What do you think?
Rate this book
The President, the Pope, and the Prime Minister: Three Who Changed the World
The President, the Pope, and the Prime Minister is a sweeping, dramatic account of how three great figures changed the course of history. All of them led with courage — but also with great optimism. The pope helped ordinary Poles and East Europeans banish their fear of Soviet Communism, convincing them that liberation was possible. The prime minister restored her country's failing economy by reviving the "vigorous virtues" of the British people. The president rebuilt America's military power, its national morale, and its pre – eminence as leader of the free world. Together they brought down an evil empire and changed the world for the better. No one can tell their intertwined story better than John O'Sullivan, former editor of National Review and the Times of London , who knew all three and conducted exclusive interviews that shed extraordinary new light on these giants of the twentieth century.
360 pages, Paperback
First published October 1, 2006
73 people are currently reading
588 people want to read
About the author
John O'Sullivan
1 book11 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
John O'Sullivan, author of The President, the Pope, and the Prime Minister, covered the Reagan presidency as a Washington columnist, was a special adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, and has written regularly on Pope John Paul II and the Catholic Church's influence on international relations. A veteran journalist in Britain and the United States, he was the editor in chief of National Review, The National Interest, Policy Review, and United Press International, editorial page editor of the New York Post, op-ed and editorial page editor for the London Times, and an editor with the London Daily Telegraph. He is currently editor at large for National Review, a weekly columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times, and a senior fellow with the Hudson Institute. A Commander of the British Empire and founder of the New Atlantic Initiative, he divides his time between his apartment in Washington, D.C., his home in Decatur, Alabama, and frequent trips to Britain, Europe, and Latin America.
(source: http://www.regnery.com/author/john-os...)
John O'Sullivan, author of The President, the Pope, and the Prime Minister, covered the Reagan presidency as a Washington columnist, was a special adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, and has written regularly on Pope John Paul II and the Catholic Church's influence on international relations. A veteran journalist in Britain and the United States, he was the editor in chief of National Review, The National Interest, Policy Review, and United Press International, editorial page editor of the New York Post, op-ed and editorial page editor for the London Times, and an editor with the London Daily Telegraph. He is currently editor at large for National Review, a weekly columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times, and a senior fellow with the Hudson Institute. A Commander of the British Empire and founder of the New Atlantic Initiative, he divides his time between his apartment in Washington, D.C., his home in Decatur, Alabama, and frequent trips to Britain, Europe, and Latin America.
(source: http://www.regnery.com/author/john-os...)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 42 reviews
February 18, 2016
The fall of Communism throughout Eastern Europe and the break up of the Soviet Union was such a game changer for the world stage. It completely turned upside down the way I viewed the world during my life span from the 1950s to the 1980s and the three world figures included in this book figured so prominently in bringing about the policies that paved the way. Much of what was included here I did know especially the Reagan years and his role leading up to his famous line, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall". And I knew of his close connection and respect for Prime Minister Thatcher and her mostly compatible policies. But even with those two heads of state there were new intricacies and nuances that I learned here that all fall somewhat imperfectly into place to create the perfect atmosphere for the needed changes to be made so that Communism would loosen its tight grip on those nations behind the Iron Curtain. And one part that was so interesting was the hand of Pope John Paul and how his connection to Eastern Europe, especially to Poland, helped to spur a willingness to resist the forceful hand of the Communist state and to give those believers the strength to "keep the faith" both in word and in action. It is a very informative and well done read.
August 11, 2013
The author is definitely a fan of all three--Reagan, Pope John Paul II, and Thatcher, but I enjoyed his bias. Prior to reading this book I had never considered the Pope's role in the fall of communism. I hadn't even recognized the fascinating situation of a world religious leader coming from a country whose government was anti-religion. I'm eager to learn more about him.
January 23, 2016
Well written and interesting, this book is the story of three great leaders: Thatcher, Reagan, and John Paul II. Written by an former editor at National Review, the story of the the Big Three is told through a decidedly conservative point of view, which I am fine with since so much in the field of history is infected by Marxism and Progressivism these days. Essentially, Reagan, Thatcher (who died just a few days ago) and the Pope were courageous, optimistic, and firm. They were clear in their convictions, willing to stand up for what they believed in, and formed by a deeply Christian worldview. Perfect? Of course not; no leader is perfect. But were they pretty damn good? Yes they were.
