Well-written but flawed by focus on American exceptionalism
929312
I am not likely to vote for Romney (assuming he becomes the Republican nominee), but I give him credit for writing a readable, interesting book. Yes, it's self-promoting and not particularly daring, as books of this genre tend to be, but his intelligence and penchant for data-driven problem-solving are apparent throughout. The man understands public policy and argues his side effectively. All in all I liked "No Apology" about as much as "The Audacity of Hope"; in some ways I liked it more.

I disagree with Romney on several specific policy matters, yet what I found least compelling is the ra-ra American triumphalism/exceptionalism that undergirds the whole volume. Romney insists that America's rightful place is at the head of the class and that he has a vision for making it "strong" again--an "imperium sine fine," apparently. I agree that America has played a special role in recent history and that it will yet make significant contributions to the world. Yet after some of the misadventures of the past decade, I'd like to see a vision for America's future that includes humility rather than just more brawn.
585100
I enjoyed reading this book because it accurately points out the problems of 21st century america.  However, the authors fail to address the central problem in their book , which they describe in detail,  namely, that Congress has become  so dysfunctional in it's lack of performance of the few duties assigned to it in Article I; and furthermore that Congress has also violated most of the limits placed upon it's limited jurisdiction listed in Article I ( see Our Republican Constitution by Randy Barnett). [Thus, I gave it only 3 stars]. Therefore,  instead of writing amendments to fix the problem with Congress ( I reject a parlamentary system to replace Congress) which the authors allude to as an aside),  the authors instead propose to give the President the authority to propose his own adjenda subject to an up or down vote by Congress.  That would not be so bad, as a separate reform in and of itself, if the authors had also proposed additional amendments to the old Constitution that would impose new incentives upon members of Congress designed to persuade them to perform their jobs and also impose new penalties on members of Congress for failing to perform their jobs.  The question all Americans need to think about concerns representation.  Who should Congress represent and why?  How can we create new incentives to enhance the likelihood that Congress will start performing the job of representing the average american citizen rather that catering to the special interest lobbyist , corporation, union, foreign government , or minority voting block of citizens who want something from their government?  The other question is also:  who will pay for the government benefits?  Remember, despite what a political candidate or party says in order to win your vote, there are no free lunches in providing government programs to people.  Somebody will eventually pay for that government program.
  WE need to fix Congress and hold it accountable for either it's non actions or its bad legislation.  Legislation which does not solve a problem but only buys votes, wastes taxpayer dollars, and let's the problem worsen over time because congress is too afraid to anger a segment of the American voting population.  That type of conduct cannot continue.
I recommend you read the book and come up with some of your own reform ideas.
Terry Jennrich
4682592
American Nations offers a fun and interesting read on how this nation (or federation of nations) came to be.  It offers an important reminder that any attempt today to claim ownership of what the forefathers of this country wanted or intended are flawed or duplicitous: there simply was no true consensus across the peoples of colonial and revolutionary America on what this country was supposed to be and what its core values were supposed to be.  Rather there was a constant tug of war, with various regions occasionally emerging powerful enough to leave their marks on certain eras of our history.

The book is most interesting when exploring the formative years of each of the nations, and the dynamic of their interactions.  It becomes a bit duller as it approaches the modern era, and starts to feel like a generic political blog discussing the red v blue divide.  I also wasn't too impressed with Woodward's generalizations into private versus public Christianity, and some of his nations, most notably the Midlands, seem weakly defined.  Lastly, in the epilogue, Woodward begins to veer about arbitrarily, suddenly extolling the virtues of certain tribes in northern Canada.  It almost sounds like something a hipster would suddenly gush about in a coffee shop.

I'm a bit amused by the comments complaining about Woodward's harsh treatment of some of the nations, particular the deep South.  This is not a video game, in which the developers try to balance out each side's strengths and weaknesses to achieve parity.  And at the end of the day, we talking about the institution of slavery.  I'm not sure how you're supposed to put lipstick on that pig.  Lastly, I think some of those critics are forgetting how Woodward repeatedly reminds us of how insufferably moralistic and crusading Yankeedom was and is.

It's actually a somewhat cynical book, maybe depressing or even dangerous.  The implication from the thesis of the book is that the core belief system of each of the nations lives on today and continues to heavily shape our political discourse.  Thus we are doomed to wage the cultural war between the yankee nations and the southern nations into perpetuity, and objective progress is an illusion or a fleeting fluke.

The book left me wishing for more discussion of how the nations evolved into the current political environment.  Did a general diminishing of each of the individual nation's influence and power actually aid in the poisonous polarization today?  Haven't the divisions highlighted by the contrasting belief systems of the nations more or less been subsumed by the city versus rural divide?  I wish the Woodward had considered and discussed these points a bit more.

