Politicians cannot help themselves; they know diaries can make them famous or wealthy. They can pour vitriol on their enemies, such as those of Richard Crossman, or seek to put the record straight, for example the words of Barbara Castle. In contrast to these, Ronald Reagan's motives for keeping a diary seem straightforward: this was merely a journal, a daily record of work, people and places with an occasional impression or analysis.

Reagan's style is folksy. We meet not merely the great and good but numerous family members and friends, such as “Mermie” and “the Wicks”, not to mention several horses, as well as Rex the dog. His spelling is inconsistent. He makes three or four tries at Ghadaffi and writes of “Libia”. Paperwork is “homework”, he cannot write swear words, contenting himself to “d**m” and “getting off their As”. He hates Mondays. When he welcomes a Head of State, the day's entry invariably records: “This was the big day.”

Personalities are filtered through Reagan's predilections. For example, his dealings with Tip O'Neill are characterised with agreements made in private that are reneged upon by O'Neill in the House, yet Reagan recognises a shared Irish inheritance and his criticisms are more in humour than anger. The same cannot be said of the journalist Bob Woodward, who Reagan terms “liar” for a report in “60 Minutes”. Likewise, he denigrates his former Chief of Staff, Donald Regan, for claiming that Nancy Reagan relied on astrologers, an assertion also made by others.

Beyond these impressions, there are frustrations as stories are incomplete. Reagan's desire to support Great Britain at the beginning of the Falklands affair is clear but his entries stop when Secretary of State Alexander Haig's shuttle diplomacy is seen to be failing. When Ed Meese, US Attorney General from 1985–1988, faces a major problem in relation to his confirmation by the Senate, Reagan does not say what it is. It is odd to find only one entry on the 1987 Wall Street crash and none at all on the junk bond scandal.

Such omissions suggest either disinterest or concerns about future publication. In the end, the ostensibly private may have been written with a view to the public record. For those who wonder at Reagan's escape from impeachment charges, the diaries reveal by omission. Reagan is aware from the start of his first term of “covert operations” and expresses concern with Nicaragua's position. However, there is only one entry concerning the financial aspect of Iran-Contra, with Reagan recording the day he was told by that Israel had diverted funds to the Contras on instructions from Colonel North. Strict constraints on Executive action, such as the Boland Amendment to the War Powers Act, are not mentioned, leaving the reader to decide on Reagan's culpability.

Despite (or because of) this selective recollection, Reagan's political abilities in foreign affairs stand out. He is generous to his team of arms negotiators, particularly George Schulz. Contrary to the contemporary public image, he demonstrates a huge capacity for work, matched by an ability to master complicated briefs on both foreign policy and the economy.

Whilst as an academic work the Diaries leave much to be desired, Reagan has a gift for the simple and direct. He appears as a man who did not shirk from decisions, making the journal, though stylistically plodding, a useful contribution to this period of history. In particular, his occasional silences resonate louder than words.