What do you think?
Rate this book
Shattered Consensus: The Rise and Decline of America's Postwar Political Order
The United States has been shaped by three sweeping political Jefferson’s “revolution of 1800,” the Civil War, and the New Deal. Each of these upheavals concluded with lasting institutional and cultural adjustments that set the stage for a new phase of political and economic development. Are we on the verge of another upheaval, a “fourth revolution” that will reshape U.S. politics for decades to come? There are signs to suggest that we are.
James Piereson describes the inevitable political turmoil that will overtake the United States in the next decade as a consequence of economic stagnation, the unsustainable growth of government, and the exhaustion of postwar arrangements that formerly underpinned American prosperity and power. The challenges of public debt, the retirement of the “baby boom” generation, and slow economic growth have reached a point where they require profound changes in the role of government in American life. At the same time, the widening gulf between the two political parties and the entrenched power of interest groups will make it difficult to negotiate the changes needed to renew the system.
Shattered Consensus places this impending upheaval in historical context, reminding readers that Americans have faced and overcome similar trials in the past, in relatively brief but intense periods of political conflict. While others claim that the United States is in decline, Piereson argues that Americans will rise to the challenge of forming a new governing coalition that can guide the nation on a path of dynamism and prosperity.
James Piereson describes the inevitable political turmoil that will overtake the United States in the next decade as a consequence of economic stagnation, the unsustainable growth of government, and the exhaustion of postwar arrangements that formerly underpinned American prosperity and power. The challenges of public debt, the retirement of the “baby boom” generation, and slow economic growth have reached a point where they require profound changes in the role of government in American life. At the same time, the widening gulf between the two political parties and the entrenched power of interest groups will make it difficult to negotiate the changes needed to renew the system.
Shattered Consensus places this impending upheaval in historical context, reminding readers that Americans have faced and overcome similar trials in the past, in relatively brief but intense periods of political conflict. While others claim that the United States is in decline, Piereson argues that Americans will rise to the challenge of forming a new governing coalition that can guide the nation on a path of dynamism and prosperity.
416 pages, Paperback
First published July 14, 2015
22 people are currently reading
106 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
February 24, 2016
The polarization of the U.S. political system is readily apparent in every news broadcast, talk radio program, and can be seen almost every time you check your social media account. Shattered Consensus works to examine the historical process that has led us to this state in politics. Ironically, one area where I’ve surprisingly found the signs of polarization is in the reviews for political books on Goodreads. It seems that most people’s reviews and ratings focus more on whether the book aligns with their preconceived political beliefs as opposed to judging the content and quality of the writing.
Leaving aside political affiliations, Shattered Consensus proved to be a very interesting and relatively unbiased examination of our political system and the historical basis for its current state. Piereson clearly falls on the right side of the spectrum, but for the most part I felt that his assertions were backed with evidence and logic. The book’s four sections each have an overall theme with chapters examining the subject from different perspectives and considering different ideas.
The first section was easily the most dispassionate and neutral within the book, with its history and discussion of differing economic theories. Piereson’s argument is focused on his belief that our current Keynesian style of political economy is not sustainable. He seems to favor the adoption of a free market model as a solution for the future. Whether you agree or disagree with his arguments and discussion, his ideas are thought provoking and worth taking time to consider.
The second section’s topic of liberals and conservatives was equally as interesting, and was fairly objective in his analysis and critique of the two ideologies. Being a conservative author, I wasn’t surprised when Piereson defended conservatism during his discussion. His sharp critique of liberalism and its evolution was more interesting to read, but also surprised me in the way it never seemed to digress into petty political rhetoric. He clearly doesn’t agree with where liberalism has gone since the 1960’s, but his disagreements are voiced in logical arguments that (whether you agree or not) present an interesting perspective.
The third section and its focus on how JFK and his legacy have shaped the modern Democratic Party was my least favorite in the book. I found the ideas and discussions interesting, but I felt that devoting four chapters to the subject quickly became repetitive. I feel that the whole section could have been condensed into a single chapter that made the same points but discarded the repetition.
Piereson’s final section and its critique of the modern university system was probably the least objective portion of the book and one which seemed to lose its course. The section is a scathing critique of the modern university culture, which I found interesting but also a little too singular in its focus. I don’t deny that college faculties are increasingly liberal, but I felt that Piereson largely ignored the role that student individuality has on their college experience. His advocacy for curricula based on “the great books” of the humanities became repetitive rather quickly and wasn’t thoroughly convincing.