I don't want to give the wrong impression with my criticisms.  It was great refresher on American history, and I'd highly recommend it.  One more small complaint: the paperback version feels pretty cheap, physically.  The cover is flimsy and is already showing creases after one read through.
498732
As other commentators have noted, Dreiser's "An American Tragedy" is a great American novel almost in spite of itself, as it is often overwritten and heavy-handed in its philosophizing. Yet it is perhaps unrivaled in its portrayal of the dark side of the "American Dream", the whole idea of trying to "make it", and how trying to achieve that dream destroys its central character, Clyde Griffiths, who is far from a grandiose or heroic character. Irving Howe notes as much in his excellent Afterword in this Signet Classic edition of the novel, where he writes that Clyde Griffiths "represents not our potential greatness but our collective smallness". Howe also concisely points out Dreiser's considerable virtues as well as faults as a writer, the latter of which he captures in one phrase as "crushing the English language beneath a leaden embrace". Yet for all Dreiser's flaws as a writer, this novel ultimately endures because of its portrait of that whole ideology of the "American Dream", and is worth reading for that reason. For me, at least, what clinches the 5th star on this rating is Howe's essay.
1954906
There is a pervasive mood in America today -- an uneasy feeling that we sense is growing and with which we deal in different ways. Sales of firearms and ammunition are skyrocketing, and not because the citizenry fears an invasion. Stockpiling of food, water, and essential items continues to grow, and not because we are all joining the Church of Latter Day Saints. If you ask friends they will give it different names, but they will agree that some kind of trouble is coming. "The Fourth Turning" describes that trouble as a 'crisis.'

Written twelve years ago, this book examines our understanding of what winds the clock of history and our expectations of what future time may bring. It is based on two notions, a periodicy recognized by ancient Greeks and Romans, the "saeculum," and the idea that we are all members of defined generations. These are not radical ideas, since a saeculum is roughly eighty years (the 'long life' recognized in Biblical times) and we all admit to being a member of some generation, whatever its name. What is radical is that Strauss and Howe superimpose the ideas of saeculum and generations (four generations equal a saeculum) on Anglo-American history and then invite our attention to the fascinating results.

No doubt it is their analysis that led to the misleading subtitle "An American Prophecy." Misleading, because the book does not foretell America's specific future. Instead, in 1997 when the authors wrote it, the book foretells that an American crisis will arrive on schedule in what they call the "oh oh decade." Twelve years later we have arrived in the "oh oh years," and we sense we are in a crisis. What happens during that crisis and, more importantly, what happens afterwards is largely left to the reader, though in 1997 the authors listed the elements that they reckoned would be in the crisis and their list is uncannily correct.

Those reviewers who gave this book five stars understood its reasoning and message. Those who did not like the book were either believers in lineal cultural history (the inevitable march to utopia) or they did not understand it (the prose was 'too confused') or they found the ideas in conflict with their education or preconceived misconceptions of history and current events. It would have been instructive if each had put the year of their birth in their review and noted the generation of which they believe themselves a member.

As I write this, Amazon has 83 reviews of "The Fourth Turning," including reprints of book reviews from the media -- positive or negative, that number of reviews is a testament to the importance of this seminal work of William Strauss and Neil Howe. It is a book that should be read by all Americans, whatever their generation.

Chet Nagle is the author of "Iran Covenant" a thrilling novel about Iran's nuclear weapons program and how to end it&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/Iran-Covenant/dp/1439216207/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">Iran Covenant</a>
1360445
Reading/writing: 3.5 stars; Starting Proposition: 0.5 stars

Notes on a Foreign Country: An American Abroad in a Post-American World (2017 publication; 286 pages) is a non-fiction (and debut) book from Suzy Hansen. Hansen retells how, in her late 20s, she threw her hat in the ring for a 2 year fellowship from the Institute of Current World Affairs to do research in Turkey and much to her surprise she was accepted. In 2007 she arrived in Istanbul, and before she knew it, she cama to love her new surroundings.

Couple of comments: I love memoirs, and travels abroad (I grew up in Belgium, moved to the US at age 23, and have traveled extensively), so chances are I will love a book like this. And in a way, I did enjoy it on that level. However, it becomes apparent very quickly that the author, for reasons unknown, carries a deep-rooted anti-American bias. There is literally not a problem in the world that hasn't been caused, directly or indirectly, by US foreign policy. Not a kind word will be found about anything American. Americans are ignorant, exploiters, occupants, or worse. No Greatest Generation reference in this book! It grows tiresome, frankly, and the author loses (in my eyes) all credibility with the never-ending piling on. Americas killing, in the stale military language of the time, eliminated no enemies it killed people and created more enemies, the author muses about the war in Afghanistan, and that is just one of example out of dozens of instances found in the book. Do I think that US foreign policy is without flaws? Of course not! But most certainly do I also not believe that it, and it alone (as the author insinuates time and again) is the root cause of all that is wrong in the world. Last but not least, one might think that the author, a resident of Turkey for 10+ years now, has certain views as to the Erdogan vs. Gulen movement, and when we get to the book's Epilogue, dealing with the July 2016 failed coup in Turkey, I was ready for her take on that... but no, the author takes no sides whatsoever and strangely lets this one go. Very disappointing (as well).

