magazine's Man of the year…

But the Fashion Foundation of America named Reagan to its “Best Dressed” list for the fourth straight year, and dropped Gorbachev because he wore a business suit rather than a tuxedo to the formal White House dinner to celebrate the signing of the INF Treaty.

In fact, the very last sentence of the book is

“God, this is impressive,” said Steven Weisman, a New York Times White House correspondent during the Reagan years [commenting on his funeral]. “But the man they’re talking about is not the President I covered every day.”

There was also a lot more editorial snarkiness in Reeves' narrative this time than I recall in the Kennedy book. For example:

President Daniel Ortega and Defense Minister Humberto Ortega sounded more like the Marx Brothers than Marxists…

Or

He [Reagan] had connected Americans with a common political language—dumbing down politics in his way…

Written like a true Politico-Media Establishment elitist.

In fact, I think I may have come away with greater insight into those who collect salaries as paid observers of and commentators on politics than I did about Ronald Reagan. The book is littered with observations similar to Steven Weisman's, like:

David Stockman was cruel and specific in his reminiscences, helping create the image of a befuddled old man who came alive only when the curtain opened and the lights brightened.

It gives me pause that journalists and politicians may be afflicted with the same cognitive dissonance as movie and TV fans who might struggle with the fact that Matt Damon is not really Jason Bourne or that Martin Sheen was never really President.

Reagan was, after all, an actor…and, really, aren't we all?

[Andy Miller · Rating 4 out of 5]

A thoughtful, balanced view of the Reagan Presidency by Richard Reeves who notes his political differences with Reagan. However, those differences do not prevent Reeves from acknowledging Reagan's strengths; his vision and optimism for America, his political leadership, and a flexibility in many foreign policy areas that were not forseen by his foes--or many of his allies

Reeves details Reagan's legislative success early in his administration, it wasn't all movie star persona, in an early legislative battle, observers noted that Reagan called more congressmen in one week than Carter did in his entire term. But Reeves also discusses the shortcomings, that Reagan while publicly stating that his tax reductions and increased defense spending would eventually lead to a balanced budget knew that it wasn't really true, but balancing the budget was simply not a lesser for him. It is up to the reader to decide if the tax reductions and defense spending and impact on economy and cold war were worth the long term effects of the record deficits.

The inside battles of the administration are also documented, accenting Reagan's disdain for direct conflict and also his view of his Cabinet and staff as "hired help"

There are great chapters on Reagan's summits with Gorbachev which must be considered in the context that Reagan believed that the Soviet system was ready to collapse because of their heavy defense spending, a belief confirmed by history. However, Reagan showed a flexibility that led him to draft treaties that his conservative allies such as George Will considered as surrender in the Cold War. History has proved Reagan right and his conservative critics wrong

Reeves also details the lowest point of Reagan's Presidency--Contragate and how certain Administration officials, especially Oliver North, broke the law and then lied and shredded to cover up the law breaking; again Reeves gives the reader the facts to decide how much personal responsibility for this low point belongs to Reagan himself

Again, a comprehensive, balanced study of one of the most compelling and controversial Presidencies of our history

[Bill F.]

A thoroughly entertaining look at what many believe to be the most enigmatic politician of the second half of the 20th century. Whether you believe that Reagan's military spending was an intentional effort to bankrupt the USSR and bring about the fall of communism, or if you believe that Reagan couldn't spell 'SAT', you'll find something appealing in the Reagan that emerges.

For one thing, it is clear that Reeves' believes that the Reagan before March 30, 1981 and the man who survived the assassination attempt were very different. Prior to his being shot, Reagan appears as a dynamic, engaged, driven and thoughtful political manipulator - not in the pejorative sense but as a masterful leader. After the assassination attempt, a steady mental and physical decline in Reagan begins with a clear acceleration after his reelection in 1984.

Among the more revealing stories is the role that email played in Iran-Contra. Nearly 10 years before the rest of us, the White House had an internal email system in the mid-1980s and it was through those email messages that many of the facts about Iran-Contra came to light. Like many of us, those players in the affair were under the mistaken belief that deleting a message makes it go away forever. Also fascinating are the detailed narratives on three of the four Reagan-Gorbachev summits between 1985-1987. Realizing how close the two sides came at Reykjavik to actually having an agreement only to be aborted because of Reagan's insistence on maintaining funding for SDI -- and all this one month before Iran-Contra leaked - makes one wonder what would have happened had an agreement emerged in October 1986. Would the euphoria [with the exception of those on the far-Right] over such an agreement, would the Iran-Contra story have had any legs, or would it have disappeared? The final, and sad, item of note is Reeves' writing that Nancy Reagan told him that for the last few years of Ronald Reagan's life, he never opened his eyes while in the final stages of Alzheimer’s.