I remember many of the events in this book, but hazily, as though through a glass darkly (to steal a phrase). I was very young during the 80s, but I do recall most of the big events this book chronicles. Equally interesting to me was the survey of the 1970s, which were a horrible decade of rising crime rates, inflation, stagnation, and cultural malaise. It's no wonder that someone like Reagan appealed to the majority of Americans. My first impression of him, when I was ten years old, was the thought that he could keep me safe. I hung on to that belief all the way through my high school graduation, when President Reagan left office. I think, for many in my generation, we feel about Reagan the way our parents felt about John F. Kennedy: we just loved him, despite his flaws and failings. I remember being a college freshman in a world history class and having my professor become absolutely apoplectic about Reagan. That was in 1987. He still engenders the same Pavlovian response for liberals today. That's part of why I love him so.
One very interesting point in this book was about the behavior of one Edward M. Kennedy toward the Soviet Union. I knew that he, like so many who shared his politics going all the way back the the Russian Revolution, was naive about the USSR, but I had no idea how he actively worked to undermine the President while Reagan negotiated with Gorbachev. Pathetic, and not the least bit surprising.
So a good book about the great events of a few decades past. Most histories about this time period are written from a liberal point of view. It was refreshing to read something positive about the successes of conservatism for a change.
I remember many of the events in this book, but hazily, as though through a glass darkly (to steal a phrase). I was very young during the 80s, but I do recall most of the big events this book chronicles. Equally interesting to me was the survey of the 1970s, which were a horrible decade of rising crime rates, inflation, stagnation, and cultural malaise. It's no wonder that someone like Reagan appealed to the majority of Americans. My first impression of him, when I was ten years old, was the thought that he could keep me safe. I hung on to that belief all the way through my high school graduation, when President Reagan left office. I think, for many in my generation, we feel about Reagan the way our parents felt about John F. Kennedy: we just loved him, despite his flaws and failings. I remember being a college freshman in a world history class and having my professor become absolutely apoplectic about Reagan. That was in 1987. He still engenders the same Pavlovian response for liberals today. That's part of why I love him so.
One very interesting point in this book was about the behavior of one Edward M. Kennedy toward the Soviet Union. I knew that he, like so many who shared his politics going all the way back the the Russian Revolution, was naive about the USSR, but I had no idea how he actively worked to undermine the President while Reagan negotiated with Gorbachev. Pathetic, and not the least bit surprising.
So a good book about the great events of a few decades past. Most histories about this time period are written from a liberal point of view. It was refreshing to read something positive about the successes of conservatism for a change.
March 6, 2022
Closer to a 3.5. I think I meant to get a different book than this one, although it's a solid look at the end of the Cold War in spite of its hagiographic tendencies.
July 6, 2014
In much of the analysis of the papal portion of this triumvirate, O'Sullivan leans heavily on the previous work of George Weigel. Still, "The President, the Pope, and the Prime Minister" is an interesting read, especially in the way it compares and contrasts the way Reagan, Pope John Paul II and Thatcher dealt with assassination attempts.
November 10, 2017
I really enjoyed reading this book! Very informative, learned a lot of things about Margaret Thatcher, had no idea she was almost assassinated by the IRA. Great insight into the Falkland war, and of course, the ending of the Cold War.
January 22, 2009
I have a great admiration for Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, but it wasn't until I read this book that I gained a newfound respect for Pope John Paul II. I hadn't understood what a key role he played in bringing an end to communism. It is apparent to me there was a divine hand in bringing these three individuals into power in their respective roles at just the right moment in time. May the world see more great leaders like these three.
October 26, 2018
The first time I read this in college I loved it. This time I was underwhelmed. It's the history of the 80s written by a conservative Catholic. It deals primarily with the political and economic changes of the decade. But does touch on the 3 individuals who played such a role.
It talks some Catholic philosophy. Some Post war English mentality and the charisma of Reagan that enchanted a country.
A little complicated. A little dry. A good look at the decade with an obvious slant.
It talks some Catholic philosophy. Some Post war English mentality and the charisma of Reagan that enchanted a country.
A little complicated. A little dry. A good look at the decade with an obvious slant.