The ignorance of Americans about the rest of the world always brings to mind conversations I have had with people (including my friends) back in Belgium. When I tell them that I live in Ohio, I always, ALWAYS, get a blank stare back, and it is crystal clear that they haven't the faintest idea where Ohio is or whether there is any difference between Ohio, Iowa or Idaho. A darn shame that Hansen couldn't provide some nuances in her relentless condemnation of all things American. But good for her that she found a new home (she has lived in Istanbul for 10+ years now).
3301117
Howard makes his point of view very clear. He is a leftist and a populist. One serious downside to the book is that Howard seems not mention progress much. He focuses on things that were/are bad and unjust and rarely mentions or focuses on the many great American achievements.
On the upside there is alot of information about things that are not included in your "hooray America" history books. There is alot of good material about discrimination that other historians seem sweep under the rug.
This by no means is an objective book and should by no means be your only source for American history, nevertheless, it is a decent read.  I gave it 3 stars because there were instances throughout the book in which Howard takes on a pretty heavy indoctrinating tone. I it found to be a bit much at times.
1178582
Bieganski is a well-written and well-researched book. Dr. Goskas overarching argument is that the stereotypical images of Poles and other Eastern Europeans as subhuman and unintelligent brutes were created vis-a-vis the stereotyped images of Jews as highly-evolved and intelligent humans. They were created by Polish nobility, Jews, Germans and Americans, and have been used to justify inequality and oppression.

Dr. Goska constructs convincing arguments and supports them with ample evidence.  The book, however, lacks a discussion about how the stereotyped images of Poles could be challenged. Regrettably, the author herself is guilty of reproducing stereotyped images of Poles in her second book, Save Send Delete, on at least three different occasions. One of the characters in the latter book, Mira (Dr. Goska), shares her experiences from a visit to Poland during the state-socialist era with her correspondent, Rand, I was traveling in Poland and someone made a comment that I thought might be anti-Semitic. It was one of those comments that you could take either way, and my Polish is not fluent (pp. 26). The author admits that her Polish is not fluent and acknowledges that she might have misunderstood, but chooses to mention the stereotypical Polish anti-Semitism anyway. On the same page, she writes, All of a sudden, these Poles couldn't do enough for me. They practically carried me to the Remuh [synagogue in Krakow] on a palanquin.  The last scene reinforces the stereotype of Poles under state socialism as being all too willing to humiliate themselves for a few American cents. And just a few lines down, the author describes the gatekeeper at the Remuh synagogue (where she was carried by the servile Poles on the palanquin), The gatekeeper was a four-foot by four-foot block of very bad attitude, Soviet female. This time she stereotypes Polish women and state socialism with one stone. I am only on page 26, and there are 282 pages in this book. Hopefully, they will be Bieganski/a-free.

How can stereotypes about Poles, such as the ones above reinforced by Dr. Goska, be challenged? Poles and Polish Americans will have to do it themselves, nobody will do it for them.  Writers, filmmakers, artists, academics, bloggers and journalist have to create authentic images of Poles as multi-dimensional humans to crowd out the controlling images that were created by others. Clearly, this will require a Herculean effort, but the status quo is unacceptable.
1939188
This is a much-needed corrective to mainstream American history.  It is an alternative view of our national story - which also includes the perspectives of America's primary historical minorities - Native Americans, Blacks, Women, and Hispanics.

This version of American history seeks to straighten out some of the more obvious distortions caused by the mythical exaggerations and omissions in the story told in mainstream American history of white men only heroics.  And on this point, I must say the book is wildly successful.  (A milder example of the standard rationalization for the shortcomings of our forefathers for instance is to be found in the recent, Wilkinson's Jefferson's pillow, where the Virginia quartet of Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Mason's moral inconsistencies are ironed out as "the ways" of their times, etc.)

In the vein of Charles Beard's An Economic Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, and WEB Du Bois' Reconstruction in America, Zinn makes no apologies for viewing the economic interests of our founding fathers through a slightly socialistic or Marxist prism.  In many ways it is well that he has done so, because as is the case with Beard and Dubois, while Marxist economic analysis may not always be a perfect fit to American history, it is heads-and shoulders above what is offered as the standard historical fare -- which to any thinking person is mostly indigestible and often insulting pabulum  -- always carefully obscuring the economic connections which often are the only important subtexts.

