Rating: 
Summary: What the (...)
Review: Are you an ultraconservative reader--one that doesn't have the time to drag your feet through another methodologically sound, borderline "moderate," attempt at historical honesty? Do you prefer heavily biased, anecdotally laden sources of information to buttress your certitude? Do you love apple pie and rue the day when you must admit with humility, "Yes, I am a conservative, and I am NOT a bright shining crusader of riteousness and perfection put on God's Green Earth to do battle with moderates and "chatty," immasculated liberal/intellectual eunichs. I've got lots of problems and very few answers just like everyone else." --??? WELL--THIS BOOK WAS WRITTEN FOR YOU, YOU POOR SOUL!! Spend your hard won cash on this 848-page pat-on-the-back! You deserve this nugget of sweet self-congradulatory fantasy built on a few kernels of truth! THIS BUD'S FOR YOU, man!!!
However, if you are a conservative (like myself) who despises that arrogant false sense of certitude that sucks the beauty out of a noble tradition like a tick on a hog, don't waste your money on this JOKE of a "political history" (like I did). Instead, pick up a copy of:
"James Madison : Writings (Library of America, 109)"
by James Madison, Jack N. Rakove (Editor),
or
"Conservative Reformers : The Republican Freshmen and the Lessons of the 104th Congress"
by Nicol C. Rae Your money wil be spent wisely, and your intellectual honesty won't suffer!
KEEP THE FAITH!
Rating: 
Summary: an excellent read about an excellent man!
Review: Effectively portrays the life of the pre-presidential Ronald Reagan while incorporating the events that were taking place in America's dark ages (the 60's and 70's).
Rating:
Summary: The Definitive Story
Review: Even if you lived through the period covered 1964 through 1980, read this book. It will be "the" history of the period for
general readers. Engagingly written, a joy to read. One can hardly wait for the second volume covering the Reagan Presidency.
Liberals, conservatives and others will find much to ponder in this book. Get it!
Rating:
Summary: This is a very important book
Review: In the first of two volumes on the "Age of Reagan," Steven Hayward has done an extremely creditable job of bridging the emergence of the political Right in 1964-1966 (an era which has been the focus of a great deal of recent scholarship), with the "malaise" years of the late 1970s and the collapse, Hoover-style, of a whole system of liberal governance. The years 1964 to 1980 will be seen decades from now as hinge years in American history. The period from Goldwater to Reagan was a tumultuous one. Liberalism seemed to reach its apogee with the landslide re-election of LBJ in 1964, followed by the last uninterrupted spurt of liberal legislation in 1965. At this very moment, students in Berkeley, California coalesced around the Free Speech Movement and launched a political tidal wave that was successful in deposing Johnson in 1968 and discrediting its' primary target, the managerial liberalism of Johnson and Robert McNamara. If the antiwar movement was successful in driving a wedge through the heart of the liberal movement and the Democratic party, it was not successful in gaining converts in the overall electorate. Hayward's central insight, I think, is that despite all the mythology surrounding the student movement, it remained deeply unpopular in the rest of America. The antiwar movement was anathema to most Americans even after 1968. Hayward also successfully shows that LBJ lost the Vietnam War because he never really wanted to fight it to a final and complete victory. Rather, the goal was to apply "graduated pressure" which would result not in victory but a "negotiated settlement." The North Vietnamese understood perfectly well that the American effort was half-hearted, and calculated they could win the war simply by grinding it to a standstill. Powerful lessons about how not to deal with aggression are abundant in Hayward's work. Hayward is an unapologetic exponent of the conservative view, and this is evident especially when he refers to contemporary liberals like Bill and Hillary Clinton. Nonetheless, his criticisms are thoughful throughout, and it's hard to deny just how harrowing the New Left's antics were in this period. Paul Berman's "The Passion of Joshcka Fischer," which appeared in the pages of the New Republic this summer, confirms this fact from within the left-wing sphere. One area Hayward clearly shortchanges is Watergate, although one can make the case that Watergate was not that central an element in the unfolding of the conservative movement and the emergence of Ronald Reagan. Hayward also superbly encapsulates the political economy of the election years 1972, 1976 and 1980; in the latter two, Ronald Reagan's presence would loom large. His summaries of primaries, conventions, and the victory of Ronald Reagan -- as conventional wisdom goes, perhaps the most counterintuitive election result in modern times -- are riveting.