June 1, 2017
OSullivan, John. The President, the Pope, and the Prime Minister: Three Who Changed the World. Washington, DC: Regnery Pub., 2008.
There are three major world events which defined the 20th century: World War 1, World War 2 and the Cold War. In his book The President, the Pope and the Prime Minister, John O’Sullivan chronicles the extraordinary role Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II played in the ultimate downfall of the Soviet Union. O’Sullivan does an excellent job at both detailing the evolution of each of the parties and of their respective constituencies. Early in the book he states bluntly that “Woijtyla (John Paul II) was too Catholic, Thatcher too conservative, and Reagan too American.” This caused each to be easily written off and disregarded. However, by almost shear will of personality and the ineffectiveness of the opposition to correct many of the ages problems, the three began to win over many to their ideologies.
Perhaps some of the most interesting details in the book focus around a span of just three months, in 1981. That three-month span saw both Ronald Reagan and the pope almost killed by an assassin’s bullet. O’Sullivan details just how close the two men came to dying. The author makes a convincing case that the Soviet Union had contracted the would-be assassin to try and kill the pope. That is how dangerous John Paull II had come to the Soviet Union. Either way, fate intervened. As John Paul said afterwards “one hand shot the bullet and another one guided it.” O’Sullivan astutely points out whether one believes divine intervention was responsible for the survival of Reagan and the pope, is really irrelevant. The important thing from a historical perspective, is that the people involved thoroughly believed their lives were spared for a divine purpose and it influenced their actions. O’Sullivan also discusses the failed attempt on Margaret Thatcher’s life. All three incidents gave the near victims great political capital which helped them carry out their objectives.
The next major subject of the book was the support of Solidarity, in Poland. O’Sullivan succeeds in detailing the force and influence John Paul II wielded over the population of his home country. His philosophy of passive resistance slowly began to eat away at the legitimacy of not just the Polish government but of the Kremlin itself. He compliments that by showing how Reagan would support Solidarity not just with words of support but also with logistical capabilities such as disseminating radios. Through the efforts of both men, the Polish dictatorship fell without any violence or military action. It was complete victory for the president and pope.
Perhaps the most fascinating section, in the book, is the relationship between the three figures. Regarding Poland and Solidarity, the Reagan administration routinely shared intelligence with the Vatican and openly accepted counsel on how to proceed. Much the same was true of Margaret Thatcher and Reagan. While Reagan’s role is often given precedence in American literature, O’Sullivan shows their relationship one of very even give and take. Thatcher, in many cases, had as much or more influence as members of his cabinet. Reagan agreed to meet with Gorbachev after the Prime Minister assured him that Gorbachev was “a man we can do business with.” In this regard Thatcher was an indispensable factor in the eventual downfall of communism.
If there is any criticism, it will be that the author is unabashed in his adoration for Ronald Reagan. He rarely, if ever criticizes the former president throughout the book. Whether one finds that refreshing or deliberately biased will likely depend on their political leanings. However, while many of the arguments, especially regarding places like Nicaragua and El Salvador, are predominately partisan he does give information to support is conclusions.
In summary, The President, the Pope and the Prime Minister does a great job of explaining how the Cold War was won not by weapons or economic philosophy, but by a triumvirate of great personalities that believed in what they stood for and were not afraid to fight for that belief. They strengthened each other’s resolve and ushered in a new world order. I would recommend this book to anyone who is looking for a slightly different perspective of the end of the Cold War.
Overall rating: 4.5/5 stars
There are three major world events which defined the 20th century: World War 1, World War 2 and the Cold War. In his book The President, the Pope and the Prime Minister, John O’Sullivan chronicles the extraordinary role Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II played in the ultimate downfall of the Soviet Union. O’Sullivan does an excellent job at both detailing the evolution of each of the parties and of their respective constituencies. Early in the book he states bluntly that “Woijtyla (John Paul II) was too Catholic, Thatcher too conservative, and Reagan too American.” This caused each to be easily written off and disregarded. However, by almost shear will of personality and the ineffectiveness of the opposition to correct many of the ages problems, the three began to win over many to their ideologies.
