Presidents Books

Although he is talking about his own family--even his own father--Mirza shows a principled unwillingness to tamper with the truth, even when the truth is not flattering to people he clearly admires. The rich human complexity of these powerful personalities, warts and all, is one of the things that make this book so exciting.

If you're interested in the history and politics of the region, this is a must read. If you just like to learn interesting history, it's also a treat. I'm waiting for the update covering the current situation in the region!

The author's father, and principal subject of the latter part of the book, is Iskander Mirza, a highly educated and respected citizen of India worked for the British Government of India. Upon the end of British rule in 1947, the country of Pakistan was formed and Iskander Mirza emerged to become a leading public figure ("the strong man") and eventually the first President of Pakistan.

The author offers excellent insight into his father's rise to the presidency and the subsequent challenge to bring order and democracy to the newly formed country, one fraught with political corruption at the governmental and military level combined with a high level of illiteracy within the population. Despite Iskander Mirza's well intentioned efforts, instituting the type of democratic government he envisioned would prove too difficult in this environment. His presidency was usurped by a military coup in 1958. Military control has presided over Pakistan for many of the subsequent years and remains in power today.

The author goes on to revisit his own life as a descendant of India's ruling and princely class as the son of the first president of Pakistan. Like his father Isakander, the author was educated at prestigious schools while growing up, ultimately attending the Harvard School of Business and subsequently working in various capacities for the World Bank. The author currently lives in the United States.

Toward the end of the book, the author offers thoughtful suggestions that address Pakistan's current political and economic situation. Above all, the author believes a very strong leader of Pakistan is crucial to help unite the country and its divisive factions. He truly desires prosperity for Pakistan.

The book is insightful and well written. I highly recommend the book for histroy readers and those interested in current events. Given the recent tumultuous events taking place in and around Pakistan, this book is even more relevant.

Here is a historian in complete command of primary sources and the literature of the period; indeed, the reader is in the hands of a master who knows his craft and his subject. If you have ANY interest in George Washington, this book is a must for your library.

For those bored with Le Carre, who have utgrown Fred Forsythe, Robert Ludlam, and god knows Ian Fleming, who desire a writer with more wit than Tom Clancey, more maturity and depth than John Grisham, the one you have been awaiting is R.M.Koster.

This novel is scary and exhilerating, quick, dirty, brutal, and fantastic, passionate and sexy, violently erotic and charged with high meaning and good fun.

This one is worth dissertations by dogs and princes, and demonstrates what a writer can do after he has gone beyond demonic possession to a higher place, beyond times of tyrants to the purity of imaginative freedom.

Previously, Koster amazed by topping The Prince, which topped One Hundred Years of Solitude with a sensibility both Yankee and Latin, with "The Dissertation," a book that fairly competes with Nabokov's Pale Fire and Ada for the funniest footnotes and the best portmanteau combinations of two cultures (in that case, American and Panamanian). Koster then went to historical fiends for his nonfiction (Torrijos, Noriega, Time of the Tyrants) before moving to more humane ones in his fiction (Odvart, among others, a demon of sloth semi-exorcized by a tenacious terrier, but check out the lust demons if flesh on the net is no longer sufficient to turn you on). Now he tackles Latin American macho, James Bond, Joseph Conrad, Vietnam, John le Carre, Graham Greene territory in the form of a psychological novel of all things that is funny, dangerous, disturbing, wickedly plotted, with great characters, dialogue, theatrics, and improvisations, in language clear as glass but angled just enough through mirrors to make you wonder. Again.

Eminently worth the climb.

The story of "Glass Mountain" is the redemption of Carlos Fuertes, the mixed-up, tortured son of an assassinated president of a Latin American country. Amazingly, Koster's wild and crazy imagination is coupled with an attention to detail that makes this seemingly fantastic tale of Carlos' healing plausible. He certainly has a wealth of information about what he is writing. As all readers of books full of action and adventure are want to do, I looked hard to trip Koster up. I couldn't.

If you are tired of reading good stories with lousy writing, "Glass Mountain" is for you. The covert military operation that Carlos becomes involved in is worthy of Quiller's operations in the Adam Hall novels. No detail is too small for Koster. The journey of Carlos tells of his early years in Latin America, his most unusual service in that most unusual conflict in Vietnam, and his job stealing back children taken in custody battles. Then Koster ties it all up with a wam, bang operation that Tom Clancy will certainly envy. Oh yes, we get a love story thrown in for good measure. I urge you to read and enjoy.

A literary novel has requirements. Good writing! Character development! But it also may be a great story.

That is what Koster does in "Glass Mountain." He gives us both. And that seems to be an objection of the reviewer from Publisher's Weekly. Apparently he or she thinks all fiction writing must fit one category or the other, either good writing or good plot. But not both. In other words, Clancy or Koster. (I mention Clancy simply because PW does. I enjoy his stories.)