Rating:
Summary: A Page-Turning Historical Work
Review: Many Conservatives anxiously waited for the completion of Edmund Morris' work on Reagan because of the serious and candid attention Mr. Morris brought to his favorite subject,Theodore Roosevelt. On the same token, many historians are still unsure how to treat the 40th President, with no serious historical work being produced since Reagan faded into the shadows of the American political scene. The Age of Reagan is first serious work that will give Conservatives the proper treatment to their greatest hero, and at the same time cast Reagan in the historical context that will ensure his place as one of the greatest Presidents of the 20th century. Hayward seeks to explain the context in which the Reagan revolution set forth in motion, and why even 20 years after the presidency, Republicans and Conservatives attempt to claim the mantle of Reagan's successor. Hayward's language is lucid and compelling. The book reads as if a novel, clearly the flow that Morris struggled to find but could not find in _Dutch_. Despite it's size, this first volume is a quick read, and the second volume will be eagerly anticipated. Conservatives will be proud of the proper treatment given to Reagan, and historians will find themselves attempting to distinguish future works from the serious attention given in _The Age of Reagan_.
Rating: 
Summary: Moments of Great Insight
Review: Over the top with rhetoric in some places, but jammed packed with incredible insights. Being 'moderate-left' this is not a book I would readily pick up, but was drawn to it by the memory of watching the 2000 presidential debates. Watching Gore describe how he would impliment a tax cut, lef tme thinking, "We're still living in the age of Reagan". The 1st 224 pages are the strongest. Hayward does an excellent job of weaving the various threads of the Liberal collapse of the 60s. Having been on campus at that time (Northwestern `69), I can attest to how the student movement both toyed with and split with the Black Panthers, but only after we had trashed our ties with organized labor and the Democratic Party. We lost blue collar America and have never gotten it back. Haywards liberal bashing gets overheated in some places, and the part on the `76 campaign drags. But overall, it's worth the price to add to your library.
Rating:
Summary: Amazing Research/Great Reading
Review: Steven F. Hayward has done a top notch job researching and reporting about the birth and gestation of the Reagan Revolution. Even though the book describes events that occurred during my adult life, I was amazed at how much about that now bygone era I had forgotten. Thus, Hayward's history became a fascinating journey into my own past half-forgotten past, as well as that of the country. (Having volunteered in the Jimmy Carter reelection campaign, much some of this trip down memory lane was as painful as a bruised shin.) Whether one likes or disdains Reagan, the book is a must for anyone who wishes to understand the unlikely rise of a handsome movie star into a powerful and popular president. The book is thick, but the writing most definitely isn't. Well worth the time for anyone interested in politics and modern American history.
Rating:
Summary: Good overview of the period from Goldwater to Carter
Review: Steven F. Hayward's "Age of Reagan" is a sweeping history of the decay resulting from "New Deal" of Roosevelt as well as "The Great Society" of Johnson. As a backdrop to the philosophical backlash against "Big Government," Ronald Reagan ascends to Power in the Republican Party. For anyone looking for well-written histories of the administrations of Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter, "Age of Reagan" is an excellent source. Hayward uses considerable footnotes from various sources (such as National Review, Time, etc.) as well as quotes from the major players in all the aforementioned administrations. It is also highly recommended for anyone with an interest in the
ascendancy of the conservative movement in American politics. Starting with the Goldwater movement and then using Reagan as a catalyst, Hayward charts the progression (or regression, depending on your political bent) of the conservative movement in America. Hayward is also to be commended for his writing style. Not writing in the needless academic jargon or pendatry of some history writers, "The Age of Reagan" moves along quickly but with a sufficient amount of depth into all the administrations. The two-fold narrative, one focusing on the Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter administrations while the other focusing on Reagan, moves swiftly without becoming entagled. Nevertheless, Hayward does seem to have a slightly right-wing bias. He extensively rips apart the "progressive" left and their minions, especially student protesters and the McGovern movement. He quotes extensively from "National Review" (which is a great magazine, IMHO) and William F. Buckley, Jr. At times, he also comes off as a Reagan apologist, especially when defending Reagan's intellectual gifts. Hayward does, however,mention in the foreword to his book that the next volume of his work will mention the defiencies in the Reagan administration as well in the conservative movement. Overall, I recommend this book as a good primer for anyone interested in American politics in the last 35 years or the ascendacy of Ronald Reagan to President. As someone with an abiding interest in American history, I look forward to Hayward's next volume.