Perhaps some of the most interesting details in the book focus around a span of just three months, in 1981. That three-month span saw both Ronald Reagan and the pope almost killed by an assassin’s bullet. O’Sullivan details just how close the two men came to dying. The author makes a convincing case that the Soviet Union had contracted the would-be assassin to try and kill the pope. That is how dangerous John Paull II had come to the Soviet Union. Either way, fate intervened. As John Paul said afterwards “one hand shot the bullet and another one guided it.” O’Sullivan astutely points out whether one believes divine intervention was responsible for the survival of Reagan and the pope, is really irrelevant. The important thing from a historical perspective, is that the people involved thoroughly believed their lives were spared for a divine purpose and it influenced their actions. O’Sullivan also discusses the failed attempt on Margaret Thatcher’s life. All three incidents gave the near victims great political capital which helped them carry out their objectives.
The next major subject of the book was the support of Solidarity, in Poland. O’Sullivan succeeds in detailing the force and influence John Paul II wielded over the population of his home country. His philosophy of passive resistance slowly began to eat away at the legitimacy of not just the Polish government but of the Kremlin itself. He compliments that by showing how Reagan would support Solidarity not just with words of support but also with logistical capabilities such as disseminating radios. Through the efforts of both men, the Polish dictatorship fell without any violence or military action. It was complete victory for the president and pope.
Perhaps the most fascinating section, in the book, is the relationship between the three figures. Regarding Poland and Solidarity, the Reagan administration routinely shared intelligence with the Vatican and openly accepted counsel on how to proceed. Much the same was true of Margaret Thatcher and Reagan. While Reagan’s role is often given precedence in American literature, O’Sullivan shows their relationship one of very even give and take. Thatcher, in many cases, had as much or more influence as members of his cabinet. Reagan agreed to meet with Gorbachev after the Prime Minister assured him that Gorbachev was “a man we can do business with.” In this regard Thatcher was an indispensable factor in the eventual downfall of communism.
If there is any criticism, it will be that the author is unabashed in his adoration for Ronald Reagan. He rarely, if ever criticizes the former president throughout the book. Whether one finds that refreshing or deliberately biased will likely depend on their political leanings. However, while many of the arguments, especially regarding places like Nicaragua and El Salvador, are predominately partisan he does give information to support is conclusions.
In summary, The President, the Pope and the Prime Minister does a great job of explaining how the Cold War was won not by weapons or economic philosophy, but by a triumvirate of great personalities that believed in what they stood for and were not afraid to fight for that belief. They strengthened each other’s resolve and ushered in a new world order. I would recommend this book to anyone who is looking for a slightly different perspective of the end of the Cold War.
Overall rating: 4.5/5 stars
November 7, 2020
Reading this book affirms the cliche that history does repeat itself. At the height of the Cold War, three remarkable individuals came upon the political scene, and changed the course of history. Proponents of Ostpolitik within the Vatican pushed for a compromise with the Soviet bloc countries, just as the powers to be within the Church made a morally compromised agreement with the atheistic and evil government of the People's Republic of China. Unfortunately, today we do not have a John-Paul to stand behind the underground Catholics of China, the Catholics of Hong Kong and Taiwan. We do not have a Pope that would have the moral authority to promote the kind of cultural resistance that successfully overthrew the communist dictatorship in Poland. Rather, we sit down and we make deals with the devil.
The so-called "National Security Law" in Hong Kong has resulted in a sort of uneasy peace within the once vibrant city. Could it be the final lashing out of a tyrant, a government so desperate to hang on to power that it would resort to such tactics? Just as the Polish communist government's suppression of Solidarity in the last days of its reign?
Today, we are once again in the throes of a battle between the forces of good and evil. How I wish there would be once again a Reagan, or a John-Paul on our side. I fear that things will only get worse from here.
The so-called "National Security Law" in Hong Kong has resulted in a sort of uneasy peace within the once vibrant city. Could it be the final lashing out of a tyrant, a government so desperate to hang on to power that it would resort to such tactics? Just as the Polish communist government's suppression of Solidarity in the last days of its reign?
Today, we are once again in the throes of a battle between the forces of good and evil. How I wish there would be once again a Reagan, or a John-Paul on our side. I fear that things will only get worse from here.
August 20, 2024
I prefer non-fiction with more facts and fewer opinions.
There are a lot of statements like, "Carter felt..." and "Pope Paul VI felt..." with no source. Did these people really feel that way? How does the author know? Did they directly say this? Did a friend of theirs relate this to the author? Or is he just making assumptions about real people's personal feelings?