That is hogwash. Richard M. Koster has written a beautiful---even if harsh, rough, tough---novel that is certainly literary, and at the same time a fantastic adventure. Perhaps PW thinks that rude of him, this merging of classifications. But I don't care. I love good stories and I love good writing. Koster gives me both in "Glass Mountain." He is a "writer's writer" and a wonderful story teller. I am in pig heaven.

Koster's main character's decision to seek redemption comes to him suddenly. Just like in real life. Just like love. And his frequent changing a "yes" into a "no" is just like real life, too. It adds drama and uncertainty to the story, even at its lower levels, as his perceptions change as quickly as they form. Just like in real life. To denigrate Koster's style, as the PW reviewer does, a style by the way that I admire very much in Koster's writing, is simply filling up space for a reviewer with nothing of importance to say.

"Glass Mountain" is very, very good. The plot is good and the writing is good. No, they are both excellent. (You see, that's how the brain works! Jumping around. Changing.)

You can have both worlds with Koster. Storytelling and literary writing. Buy and read this novel and have yourself a grand time with it. It is Koster's fifth and will lead you back to his first four. My two favorites are "Mandragon" and "Carmichael's Dog." With "Glass Mountain" now making its move down the stretch.

END

The book lays out a sensible approach to understanding the unique characteristics of each party, identifies the dynamics at work both between the parties and, more importantly, among the general electorate as they vote to either maintain the status quo, or to reject the party in power, in favor of a new political direction. There is a little something for every reader here-social psychology, US political history and systems theory.

Stoken's approach should hardly come as a surprise to those familiar with The University of Chicago, where he did his graduate work. The UOC is well known for its theoretical approach, and this book follows in this proud, if unconventional, tradition. Noteworthy also is Stoken's background as a financial historian and practitioner (he's a hedge fund manager, and former floor trader on Chicago's derivatives exchanges), which adds a practical dimension that traditional historians tend to overlook or (better yet) ignore-namely the market-like interplay between presidential politics and the ebb and flow between political cycles, which Stoken identifies and quantifies through an analysis of voting patterns, giving rise to "paradigm" setting presidential administrations.

Stoken sees this interplay (and, yes, clash) between two opposing political tenets as essential to the evolution of US politics, and something to be encouraged and appreciated. It is this 2 party dynamic that both helps define the distinctives of both parties, and allows for quick, decisive change and transition from one "paradigm" to the next.

Stoken's quantitative approach to understanding US elections and his belief that the voter is always right in the end (after all, voters ultimately determine outcomes) is a refreshing departure from doctrinaire, overly politicized methods of viewing party politics. In this vein, a warning: Stoken's perspective may not appeal to readers of all political persuasions. Diehard political ideologues may object to the (perceived) simplification of Stoken's quest for a unifying theme to tie together all the loose ends. Indeed, one comes away from the book much more inclined to view politics through the eyes of a dispassionate and objective observer, than as a passionate firebrand.

Stoken seems to be suggesting that it's only by distancing yourself from this passionate enterprise that you gain an appreciation for the role that both sides play in the evolution of our "great game of politics." In the end, it's not an "either or" game-that is, one party more "correct" than the other. Instead, Stoken suggests that it takes two healthy, opposing viewpoints to create a dynamic political system. You'll find this book a refreshing departure from traditional approaches to understanding US politics and American history.

This is one of those books that caught my eye in a casual browse through the bookstore, where I buy perhaps 10% of my books. It has a germ of a good idea and is worth the price of the book for that alone--the book can be absorbed in a day or rapidly scanned in an hour.

The core idea is that America swings from left to right and back again--from a pro-business risk-taking conservative right position to a pro-people risk-reducing social concern left position.

The author, who is evidently a very well-respected businessman and trader who is skilled at seeing business cycles, applies his skill to politics. Of the 43 presidents America has had to date, he identifies nine that were "paradigm movers": George Washington (Federalists), Jefferson (Jeffersonian Democracy), Madison (New Nationalism), Jackson (New Democrats) Lincoln-McKinley (Transition), Roosevelt (New Progressives), Harding (New Era) and Reagan (New Economy).

I view the book somewhat skeptically. It is certainly worthwhile, and I do not regret buying it nor absorbing the "nine political paradigms" that the author puts forward, but on balance I find it somewhat simplistic and out of touch with today's realities. Indeed, as an admirer of all that Dr. Paul Ray has written (he is co-author of The Cultural Creatives), I would sum up my modest criticism of this book by saying that America, if it is to survive, must be neither left nor right, but in front--as Dr. Ray labels them, "the new progressives." The two mainstream political parties have lost touch with reality and become much too subordinated to political campaign contributions and lobbyists, and hence, if there is a tenth paradigm that will emerge--and I credit this book with framing the question very well--then it will be one that emulates the Internet and creates a political system that restores ethics to both the left and the right, restores the individual to primacy in the democracy, and reintegrates government, business, and citizen associations including unions as equal respectful partners rather than constant antagonists.