Review by New York Times Review
EVER SINCE our national politics dissolved into a miasma of polarization and strident punditry - which means either the Clinton pseudoscandals or the John Adams administration, depending on your historical reference point - Washington pontificators have waxed wistful for gentler times. In the glow of nostalgia, even ideologues and scoundrels come to resemble civic-minded statesmen who put aside partisanship to broker compromises. This romantic tendency usually makes for bad history. A few good books have mined the vein - including last year's overlooked "The Last Great Senate: Courage and Statesmanship in Times of Crisis," by Ira Shapiro, a former Senate aide - but Chris Matthews's "Tip and the Gipper: When Politics Worked" isn't one of them. A former speechwriter for Jimmy Carter and aide to the House speaker Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill Jr. (one of his subjects here), Matthews is best known today as an MSNBC talking head - snarling head, some might say - a kind of Democratic Pat Buchanan giving voice to the resentments of the disgruntled middle class. For those familiar with his brand of confidently asserted overgeneralization, the book is about what you would expect. The 1980 elections made Ronald Reagan the most conservative American president since before the New Deal and gave the Republicans control of the Senate for the first time since the '50s. Protecting Sorial Security, the progressive tax code and other fixtures of the postwar economy fell above all to O'Neill, a corpulent, old-style, steaks-and-cigars Boston Irish pol. The conceit of "Tip and the Gipper" is that for all their ideological differences, Reagan and O'Neill liked each other enough to put politics aside at 6 o'clock - a line Matthews repeats throughout the book - and strike deals in everyone's interest. It's a nice idea for a book, if only it were true. The problems begin with the false symmetry Matthews sets up. He paints Reagan and O'Neill as mirror images: two "larger than life" "Irish-American" politicians, titans of their parties, standard-bearers for their worldviews. But O'Neill wasn't "larger than life" (only large). Nor was he a notable spokesman for liberalism as Reagan was for conservatism - or as Barney Frank and Ted Kennedy were for liberalism. Even the most powerful House speakers haven't rivaled the president in importance. The idea of "two Irishmen" also rings false. O'Neill fit the type, but Reagan, though he sometimes cited the Celtic lineage on his father's side, was a product of the small-town Protestant Midwest and of Southern California. Having become famous through movies and television, he had none of the hallmarks of the classic Irish-American politician: no base in urban neighborhoods, no feel for tavern politics, little experience with legislative horse-trading. Irishness was no more part of his persona than it is of Barack Obama's, and it's jarring to see Reagan described repeatedly in such terms. Matthews also misreads Reagan in retailing the tired Washington canard that his success lay in his affability. Many insiders did indeed swoon over the president's ready charm, but his election depended just as crucially on his very public meanness, his zest for the punitive - the vows to crack down on domestic spending, "welfare queens" and the Evil Empire. An account of Reagan's triumph that locates the key in his Hollywood smile cannot explain the victories that the conservative movement continued to enjoy after his exit. Most important, Matthews provides no evidence to suggest that whatever personal amicability O'Neill and Reagan maintained mattered. In one or two cases, the Democrats cut good deals with Reagan, such as when they revised the Social Security program. But on the key legislative issue of Reagan's presidency - the 1981 fight over his budget, which slashed taxes on the rich - O'Neill simply got rolled. Spooked by the president's popularity, which surged after he was shot by John Hinckley in March of that year, O'Neill failed to compete with Reagan in the new age of media politics. Worse, he also came up short in his supposed strong suit - riding herd on his caucus - as scores of Democrats, fearing the tax-cutting bandwagon, defected to back the Reagan bill. The consequences - skyrocketing budget deficits and debilitating inequality - have plagued us ever since. One gets the feeling none of this matters much to Matthews, lest it interfere with a good, sentimental yarn. He surely knows that O'Neill didn't have much to do with Reagan's historic accords with Mikhail Gorbachev, and that the 1980s were a fiscal disaster, and that calling Reagan an Irish-American politician a half-dozen times doesn't make him one. Say this for Matthews: He has a fine appreciation of blarney. DAVID GREENBERG, a professor of history, journalism and media studies at Rutgers University, is the author of "Nixon's Shadow: The History of an Image" and other books. He is writing a history of presidential spin.