Rating:
Summary: Good overview of the period from Goldwater to Carter
Review: Steven F. Hayward's "Age of Reagan" is a sweeping history of the decay resulting from "New Deal" of Roosevelt as well as "The Great Society" of Johnson. As a backdrop to the philosophical backlash against "Big Government," Ronald Reagan ascends to Power in the Republican Party. For anyone looking for well-written histories of the administrations of Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter, "Age of Reagan" is an excellent source. Hayward uses considerable footnotes from various sources (such as National Review, Time, etc.) as well as quotes from the major players in all the aforementioned administrations. It is also highly recommended for anyone with an interest in the
ascendancy of the conservative movement in American politics. Starting with the Goldwater movement and then using Reagan as a catalyst, Hayward charts the progression (or regression, depending on your political bent) of the conservative movement in America. Hayward is also to be commended for his writing style. Not writing in the needless academic jargon or pendatry of some history writers, "The Age of Reagan" moves along quickly but with a sufficient amount of depth into all the administrations. The two-fold narrative, one focusing on the Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter administrations while the other focusing on Reagan, moves swiftly without becoming entagled. Nevertheless, Hayward does seem to have a slightly right-wing bias. He extensively rips apart the "progressive" left and their minions, especially student protesters and the McGovern movement. He quotes extensively from "National Review" (which is a great magazine, IMHO) and William F. Buckley, Jr. At times, he also comes off as a Reagan apologist, especially when defending Reagan's intellectual gifts. Hayward does, however,mention in the foreword to his book that the next volume of his work will mention the defiencies in the Reagan administration as well in the conservative movement. Overall, I recommend this book as a good primer for anyone interested in American politics in the last 35 years or the ascendacy of Ronald Reagan to President. As someone with an abiding interest in American history, I look forward to Hayward's next volume.
Rating: 
Summary: Biased but Readable
Review: Steven Hayward's "The Age of Reagan" is a look at the history of America in the four election cycles between Lyndon Johnson's and Ronald Reagan's landslides. It is an entertaining and readable book, if you can get past the fact that it is essentially right-wing propaganda. Hayward writes an engaging, entertaining prose style, and given how large a story he has to tell, I'm impressed by how well he's marshalled his material. It is a gripping read. Whether you like the book, I suppose, will depend on where on the political spectrum you fall. If you're a right-wing conservative (the kind who thinks that Fox News is "fair and balanced" and the New York Times is published by a bunch of Commie homosexual perverts), then you'll love this book. If you're an unreconstructed McGovernite, or if you fall somewhat to the left of Dick Cheney, you're likely to be annoyed by it. I enjoyed the book but found myself strenuously disagreeing with it more often than not. Nor is Hayward's book free from errors. He claims that John Maynard Keynes was on the cover of Time magazine in 1967 when it was 1965. He refers to Shirley MacLaine, who at the time was 40 and a former Oscar nominee, as a "starlet." And on page 526 he buys at face value Reagan's ludicrous story that the taxes during WWII were so high that he could only afford to make one film a year (a trip to the imdb could have told him that in 1940, 41 and 42 Reagan made no less than sixteen films). He also mistakenly attributes the saying "whom the gods would destroy they first make mad" to Aeschylus rather than Euripides (which probably means he got it through the Latin version quoted by Plutarch rather than the Greek original). This is a fun read -- a good story well told. But it's also an annoying tract of blatant right-wing propaganda. I don't regret having read it, while at the same time I have to admit that I find his analysis shallow and based more on ideology than anything else. If you're not a right-wing ideologue, and lived through the era, it might be worth your while to have an Hegelian dialectic with this book, if only so you can disagree with it. But if you *didn't* live through the era, or if you want something that purports to be objective, I wouldn't recommend this book.
| 