He also doesn't cite sources for many actual quotes. I don't expect a source citation for something like, "Tear down this wall," but many of these are not well-known quotes. There is even one whole exchange, a seemingly private conversation between a journalist and his barber, with no indication of how the author knows this happened or what was said.
Statistics are also not given to back up statements that need it, such as when he claims child abuse was on the rise.
This feels like many years of opinion pieces from newspapers, strung together with conservative Catholic (and I'm not maligning either of those) interpretations of history and background. I was hoping for a scholarly, well-rounded view of these people and period in history.
There are a lot of statements like, "Carter felt..." and "Pope Paul VI felt..." with no source. Did these people really feel that way? How does the author know? Did they directly say this? Did a friend of theirs relate this to the author? Or is he just making assumptions about real people's personal feelings?
He also doesn't cite sources for many actual quotes. I don't expect a source citation for something like, "Tear down this wall," but many of these are not well-known quotes. There is even one whole exchange, a seemingly private conversation between a journalist and his barber, with no indication of how the author knows this happened or what was said.
Statistics are also not given to back up statements that need it, such as when he claims child abuse was on the rise.
This feels like many years of opinion pieces from newspapers, strung together with conservative Catholic (and I'm not maligning either of those) interpretations of history and background. I was hoping for a scholarly, well-rounded view of these people and period in history.
June 29, 2020
Enjoyed tremendously. Much information on events in the 1980s such as the Falklands War and SDI to which I paid only partial attention at the time (4 children, full time job, and death of both parents). Succinct summary of various social "revolutions" of the 60s and the 70s and their consequences. Particularly valuable on the post Vatican II Catholic Church. Fascinated with reading about exactly how the co-operation among the three brought about the end of communist domination of Poland and consequent liberation of eastern Europe. Favorite quote from Margaret Thatcher. "It was easy for lesser men to underrate Ronald Reagan" as seen in barbed comments by Tom Brokaw, Tom Wicker and Anthony Lewis of the New York Times, and historian Henry Steele Commager.
February 28, 2018
Una buena lectura que da tres biografías en un solo volumen, de personajes que coincidieron en el tiempo y con creencias similares. Es una narración, con clara simpatía hacia S. Juan Pablo II, Ronald Reagan y Margaret Thatcher, de sucesos en los que al menos uno de ellos fue actor central. Desde la inquietud naciente en Polonia hasta la desintegración del imperio soviético, el libro está lleno de información y anécdotas que ayudarán al lector a recordar esos tiempos que cambiaron la historia. Fácil de leer y muy recomendable
July 23, 2017
This was chock full of great information, carefully cited throughout. However, I feel like this is several books smashed into one exhausting volume. The author kept revisiting the relationship between Thatcher and Reagan....but what about JP2? The book seemed to be 40% Prime Minister, 35% President, and 25% Pope. I liked the book, but having finished it, I'm just motivated to read more about John Paul.
October 3, 2017
An entertaining read if you lived through some of this history as it gives you new insights into the impact that these three leaders had on the world stage at a particularly dramatic point in modern history. Each of them is an interesting character but where the book shines through the best is when it describes the relationships between them. Most of this centered around Reagan and his relationship with Thatcher was warm and supportive as they saw in each other an ally and a friend.
July 22, 2017
Filled with political and historical insight! Who would have imagined in today's climate that Senators Tunney, D. Ca. And Ted. Kennedy, D. Mass. met with Soviet leaders Brezniev and Gorbachev respectively in Russia to undermine President Reagan's peace initiatives!! Also, Putin has now prohibited release of transcripts of discussions between the Senators and the Aforementioned premieres.
January 4, 2019
I started this in 2018, but I’m counting it towards my goal for 2019.
February 2, 2020
Excellent. Very interesting and informative
January 23, 2021
Reagan was so overrated as a President
April 1, 2021
Good introduction to researching Margaret Thatcher, it's a nice start but that's pretty much it.
July 26, 2025
This book has been on my radar for a while, Avs as finally got around to reading it! The book presents a dry but detailed account of the three pivotal leaders during the concluding years of the Cold War ace the triumph of Capitalism. The book highlights the respective risks each took in their bold leadership style.