Copyright (c) The New York Times Company [November 24, 2013]
Review by Booklist Review
As a top aide to House Speaker Tip O'Neill, Matthews was an eyewitness to the accord that O'Neill and President Ronald Reagan managed to forge in the 1980s, despite their polar-opposite political convictions. Reagan, the conservative former California governor, was a Washington outsider, while O'Neill was a consummate insider, with 28 years on the hill by the time Reagan took office in 1980. The California conservative and the Boston liberal were iconic figures with strong convictions, political savvy, and Irish charm that helped them bridge the gap to deliver on issues including welfare, taxes, covert military operations, and Social Security. Following the assassination attempt on Reagan, O'Neill was the first person to be admitted to the president's bedside for a private visit, and it was O'Neill whom Reagan tapped to hand-deliver a letter asking Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev for a meeting that led to the end of the Cold War. Political commentator Matthews details their different backgrounds and the stumbles and ultimate successes that brought both men to Washington, where they were able to put aside their differences to govern the nation.--Bush, Vanessa Copyright 2010 Booklist
From Booklist, Copyright (c) American Library Association. Used with permission.
Review by Publisher's Weekly Review
MSNBC host Matthews (Jack Kennedy: Elusive Hero) draws from his personal journals, President Reagan's diary, and Speaker O'Neill's press conference transcripts to bring 1980s politics back to life. Matthews begins with the vastly different backgrounds of the two men. He contrasts their styles and politics before moving through the Reagan years in a highly-detailed narrative. Matthews's' thesis is that the government's functionality at the time is largely attributed to the relationship of Reagan and 'O'Neill, who both used the check-and-balance design of their positions to "propel the republic forward-even when the will of the people was different from his own." Readers relive the attempted assassination, the air traffic control strike, and the Iran-Contra affair, all presented in Matthews's easy, conversational style. Matthews offers little direct commentary on today's contrasting "government by tantrum," allowing the events and personalities to speak for themselves; an acceptable omission, given the numerous examples of cooperation he cites concerning Social Security, the budget and taxes, and foreign policy. Part history, part Washington inside story, part career memoir, this inspiring story of two remarkable men is recommended for political junkies and insiders alike. (Oct.) © Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved.
Review by Library Journal Review
Perhaps best known today as the host of the MSNBC show Hardball, Matthews (Jack Kennedy) was once an aide to Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill, an old-school urban Democrat. When Ronald Reagan came to power, O'Neill became the highest-ranking opposition leader to the Great Communicator. Matthews narrates the story of how these ideological opposites found ways to achieve such political goals as reforming taxes and saving Social Security-all without screaming insults at each other. Although Matthews's gift of gab serves him well here, the book would have benefited from a leaner edit. Verdict Given the current political climate, listeners may enjoy hearing a story devoted to the art of compromise.-Kelly Sinclair, Temple P.L., TX (c) Copyright 2014. Library Journals LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Media Source, Inc. No redistribution permitted.
(c) Copyright Library Journals LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Media Source, Inc. No redistribution permitted.
Review by Kirkus Book Review
An amiable but tough-minded political ramble with TV pundit Matthews (Jack Kennedy, 2011, etc.), who records a political mood clearly in need of revival. "Don't get caught obstructing the political process. Give Reagan his chance." So said an aide to Thomas O'Neill, Speaker of the House during the Reagan presidency. O'Neill, as anyone who remembers him will recall, was a blustering, tough Bostonian who came up through the ranks of Congress, a consummate political insider; Reagan, by contrast, liked to portray himself as an outsider somehow innocent of the machine. Yet Reagan also knew a number of things that kept his popularity reasonably high during his terms--for one, that Americans like to feel good about themselves, which he played to the hilt. His politics are still being played out today in the suspicion of all government programs and the conviction that all taxes are bad, which led to what now seems a curious accommodation between O'Neill and Reagan. In trying to push through one set of proposals that involved an increase on some taxpayers, Reagan faced a revolt in his own party and required O'Neill's help in enlisting sufficient Democratic votes to "sell the public a budget with so large a deficit." Though it was not all beer and skittles ("Tip refused to let me speak to the House," Reagan recorded in his diary. "I'm going to rub his nose in this one"), that accommodation spoke to what Matthews regards as a bygone bipartisan spirit that, as he notes, was like gladiatorial combat in that it made each opponent seem stronger and better in the contest simply for each to be up against the other--especially two opponents who liked to out-Irish each other. The idea of compromise and reconciliation being anathema these days, it's no wonder nothing happens on the Hill. Matthews' solid book points to a way out for "people who care about our republic."]] Copyright Kirkus Reviews, used with permission.
Copyright (c) Kirkus Reviews, used with permission.
