I'm biased toward this kind of electoral history in general, as well as toward biographies of both Roosevelt and Debs, so my rating probably reflects...moreI'm biased toward this kind of electoral history in general, as well as toward biographies of both Roosevelt and Debs, so my rating probably reflects that. Nevertheless, this is a well-written history of a key U.S. election, which balances erudition with readability nicely. 1912 was a fascinating election year for a variety of reasons: it pit 3 presidents (past, present, and future) against each other; it featured the most successful runs ever by a 3rd-party candidate (Roosevelt) and by a socialist candidate (Debs); and it marked the high-watermark of Progressivism in U.S. Presidential politics, with even the most right-wing of the candidates (Taft) holding positions well to the left of any subsequent Republican (and, indeed, any candidate of either major party in the last few decades). This book seems to have been an unusual one-off for Chase, a history professor at Bard College whose area of expertise was U.S. foreign policy (he passed away in 2004); based on his writing here, I'll probably seek out his well-regarded biography of Dean Acheson at some point.(less)
More like 3.5. Running through this book is a great image: peasants in revolt, storming the castle with torches and pitchforks and demanding at the to...moreMore like 3.5. Running through this book is a great image: peasants in revolt, storming the castle with torches and pitchforks and demanding at the tops of their lungs that their overloads make themselves even more privileged. Written 7-8 years before anyone had ever heard of the Tea Party, this is a very strong analysis of why working-class voters are increasingly voting Republican, in spite of the fact that the GOP's policies have been consistently anti-worker for years. The basic answer lies in the way that conservatives have (with the help of New Democrats like Clinton and Gore) shifted the rhetoric of class in politics, so that it is now a discussion of lifestyle choices rather than material conditions; and in this new rhetoric, it's latte-drinking Volvo drivers, not bosses, who are the enemy. Thus campaigns are energized around social issues (abortion, gay marriage), Republicans are elected, Republican free-market policies screw the workers just a little bit more, and the workers get even more angry and take it out on...latte-drinking Volvo driving liberals. It's a compelling, cogent, and utterly depressing argument, and it's quite convincing. It's also a useful reminder that Gramsci remains as relevant as ever.
Unfortunately, like almost all books I read on politics or foreign policy, this one suffers from being a "Washington book." Washington books come in 2 varieties: the book that's really an excessively padded magazine article (this is Tom Freidman's specialty: 25-25 pages of padding for every interesting paragraph) or the "secret anthology" -- a book that's really a monograph padded out to length by the addition of other essays masquerading as additional chapters. This is one of the latter, and the inevitable loss of focus is occasionally annoying. But he does bring it home with a solid epilogue on the future of the GOP and America that's more relevant today than when the book was written.(less)
How should a political junkie to cope with his withdrawal pangs during the seven week interim between the Texas/Ohio and Pennsylvania primaries? Readi...moreHow should a political junkie to cope with his withdrawal pangs during the seven week interim between the Texas/Ohio and Pennsylvania primaries? Reading Larson is a pretty good strategy. A Magnificent Catastrophe tells the story of the 1800 election, which established the basic pattern for US presidential elections and nearly undid the country in the process. The election between Adams and Jefferson was the first to feature political parties in a leading role, and all that we've come to know and love about them was there from the start -- including gaming the Electoral College, negative advertising, machine politics, intra-party rivalries, and whispering campaigns that leading candidates were not quite American enough. It was also the only election to end in a tie, the first to be settled by the House of Representatives, and a major test of whether the country could change ruling parties and survive. In the history lessons I remember from school, it's that last fact that gets the emphasis -- that Jefferson's being able to assume the presidency without constitutional crisis was proof that the U.S. had a functioning democracy. Larson's point comes at that one an oblique angle; he seems to argue -- and this is especially interesting in the face of all the Founding Father celebrations published in recent years -- that American presidential politics was pretty much the same dreary spectacle 200 years ago as it is today, and the wonder of it all is that we made it this far. Larson's a lively writer as well as a careful historian, and A Magnificent Catastrophe practically becomes a page-turner as the Democratic-Republicans conduct a too-disciplined race for the White House (the cause of the tie) and Federalists scheme to stop them even as their own party begins to fall apart. A very compelling read; I'm looking forward to picking up his Pulitzer-winning book on the Scopes trial from a couple of years back.(less)
Loading...