[Brian · Rating 5 out of 5]

Richard Reeves delivers yet another well done biography of a United States president. For those unfamiliar with Reeves style, his presidential biographies start with day one in office and end on the day the president leaves office. It really gives an inside view to what a day in the life of that president is like. So there is a note of caution since the book moves linearly and not topically it requires a great deal of extra attention as you may see one thing about Iran Contra but then go thirty pages before seeing something else about it. Like Reeves other presidential biographies there is also a human theme to underscore the understanding of the president and in this case it is that Reagan while not an expert of all the facts knew how to use the imagination of the American public to be the president they needed at the time.

This book does not portray him as a crusader against the evil empire, or the grand architect of Soviet defeat but for what he was; a man who held great zeal and passion for a brand of religious conservatism and a belief that people should be free. This book tracks through the good and the bad addressing the issues that plague Reagan's legacy. From the widening gap of wealth and the diminishing welfare services, the myth that he was often asleep at the wheel, and that Reagan was a war monger who abhorred peace. While Reeves does not agree with Reagan's politics he provides a fairly objective analysis on a president whose legacy still guides a party and insight into the man that Ronald Reagan was. For those who want to understand more about a fascinating modern politician this is the prefect place to start and well worth the time to read.

[Ryan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ronald Reagan is, despite being one of the most popular of U.S. presidents, one of the most mysterious men to have ever occupied the Oval Office. He's argued about, divisive (most seem to love him or loathe him), distant (emotionally and as a leader) and - depending who's writing about him - either the most captivating or the boring U.S. president in the last half of the twentieth century.

You'd think given his popularity, the emotional drama and scandals of his presidency, and his somewhat bizarre family life that there'd be no shortage of interesting books on Reagan. But "Dutch," written by Reagan's official biographer, Edmund Morris, is a snooze. The rest of the lot are either hagiographic or absurdly critical: The biographies by Dinesh D'Souza and Peggy Noonan are good but maybe a little gooey on the sentiment; books that try to dim Reagan's legacy are pedantic and typically seem to work better with exclamation points at the end of the title (e.g., "Tear Down This Myth" and "The Man Who Sold the World: Ronald Reagan and the Betrayal of Main Street America").

What the idolizers and critics both don't understand about Reagan is that they're both perpetuating a tall tale - but neither side will ever convince the other that one is right. Richard Reeves understands the best way to approach Reagan is from both sides - and his objective portrayal of Reagan's eight turbulent years in office may be one of the fairest and accessible works on the fortieth president. Concise, insightful and fast-paced.

[Rusty Henrichsen · Rating 5 out of 5]

I previously read this author's book on President Nixon and found it very insightful. I was surprised to find the subtitle of "The Triumph of Imagination." Turns out that Reeves gives the impression that there was little else to the Reagan White House than "imagination." Little substance and precious little guidance from the President to his subordinates.

I just read about a poll - the respondents were asked which president would they most like to see back in office. The winner was Reagan - a tribute to the idea currently circulating among many in the USA that the 80s were the golden age in our nation. I was not a believer of that idea 30 years ago, nor am I now.

I remember discounting the stories of Reagan nodding off in important meetings and only working "par-time" as gossip. Well, Reeves, through his many interviews and review of recently opened documents tells us that the sleepiness of Reagan is fact. His lax method of assinging tasks and following through on same is responsible for some of the problems of his 8 years in the White House, most notably Oliver North and the Iran-Contra mess. Anyone who still believes (as Reagan asserted many times) that North is a "national hero" should read the book and then make their judgment.

This book, along with the recently read Vietnam book, have convinced me that there is little truth in Washington pronouncements, unless there is some independent source to access.

I will be reading Reeves' book on President Kennedy in the near future.

[Mary · Rating 4 out of 5]

I wanted to find out why Reagan is perceived, by most liberals at least, to have been a really bad president. I thought the book was fairly evenhanded and gave a good account of how Reagan's administration carried out much of his agenda by withholding information from Congress and other deceptive and dishonest practices. It's the first time I've understood what the Iran/Contra affair was all about. Truly scary! The manipulation of Federal budget information was also alarming primarily because it seemed so simple and easy to get away with. Finally, it was apparent by the last couple of years of Reagan's presidency that he was having increasing cognitive difficulties, a situation not unique to this president. Wilson suffered the effects of a stroke (or the flu) during the last year of his administration, which was actually managed by his wife Edith until his tenure ended. And there is no doubt that FDR was seriously ill during the last month's before his death and wasn't really capable of focusing on the serious issues facing the Allied leaders during the ramp down of WWII. As for Reagan, I think had it not been for his charismatic personality, honed through years as an actor, GE rep, and California governor, he and his henchmen would have been caught out long before the end of his term. An interesting read.

[Bookmarks Magazine]

In the first major biography published after Reagan's death, Richard Reeves sticks to the same modus operandi used in his earlier biographies of Kennedy (President Kennedy: Profile of Power) and Nixon (President Nixon: Alone in the White House). Eschewing traditional biography, Reeves endeavors to understand his subjects through a close examination of how their administrations functioned on a day-to-day basis. It's a microscopic approach that provokes irritation (and yawns) from some corners. But with over 900 books about Reagan on the shelves, that most critics find something of value in President Reagan attests to Reeves's accomplishment. Of course, any book about a divisive figure yields its share of reviews based on ideology instead of critical theory. President Reagan is no exception, but where objectivity prevails, reviews are generally positive.

This is an excerpt from a review published in Bookmarks magazine.

[Zach · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an exceedingly well-written, engaging, and informative biography of a truly remarkable figure in American politics. Reeves manages to present a level-headed, unbiased account of the Reagan administration that shows both the successes and failings during Reagan's eight years as President. While I am not a Reagan fan, and this book gave me plenty of reasons to keep on doing so, I gained a sort of admiration for Ronald Reagan, and that is what I found to be the greatest of this book's assets. A midst Reagan's monotonous Communist bashing, privately funded ideological crusades, foreign policy blunders, and budget failures, the book still conveys Reagan's enormous likability and charisma. Reeves writes that over nine hundred books have been written about Reagan, and I would venture to say that this one paints one of the most complete portraits of the Reagan administration. Highly recommended.

[Tim Basuino · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ronald Reagan reminds me of a couple of older men I have known for the following reasons:
1. Very charming personality
2. Pays almost no attention to detail, delegating such tasks to underlings
3. Is very forgetful/repetitive
4. Tends to quiet the masses with rather generic platitudes
5. Is smarter than most people give him credit for
Richard Reeves’ book of our president from 1981-1989 focuses almost exclusively on that time period, so I think this falls a bit short of being able to be called a biography. Instead, we get a lot of detail regarding Alexander Haig, Grenada, Oliver North, and of course Gorbachev. All of that is fine and well, but I couldn’t help but feel that the tome is about the Reagan personality type in general. The difference being that Reagan did #1 and #4 better than most, and had the right connections to boot. The book didn’t make me like Reagan any more or less, but it did make me better understand his hold on whatever audience he may have had.

[Jerry Landry · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting perspective on one of the modern day's larger than life figures. I'm still conflicted on what I think of the Reagan presidency, which reached new heights in terms of easing Cold War tensions while at the same time sinking to new depths of government corruption and deficit spending. Certainly, a number of the issues that we're currently dealing with as a country were heavily influenced by decisions made, for better or worse, during Reagan's time in the Oval Office, and looking back on those decisions provides greater understanding to the modern world. I really enjoyed Reeves's writing style which, though it got bogged down at times in listing off perspectives of contemporary media commentators, flowed well for the most part and kept the reader engaged from cover to cover.

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

As we approach another presidential election in less than a month, Ronald Reagan's name is often used for what he and his presidency put into place. I enjoyed seeing all the events during his presidency interwoven with one another. It was interesting to hear the names of Joe Biden and Newt Gingrich, who have been around Washington a long time - also references to Jack Kemp, whose name has been brought up as people talk about Paul Ryan. Being in grade school, I followed the Challenger tragedy very closely. I also recently read a book that specifically talked about the assassination attempt on his life.

[Matt Randall · Rating 4 out of 5]

Its easy for some people to deify Ronald Reagan. Growing up in Waukesha County, its really easy for someone in my generation to fall into that pitfall as well. We really never knew President Reagan, we just knew of him. I think it was really enlightening to go through this book and see Reagan as a man who made decisions brilliantly and made mistakes. My biggest complaint about this book is his lack of spending time on his campaigns. He spent a lot of time on Iran/Contra, but very little time on how a man who bounced in approval ratings was able to secure 49 out of 50 states in his second election.

[Anup Sinha · Rating 3 out of 5]

Unquestionably thorough coverage of the eight Reagan years in the White House. Overall, I enjoyed it, both learning and refreshing on a lot of facts and history as I was just a kid during his presidency. It was a very slow read for me, as a non-politico, and there were lots of sections I only skimmed through simply because I didn't understand them. True politicos will get much more out of it. The narrative is dry and loaded with facts more than commentary or description. I did appreciate the evenhanded account, the good and the bad, and a better explanation of the triumphs (Tear down this wall!) and the scandals (Iran-Contra).

[Grindy Stone · Rating 4 out of 5]

Odd in that the author at the outset says that Ronald Reagan was not the detached, lazy, stage-managed script reader that some people think he is, before providing 400 pages of examples of RR's detachment, laziness, and script reading. Otherwise, a pretty good trip down memory lane, reminding us of Reagan's stellar supporting actors while on the national political stage. If you had to list the top 10 villains in American history, two - Alexander Haig and Oliver North - were active in the Reagan administration.