That’s being said, the book is a bit too much of a cheerleader for the three without much critical analysis. The book touches on Iran-Contra in some detail and brushes over Thatcher’s fall from power, but that is about it.
In total for the thorough reach here the book deserves praise but loses some points for the dryness and perceived one-sidedness.
That’s being said, the book is a bit too much of a cheerleader for the three without much critical analysis. The book touches on Iran-Contra in some detail and brushes over Thatcher’s fall from power, but that is about it.
In total for the thorough reach here the book deserves praise but loses some points for the dryness and perceived one-sidedness.
October 21, 2015
In November 2014, many people marked the 25th anniversary of the opening of the Berlin Wall, part of the several things that signaled the end of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. With the exception of a handful of countries and a significant majority of university campuses, these events put a period on the inadequate economic and political system called Communism. Theories about how and why this happened abound, but many center on U.S. President Ronald Reagan, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, Pope John Paul II and Communist Party General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev. Secretary Gorbachev was the youngest of the four and is is the only one still living.
John O'Sullivan's The President, the Pope and the Prime Minister sketches several elements of the leadership and activities of the three Western leaders during the late 1970s and into the 1980s when events began to coalesce. John Paul became a face for freedom's struggle by being selected as Pope of the Roman Catholic Church in 1978, Baroness Thatcher was elected Prime Minister in 1979 and President Reagan took office in 1980. O'Sullivan describes how each of the three initially came into leadership positions after some time on the sidelines, and focuses primarily on their interactions as they opposed the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact nations. He offers some side information on how they interacted with each other, especially Reagan and Thatcher.
John Paul's role in strengthening Poles who insisted on religious freedom helped expose the economic weaknesses that had begun the erode Soviet power. Moscow did not have the resources to help Polish Communist leaders put down the freedom movements without overwhelming force, and the prospect of being frozen out of international trade left that option unusable. After O'Sullivan offers these details, he mostly switches to the role of Reagan, supported by Thatcher. PPPM reads quickly and offers substantial footnotes to look at more expansive treatments of the era's history and primary sources. Although the three did not necessarily coordinate their activities or even do the majority of their work at the same time, O'Sullivan's idea is that the three of them each took a swing at their Cold War opponents that eventually succeeded in breaking up both the Eastern bloc and the Soviet Union.
Original available here.
John O'Sullivan's The President, the Pope and the Prime Minister sketches several elements of the leadership and activities of the three Western leaders during the late 1970s and into the 1980s when events began to coalesce. John Paul became a face for freedom's struggle by being selected as Pope of the Roman Catholic Church in 1978, Baroness Thatcher was elected Prime Minister in 1979 and President Reagan took office in 1980. O'Sullivan describes how each of the three initially came into leadership positions after some time on the sidelines, and focuses primarily on their interactions as they opposed the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact nations. He offers some side information on how they interacted with each other, especially Reagan and Thatcher.
John Paul's role in strengthening Poles who insisted on religious freedom helped expose the economic weaknesses that had begun the erode Soviet power. Moscow did not have the resources to help Polish Communist leaders put down the freedom movements without overwhelming force, and the prospect of being frozen out of international trade left that option unusable. After O'Sullivan offers these details, he mostly switches to the role of Reagan, supported by Thatcher. PPPM reads quickly and offers substantial footnotes to look at more expansive treatments of the era's history and primary sources. Although the three did not necessarily coordinate their activities or even do the majority of their work at the same time, O'Sullivan's idea is that the three of them each took a swing at their Cold War opponents that eventually succeeded in breaking up both the Eastern bloc and the Soviet Union.
Original available here.
January 25, 2008
This is a good book about three historically great individuals. Just reading about these three giants was a pleasure, and it has renewed my desire to read the enormous and definitive biography of John Paul II "Witness to Hope." However, there is nothing groundbreaking in this book, it relies heavily on already existing works about Reagan, Thatcher, and JPII. The writing itself is nothing sensational, but it is satisfactory. It never hurts to be reminded of how much Reagan and Thatcher changed the policies of their governments and to what tremendous effect. It is stunning to read about the political state of affairs in the late seventies, both domestically in the US and the UK, and globally. The Soviets were ascendant, most of the western intelligentsia accepted and even welcomed the permanence of a communist USSR. The West was demoralized. 10 years later the Berlin Wall fell and freedom swept across eastern Europe into Russia itself. Reagan, lampooned as a warmongering buffoon, was actually committed to the total eradication of nuclear weapons to such an extent that American military leaders were alarmed (as was Thatcher). His strong support for missile defense was rooted in his revulsion at the idea of mutually assured destruction.
A powerful lesson is to be learned from this history. Reagan built up the American military and talked tough to the Russians. Derided as a cowboy and a destabilizer, in the end he provoked no war, but won one without firing a shot (the Cold War). He was more responsible than anyone else for bringing democracy to hundreds of millions in eastern Europe. Contrast this with the Clinton Administration. Eight years of reducing America's military and of pandering to a corrupt Yeltsin not only failed to solidify the freedoms Reagan helped unleash, but in fact enabled the establishment of a kleptocracy that has now given birth to Putinism -- a development unfriendly to America and especially to freedom-seeking Russians. Don't expect to hear about that on CNN though. Unfortunately much that was gained has been lost. Peace through strength.
A powerful lesson is to be learned from this history. Reagan built up the American military and talked tough to the Russians. Derided as a cowboy and a destabilizer, in the end he provoked no war, but won one without firing a shot (the Cold War). He was more responsible than anyone else for bringing democracy to hundreds of millions in eastern Europe. Contrast this with the Clinton Administration. Eight years of reducing America's military and of pandering to a corrupt Yeltsin not only failed to solidify the freedoms Reagan helped unleash, but in fact enabled the establishment of a kleptocracy that has now given birth to Putinism -- a development unfriendly to America and especially to freedom-seeking Russians. Don't expect to hear about that on CNN though. Unfortunately much that was gained has been lost. Peace through strength.
Read
August 1, 2013'The President, the Pope and the Prime Minister, John O’ Sullivan’s engaging account of that great period of hope in the 1980s, must warm the heart of any decent person. We few, we happy few, who did not buy the fellow-traveling garbage of the majority, never expected to see such wondrous times. As I read through this committed, generous account, I recalled all those moments when my own spirits lifted higher than I had ever thought possible. I recollected an encounter with Lech Walesa on a freezing morning in Gdansk, when he was still one small man against an empire, fortified by an unconquerable faith.
I remembered an even colder day in Prague when that impossibly lovely city suddenly recovered its twice-betrayed liberty. And I called to mind the almost inexpressible delight of seeing thousands of Communist Party membership cards hurled into trashcans and onto bonfires in Moscow in August 1991. O’Sullivan is also good on the creepy machinations of Western fellow travelers who actively sold or gave themselves to the wrong side and should never be allowed to forget it. Yet they have forgotten it, and they got away with it, and they continue to be powerful in Western nations, which is what is wrong with this celebratory account of a victory that has drained away.'
Read the full review, "Greatest Hits of the Eighties," on our website:
http://www.theamericanconservative.co...
I remembered an even colder day in Prague when that impossibly lovely city suddenly recovered its twice-betrayed liberty. And I called to mind the almost inexpressible delight of seeing thousands of Communist Party membership cards hurled into trashcans and onto bonfires in Moscow in August 1991. O’Sullivan is also good on the creepy machinations of Western fellow travelers who actively sold or gave themselves to the wrong side and should never be allowed to forget it. Yet they have forgotten it, and they got away with it, and they continue to be powerful in Western nations, which is what is wrong with this celebratory account of a victory that has drained away.'
Read the full review, "Greatest Hits of the Eighties," on our website:
http://www.theamericanconservative.co...
July 29, 2009
I read this the summer of 2008 or 07 but remember it well as an enjoyable read, the kind where you feel like you lost a friend when it's finished and you put it down. It is, of course, about how Maggie Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, and Pope John Paul II won the Cold War without firing a shot. O'Sullivan, the author, was a speechwriter or special advisor to Thatcher, so he's able to draw upon personal knowledge when writing about her (and his anecdotes can sometimes be amusing); otherwise, he depends on the historical record. He builds a case for providence by showing how unlikely it was that any of these three would become world leaders. O'Sullivan, if I recall correctly, doesn't buy into the argument that Reagan was merely a mouthpiece for others. And he brought clarity to how the Pope challenged Communism on its own turf, using spiritual rather than political arguments. Gorbachev is admittedly given short shrift but, so long as the reader understands that no historical account is likely to be exhaustive, it's a minor quibble at best. Gorby, after all, was trying to save, not destroy, Communism.