Overall, I liked this book because of the different perspective and ideas that it presented. I didn’t agree with all of Piereson’s assertions nor was I convinced by all his arguments, but they made me consider notions that were outside of my normal thought process. Furthermore, I felt that the author presented his ideas in a way that avoided the instant condemnation that is all too common in modern politics. Presenting logical arguments that are supported with evidence has become far too rare in modern politics, as has backing ideas and criticism with any sort of thought or defense. I liked this book because it did both.
Leaving aside political affiliations, Shattered Consensus proved to be a very interesting and relatively unbiased examination of our political system and the historical basis for its current state. Piereson clearly falls on the right side of the spectrum, but for the most part I felt that his assertions were backed with evidence and logic. The book’s four sections each have an overall theme with chapters examining the subject from different perspectives and considering different ideas.
The first section was easily the most dispassionate and neutral within the book, with its history and discussion of differing economic theories. Piereson’s argument is focused on his belief that our current Keynesian style of political economy is not sustainable. He seems to favor the adoption of a free market model as a solution for the future. Whether you agree or disagree with his arguments and discussion, his ideas are thought provoking and worth taking time to consider.
The second section’s topic of liberals and conservatives was equally as interesting, and was fairly objective in his analysis and critique of the two ideologies. Being a conservative author, I wasn’t surprised when Piereson defended conservatism during his discussion. His sharp critique of liberalism and its evolution was more interesting to read, but also surprised me in the way it never seemed to digress into petty political rhetoric. He clearly doesn’t agree with where liberalism has gone since the 1960’s, but his disagreements are voiced in logical arguments that (whether you agree or not) present an interesting perspective.
The third section and its focus on how JFK and his legacy have shaped the modern Democratic Party was my least favorite in the book. I found the ideas and discussions interesting, but I felt that devoting four chapters to the subject quickly became repetitive. I feel that the whole section could have been condensed into a single chapter that made the same points but discarded the repetition.
Piereson’s final section and its critique of the modern university system was probably the least objective portion of the book and one which seemed to lose its course. The section is a scathing critique of the modern university culture, which I found interesting but also a little too singular in its focus. I don’t deny that college faculties are increasingly liberal, but I felt that Piereson largely ignored the role that student individuality has on their college experience. His advocacy for curricula based on “the great books” of the humanities became repetitive rather quickly and wasn’t thoroughly convincing.
Overall, I liked this book because of the different perspective and ideas that it presented. I didn’t agree with all of Piereson’s assertions nor was I convinced by all his arguments, but they made me consider notions that were outside of my normal thought process. Furthermore, I felt that the author presented his ideas in a way that avoided the instant condemnation that is all too common in modern politics. Presenting logical arguments that are supported with evidence has become far too rare in modern politics, as has backing ideas and criticism with any sort of thought or defense. I liked this book because it did both.
February 28, 2016
Where was this book when I was in undergrad? This is an excellent review of liberal and conservative currents in the U.S. since the Civil war up to this day. It also explains why in 2016, two serious runners for President are Trump and Sanders. Is the U.S. headed to a fall? Most likely. I predict a serious crisis (we have been blessed with minor crises) will occur in 2035 or so, when the Millennials begin to hit middle age. I most appreciated Piereson's analysis of Keynsian economics and the problems they were meant to solve. Great book.
January 17, 2016
I read this book after Robert Reich's "Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few" because I thought it had an interesting thesis: "The rise and decline of America's postwar political order." However, having read it, I don't think Piereson makes that case. In fact, the book is a collection of disparate essays about four distinct topics:
1) The Political Economy of the Postwar Order - This section was the most interesting to me. It talks about the rise of Keynesian economics after World War II, the goal being full employment and to smooth out the business cycle. Piereson's consensus is the Democratic-welfare regime consensus from 1932. I just can't get over that title: elections are constantly tweaking the "consensus" and its never been obliterated. Democrats winning the House, Senate, and presidency in 2008 did not shatter the consensus. There is no consensus to shatter, it's an ongoing tug of war. For radicals, libertarian or socialist, the consensus is shattered, but they never participated in the consensus.
2) Liberalism and Conservatism - These chapters are interesting, but Piereson's work reminds me of a Piketty quote, "We know something about billionaire consumption, but it is hard to measure some of it. Some billionaires are consuming politicians, others consume reporters, and some consume academics." Piereson's book is probably meant for people who already agree with him. His argument downplaying inequality was ridiculously weak. It boils down to "Don't worry about it!"
3) The Kennedy Legend and The Liberal Ideal - Laughably dated. Kennedy won the presidency 56 years ago, it's strange and untimely to read attacks on his bootlegger father. However, I enjoyed Piereson's "Making of a Martyr" piece from the Claremont Review of Books. Kennedy was allegedly shot by a Castro-loving communist, it's remarkable that he became a martyr for the causes of liberalism and civil rights.
