Not bad but there is a lot of repetition for it to be less than 200 pages. ( )

Is it possible that Gary Hart didn't know the meaning of the word "biography"?

Arthur M. Schlesinger's American Presidents offer a series of short biographies on, guess what, the American Presidents. They run between 150 and 200 pages, usually toward the shorter end of that range, so naturally they can't cover every detail. But the flip side of that is, it means that every word is precious and not to be wasted.

So why, I ask seriously, all the philosophy about the Monroe Doctrine? Yes, it's the only reason anyone remembers James Monroe. And, yes, it's one of the few things that Monroe did that really endures. Of course a biography of Monroe needs to discuss it. But, as the book makes clear, it is not an official government policy -- Congress never ratified it, e.g. It's just a policy that Monroe enunciated. It came to be important, but no one knew that until long after Monroe was dead. It has meant different things to different presidents (witness the Roosevelt Corollary) -- and, at the time it was enunciated, the United States didn't even have the means to enforce it!

But the book isn't even about the Doctrine's history; it's just about the thinking that went into it. Given that, even by the standards of the American Presidents books, this biography is short, it's clear that a lot of other things went out the window. I definitely felt the lack.

Readers should probably also know that there isn't much original research here. Hart is constantly quoting sources -- but not primary sources; he's quoting other Monroe biographers! Nor does he use this information to substantiate a thesis he is trying to offer; he has a thesis (that Monroe, who was a soldier as a young man, was the first "National Security" president), but all those quotations don't strengthen it; they simply show an author who didn't go to the primary sources. If this had been presented to me as a class paper, I frankly would have had a long talk with the author about plagiarism and originality.

I'm the sort of guy who likes to study less well-known figures (in the American Presidents series, e.g., I have read the biographies of presidents such as John Tyler and Zachary Taylor and Franklin Pierce and Chester A. Arthur, but not Washington or Lincoln or the Roosevelts) -- but that means that, when I do read one of these biographies, I want to read something that I couldn't get from a general history. For me, this volume failed the "obscure enough for you?" tests; be aware that it might do the same for you.

[Modifications to review: 11/25 corrected the missing word "So why, I ask seriously....] ( )

This was the first biography I've read from The American Presidents Series. They are known for being short introductions to the presidents, focusing on a couple of major aspects of the president. I guess this one fit the mold - it was about 150 pages long, and focused a lot on how much of the Monroe doctrine was his (versus John Quincy Adams), how he rated among "the Virginians" (OK, but certainly less than Washingon, Jefferson and Madison) and that we was quite a sensitive fellow. So, I learned a bit about him, which is the aim of the book I'm sure. I think though that I could've learned more if the book added a little more content in place of all the space spent on going on and on about the Monroe Doctrine and also about Monroe's status among "the Virginians". Interesting to learn he was our first "National Security" president. ( )

As is the intent of this series, this book offers a once-over-lightly coverage of the life and presidency of Monroe, with an emphasis on identifying one or two big themes which summarize his importance. In the author's case, he focuses on Monroe as a "national security" president. This is reasonable enough and the book is competently written and an interesting read. Hart goes off-the-rez at his peril, though; some of his bigger ideas strike this reader as specious. For example, he cites the Monroe Doctrine as remaining intact until Bush 43's mideastern wars, but it is not clear to me why two world wars, Bush 41's near eastern war, occupations of Germany and the Philippines, two Asian land wars, and indeed, neutrality or even a pro-UK slant during the Falkland War don't represent much earlier blows against the rather vague doctrine. ( )

In spite of being the author of the Monroe doctrine (and, yes, there's some debate about that), James Monroe isn't usually high in the rankings of US Presidents. The last of the Virginian revolutionary-era Presidents, he falls under some pretty big shadows and so tends to get short-changed a bit. Gary Hart's study of Monroe helps to fill in the gaps in the life of a President that isn't so well known these days.

Hart's theme is that Monroe should be considered our first "national security President". Certainly, his administration during aftermath of the Louisiana Purchase and the War of 1812 concentrated on issues of national boundaries and border protection - some themes that resonate today. This is the era when, especially in South America, colonies in the Western Hemisphere were shucking off European control. Monroe had to deal with how to support these new states without ruining relations with Spain and other European nations, making the spread of democracy a foreign policy agenda even through today's events. Out of these considerations came the Monroe doctrine, that the Western Hemisphere is closed to European colonization and influence and that the US would treat European meddling as an attack while remaining neutral in European affairs. While there's been a lot of debate about the source of the doctrine, what it means, and how (or even whether) it should be implemented, this foreign policy approach was the guiding principle for the US response to the Soviet Union as it acted in Central and South America during the Cold War, and continues to be implemented today.

James Monroe is a good discussion of the Monroe Presidency as relates to issues of national security. It isn't a general biography, so there are gaps in the history and discussion of other aspects of his career are missing. In spite of the somewhat narrow focus of the book, it was well worth the time spent for a new look at an interesting man. ( )