April 24, 2012
Great book on the three most important people of the second half of the 20th century. Reagan with the help of John Paul II and Margaret Thatcher end the Cold War with out becoming a shooting war. Yes he was the major player in ending the Evil Empire. Gorbachev does deserve some praise for the role he played but it is interesting that as the head of a totalitarian government you receive praise for not shooting your own people but you must give credit where credit is due. Sure many of my friends will say why of course Costello is a fan of Reagan, but I must admit I was never a huge Reagan fan when he was alive. I never voted for him. I always thought he never went far enough to reduce the size of government. I only saw him one in person at a big dinner at McCormick place early in his first administration.
March 30, 2013
Very good book on the relationship between Reagan, Thatcher, and JPII, and how they brought down communism in Europe. To the well read, much of it will not come as a surprise, but it was surprising to me how different their tactical, and in some cases even strategic, ideas differed, yet somehow all blended together well. The fact that each genuinely admired and liked each other helped. As did the Soviet's cooperation at reacting to almost everyone of their moves wrongly. Perhaps they had no other choice, however. It's always hard to judge the political leeway despots have.
O'Sullivan's style is easy to read and brisk. He doesn't get too bogged down in details, sometimes I wish he had more. But overall, this was an informative and interesting read about what was the single most important international relations success in the post WW2 era.
O'Sullivan's style is easy to read and brisk. He doesn't get too bogged down in details, sometimes I wish he had more. But overall, this was an informative and interesting read about what was the single most important international relations success in the post WW2 era.
January 30, 2012
A writer on the subject of conservatives and catholics writes a very good book on 3 Christian conservatives who survived assassination atempts and went on to change the world. All very good.
How all 3 played their part in bringing down what Reagan called the 'evil empire'; the USSR. Or as O'Sullivan writes it; the evil empire.
This reads kind of strange to a UK reader; so in thrall are our intelectual elite/state media to moral relativism and marxist sympathies that you are as likely to read the phrase evil empire outside quotation marks as you are to hear the words...er.. evil or empire. Its not that they disagree with the description- they disagree with the very concepts.
Liked the book all the more for knowing where it stood..
How all 3 played their part in bringing down what Reagan called the 'evil empire'; the USSR. Or as O'Sullivan writes it; the evil empire.
This reads kind of strange to a UK reader; so in thrall are our intelectual elite/state media to moral relativism and marxist sympathies that you are as likely to read the phrase evil empire outside quotation marks as you are to hear the words...er.. evil or empire. Its not that they disagree with the description- they disagree with the very concepts.
Liked the book all the more for knowing where it stood..
April 30, 2012
O'Sullivan is of course talking about Ronald Reagan, John Paul II, and Margaret Thatcher. While his goal is to show how the "triumverate," as some call them, brought about Cold War victory and a new understanding of individual liberty to the world, what he invariably does is write a tidy (and conservative) history and summation of the 1980's. I will not fault O'Sullivan for hero-worshipping or partisanship. He is so blatant about it that it is clear that his intent of writing was not to analyze history against a backdrop of theory. It is not supposed to be a scholastic work in the strict meaning of the word. It is supposed to help us not forget that some heroes need to be revered always: to inspire, to teach us.
March 17, 2014
I am about half way through it and this book is fabulous! I am understanding so much more about events that happened when I was a kid. These were three amazing people. We have them to thank for the fact that we still have some freedoms in this country. They put a screeching halt to communism and communist thought, the world over, for a decade...unfortunately we allowed it to come back.
update 3/13/14
I LOVED this book. It filled in gaps of my understanding of the 1)principles of liberty, 2)the events that occurred during my mission service for two years (1989 and 1990), and 3)the great spirituality of leaders that I already admired. Now I know why they stood for what they did. They are SO inspiring. We need three more just like them.
update 3/13/14
I LOVED this book. It filled in gaps of my understanding of the 1)principles of liberty, 2)the events that occurred during my mission service for two years (1989 and 1990), and 3)the great spirituality of leaders that I already admired. Now I know why they stood for what they did. They are SO inspiring. We need three more just like them.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 42 reviews