4) The Politics of Higher Education - Embarrassing, pointless grousing. That Amherst has a Queer Resource Center doesn't offend me. Piereson suggests students should read the Great Books and that colleges modern focus on diversity is wrong. I don't see anything wrong with using modern and diverse works to engage modern and diverse students.
In Piereson's defense, I think one could make the case that private industry is what fueled American prosperity: the profit motive built Youngstown, Akron, and Detroit. Now that America isn't growing in the same way, is it up to government to maintain that standard of living? Can it? Piereson and the Ryan budget say no: they say we need entitlement reform for working people, and tax cuts for the wealthy to fuel growth. "Austerity for you, tax cuts for me" is the 2015 version of "Let them eat cake." In light of present inequality and globalization, it's difficult to believe that giving rich people more money will create more American jobs. Piereson approaches this question from a "conservative" perspective: it's obvious to him that we can't afford generous pensions and that inequality doesn't matter. He thinks America's "fourth revolution" should be in the direction of austerity. If you're skeptical, I don't think Piereson's opinion will change your mind.
In fact, I just stumbled on a funny edit from "Future tense, X: The fourth revolution" in the New Criterion. Piereson wrote, "Despite all this, President Obama is unshaken in his presumption that he is a herald of a new era, a revolutionary on the models of Jefferson, Lincoln, and FDR. But is it possible that he will instead turn out to be something much different, a modern day Adams, Buchanan, or Hoover—that is, the last representative of a disintegrating order? Such a denouement is not only possible but, in view of our situation, more and more likely."
For some reason, "Obama as Hoover" was edited out of the book!
1) The Political Economy of the Postwar Order - This section was the most interesting to me. It talks about the rise of Keynesian economics after World War II, the goal being full employment and to smooth out the business cycle. Piereson's consensus is the Democratic-welfare regime consensus from 1932. I just can't get over that title: elections are constantly tweaking the "consensus" and its never been obliterated. Democrats winning the House, Senate, and presidency in 2008 did not shatter the consensus. There is no consensus to shatter, it's an ongoing tug of war. For radicals, libertarian or socialist, the consensus is shattered, but they never participated in the consensus.
2) Liberalism and Conservatism - These chapters are interesting, but Piereson's work reminds me of a Piketty quote, "We know something about billionaire consumption, but it is hard to measure some of it. Some billionaires are consuming politicians, others consume reporters, and some consume academics." Piereson's book is probably meant for people who already agree with him. His argument downplaying inequality was ridiculously weak. It boils down to "Don't worry about it!"
3) The Kennedy Legend and The Liberal Ideal - Laughably dated. Kennedy won the presidency 56 years ago, it's strange and untimely to read attacks on his bootlegger father. However, I enjoyed Piereson's "Making of a Martyr" piece from the Claremont Review of Books. Kennedy was allegedly shot by a Castro-loving communist, it's remarkable that he became a martyr for the causes of liberalism and civil rights.
4) The Politics of Higher Education - Embarrassing, pointless grousing. That Amherst has a Queer Resource Center doesn't offend me. Piereson suggests students should read the Great Books and that colleges modern focus on diversity is wrong. I don't see anything wrong with using modern and diverse works to engage modern and diverse students.
In Piereson's defense, I think one could make the case that private industry is what fueled American prosperity: the profit motive built Youngstown, Akron, and Detroit. Now that America isn't growing in the same way, is it up to government to maintain that standard of living? Can it? Piereson and the Ryan budget say no: they say we need entitlement reform for working people, and tax cuts for the wealthy to fuel growth. "Austerity for you, tax cuts for me" is the 2015 version of "Let them eat cake." In light of present inequality and globalization, it's difficult to believe that giving rich people more money will create more American jobs. Piereson approaches this question from a "conservative" perspective: it's obvious to him that we can't afford generous pensions and that inequality doesn't matter. He thinks America's "fourth revolution" should be in the direction of austerity. If you're skeptical, I don't think Piereson's opinion will change your mind.
In fact, I just stumbled on a funny edit from "Future tense, X: The fourth revolution" in the New Criterion. Piereson wrote, "Despite all this, President Obama is unshaken in his presumption that he is a herald of a new era, a revolutionary on the models of Jefferson, Lincoln, and FDR. But is it possible that he will instead turn out to be something much different, a modern day Adams, Buchanan, or Hoover—that is, the last representative of a disintegrating order? Such a denouement is not only possible but, in view of our situation, more and more likely."
For some reason, "Obama as Hoover" was edited out of the book!
April 21, 2016
Lots of great material, but not stitched together very well. The first section is a booklet, the other three topical collections of essays.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews