...
Show More
So, it's possible that I didn't like this book as much as I should of because I just finished Goodwin's fantastic book on Lincoln, Team of Rivals. Reading Goodwin's book, I was struck by Lincoln's leadership skill. Somehow though, this book just didn’t really impress me much.
Hopefully my thoughts on this book aren't biased by the fact that the author compared Lincoln to "great modern leaders" (his words, not mine) like Reagan and George W. Bush. All right, arguments can be made, like his policies or not, for Reagan being a great leader, but Bush???? Is this assumed acumen for leadership based on his claims of being a "compassionate conservative" or that he is "a uniter, not a divider"? It certainly can't be made by his actual performance as a leader. I know that all great leaders have people who are critical of them, but with approval ratings hovering around 30%, who exactly is Bush leading? Whatever it is he is doing, he is doing alone but for his loyal group of cronies and a few people that the Republican Party has managed to convince that they (the conservatives) actually care about them. (Well, they do care about you if you make a million bucks a year and you like to do some strip mining in your spare time.) If it weren’t for people that cling to Bush because of their hope that he will protect them from abortion and all of the benefits of stem-cell research (oh, and that he will keep them safe from the gays), then Bush would have virtually no support except from big dirty companies that will support anyone who has a small enough amount of conscience to allow them to continue to rape and pillage America’s two greatest resources, it’s people and it’s land. Is that leadership? Anyway, hopefully my feelings about the book weren’t biased by the ridiculous comparison of one of the men I admire most with one of the men that I admire the least.
Hopefully my thoughts on this book aren't biased by the fact that the author compared Lincoln to "great modern leaders" (his words, not mine) like Reagan and George W. Bush. All right, arguments can be made, like his policies or not, for Reagan being a great leader, but Bush???? Is this assumed acumen for leadership based on his claims of being a "compassionate conservative" or that he is "a uniter, not a divider"? It certainly can't be made by his actual performance as a leader. I know that all great leaders have people who are critical of them, but with approval ratings hovering around 30%, who exactly is Bush leading? Whatever it is he is doing, he is doing alone but for his loyal group of cronies and a few people that the Republican Party has managed to convince that they (the conservatives) actually care about them. (Well, they do care about you if you make a million bucks a year and you like to do some strip mining in your spare time.) If it weren’t for people that cling to Bush because of their hope that he will protect them from abortion and all of the benefits of stem-cell research (oh, and that he will keep them safe from the gays), then Bush would have virtually no support except from big dirty companies that will support anyone who has a small enough amount of conscience to allow them to continue to rape and pillage America’s two greatest resources, it’s people and it’s land. Is that leadership? Anyway, hopefully my feelings about the book weren’t biased by the ridiculous comparison of one of the men I admire most with one of the men that I admire the least.