Two Great Men 2009-07-03

Reviewer: Elsie Davis

I wouldn't have thought these two fellows had so much in common
until I read this book.....I would encourage everyone to read it.
This is an unusual book........of course I knew about Churchill & FDR
but never thought of comparing him to RR.

For Reagan & Churchill fans. 2008-10-21

Reviewer: Reginald H. Arthur

If I could have met two Historical figures they would have been Prime Minister Churchill & President Reagan. I often thought that someone should do a comparison of these two great icons of History and here it is.

I have read this book and in my humble opinion Mr. Hayward has done a great job in comparing & contrasting the style and personalities of these two men.

I think that if you are an admirer of either PM Churchill or President Reagan (like I am)then this is a must have book. I'm glad it is part of my Churchill/Regan collection.

Greatness: More fact than anything. 2008-02-18

Reviewer: Jarrod Heffley

Looking at the title of the book I thought, "wow a book about Reagan and Churchill, what could be better?" But in the end I thought the book was more just a telling of facts more than an indepth review of their leadership characteristics and I never found in the book where it talked about the making of great leaders. It just seemed to say everything that happened to Reagan and Churchill and that seemed to be enough for the author. I did learn some things about Reagan that I did not know so I will go back to this book for those facts but it just was not what I thought it would be from the book's description.

Two different leaders, one common thread 2008-02-04

Reviewer: Randy A. Stadt

Can greatness among human beings really be spoken of in modern times? Perhaps it is a politically incorrect, anachronistic idea in our egalitarian age. Indeed, regarding both these men, Churchill and Reagan, the media appears to have downplayed their legacies for just this reason. For example, Time magazine in 1950 named Winston Churchill "Man of the Half-Century" but passed him over at century's end for "Person of the Century", explaining that "...Churchill turned out to be a romantic refugee from a previous era who ended up on the wrong side of history." And Reagan? The news media, which had consistently downplayed him during his presidency, was astonished by the outpouring of public sentiment at his death in 2004 as this showed in spades the esteem in which he was held.

Certainly the verdict of history is not passed immediately on the legacy of statesman; it takes time. Who would have thought in the 1980's, that the name of Ronald Reagan would be uttered in the same sentence as that of Winston Churchill, less than twenty years after the former had left public office? The idea that Churchill was a great man, though not agreed upon by everybody, still seems to be more easily embraced than the idea that Reagan was. But our response to Reagan's death, one of looking back and re-assessing his legacy, surprises us at the warmth we found ourselves feeling for the man. I don't need to read an essay to feel it in my bones that there was something special about Ronald Reagan. Steven Hayward (the author) gives some insights into explaining what many of us already believe to be true. He spends most of the 170 page book comparing both men, demonstrating the surprising number of similarities that they had, from their childhoods, to their early liberal inclinations, to their switch to conservative political views, and to how they were perceived at the time. Certainly a common perception of Reagan during his presidency was that he was "uninformed, even ignorant, and relied on simplistic platitudes to get by." But some of Churchill's top aides said the same thing, that Churchill "has only half the picture in his mind, talks absurdities, and makes my blood boil to listen to his nonsense" (Field Marshall Alanbrooke). This is just one of many, many parallels that are listed. We remember that Reagan was charged with being a warmonger. So was Churchill. He alienated himself from many in his own party during the 1930s for his strident warnings of German fascism. In fact, Churchill's "Iron Curtain" speech in 1946 was not received very well and his own government made a point of distancing itself from it. Forty years later, Reagan's "tear down this wall" speech at the Berlin Wall had his own aides fearing that he would only embarrass himself. Even after Reagan's presidency, when the Berlin Wall had in fact come down, and the Soviet Union was no more, some felt that the credit belonged to Gorbachev. Time magazine, in fact, named Gorbachev "person of the decade" in 1990. But I think it is appropriate to ask for Gorbachev's assessment, since his early opinion of Reagan was far from flattering. His presence at Reagan's funeral in 2004, seated next to Margaret Thatcher reinforced his words in 2002 that "I am not sure what happened would have happened had he (Reagan) not been there."

In his Iron Curtain speech Churchill said that World War II could have been prevented "without the firing of a single shot." According to Margaret Thatcher, Reagan brought the cold war to an end "without firing a single shot." Both men believed in peace through strength. Both men doggedly spoke their minds and followed convictions that had not only their political adversaries, but also those in their own party, scratching their heads. Especially regarding what they considered the evil of communism, both men stood alone at times, but history has vindicated them. They were far from perfect, but how many great men are? Arriving at a conclusion of greatness is made even more difficult when the concept of greatness itself in the modern world is called into question. Steven Hayward has done a masterful job of not only allowing us the possibility of considering greatness abstractly, but of applying it to these two remarkable men.

Interesting but not too relevant 2007-03-16

Reviewer: Bud Michael

Steven Hayward extends his research of Churchill and Reagan to look at comparisons of leadership skills, styles and effectiveness. While the comparisons are interesting, I found it difficult to see the relevance. As a specific comparative analysis, the book brings forward otherwise obscure parallels in the life and times of these two great leaders. The title is misleading in that I found no insights on "the making" of an extraordinary leader. As a book on leadership, Mr. Hayward's work gives examples of Churchill and Reagan leadership, but the work doesn't analyze the leadership examples in a way that the reader could learn leadership tips.

Overall, I found the book interesting, but not terribly relevant.