Even though I am not as allergic to Marxist analysis as some of the other reviewers, I was a bit surprised to see both the Bacon's and Shay's rebellions being given such prides of place in Zinn's version of American history.  While one cannot disagree that these were indeed important events -- that have been underplayed in standard history books (as is also true of John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry) -- nevertheless, overemphasis raises one's antennae in the same way that the syrupy pseudo-patriotic versions of standard history do (for example the mythical exaggerations of the fight at the Alamo, the battle of Bunker Hill, the Boston Tea Party, etc.).

However, even in these instances, it is to Zinn's credit that he leaves a roadmap to his sources so that the reader can do his own further investigation.  This, I did on several occasions, and Zinn's analysis, in my view, has proven to be as close to a  "gold plated" standard of scholarship as one is likely to ever get.

The most important point of the book is that Zinn's explanations unerringly connect the dots and threads that run through American history.  There are no "blank periods" no unanswered questions as is the case in the standard versions of American history.  When you finish reading this manuscript you will have the feeling that you have enough to understand the complete picture. From the founding of the nation to the present, you will have an honest framework upon which to build.

Even though one may not always agree, and may even be suspect of the Marxist twist to economic analysis, one cannot deny that when compared with the more standard versions of American history, where economics is finessed or left out altogether, this one provides us with the "true skinny."

In standard American history books, the patchwork of discontinuities, omissions, embellishments, ideological and patriotic rationalizations, excuses for violence and brutality, puffed up white boy heroics, etc., makes it impossible to connect the dots and see the threads connecting what is going on today with what has happened in the past.

And While the People's History is not the final word, it sets us on a new path towards the whole truth.  I am grateful to Dr. Zinn for writing this book.  Five stars
4923546
McDougall's "Throes of Democracy" is a good introduction to the period of American history commencing with the inauguration of Andrew Jackson and ending with the final year of Reconstruction.  It may have its flaws (discussed further below) but overall I think this work earns three stars.  McDougall offers some very interesting insights into the mindset of the most noted Americans figures of the day and the American populace in general.  He attempts to survey the gamut of forces and ideas that influenced American society and Americans in general before the Civil War and performs this task admirably well in certain respects.  His writing style is also quite enjoyable and I found the book entertaining and a pleasure to read.

However, I have two major problems with the work.  First, McDougall did not make use enough of the extensive primary sources available from the period, an incomprehensible lapse for someone who teaches history as a profession.  It's one thing to cite to secondary sources to describe the historiography and impressions left to later generations of a period, person, or event, but to rely on secondary sources to document events, trends, etc. as extensively as done here can and does undermine the work's credibility.  Second, while McDougall provides in depth coverage of many of the religious, philosophical, social, intellectual and educational movements of the day, he provides almost no real discussion of the single greatest constitutional and political question of the day:  the relationship of the states to the Federal government and whether any state had the power to voluntarily secede from the Union.  This was the central question of the Civil War and the issue for which both sides fought in that conflict.  Additionally, the state of slavery as it existed in this period and its role in the US national economy receives less than its full due in this work.  While McDougall does describe the state of the slavery debate and attempts to plumb the depths of the peculiar institution, the attitudes of the far too many Americans are not explored as well as they could have been.  This is a bit of a surprise given that the single greatest social/economic issue of the day - the one driving the debate on the constitutional question of federalism and states' rights - was slavery.  That said, McDougall admirably details how the different sides of the slavery debate spent much energy and time avoiding any real resolution to the debate until the force of events placed them in a political situation that required a final and bloody resolution to the great questions of federalism and slavery.
1588916
Most accounts of the American Founding are filled with tales of prim and proper Puritans or unremarkable commercial men. Not so with Gouverneur Morris (1752-1816), a New York aristocrat whose ancestral roots in this country went back to Dutch-controlled New Amsterdam. His family owned much of the Bronx in the 17th and 18th centuries.
Morris had an astonishingly varied career. A friend of George Washington, Marquis de Lafayette, and Thomas Paine, Morris was the primary architect of the U.S. Constitution. He was a successful ladies' man, enjoying a succession of lovers before finally marrying in his late 50s. An expatriate in France during the French Revolution, he advised Louis XVI and wrote a constitution for that troubled nation. A senator from New York, he opposed the War of 1812 and advocated the secession of Northern states. Back in New York, while practicing law and tending to business interests, he found time to establish Manhattan's street grids and begin work on the Erie Canal. He started a family in his early 60s. Above all, he enjoyed life.
Observers make much of the fact that as a teenager Morris sustained severe burns to his right arm and later lost part of a leg in a carriage accident, but these are arguably the least interesting things about the man.
The one black mark on an otherwise admirable record was his anti-Catholicism. Brookhiser says little about it apart from arguing that Morris, a deist, wasn't as anti-Catholic as some of his Protestant colleagues. In other words, "Morris could have been worse," the author seems to say.
This is a quick and easy read. Brookhiser writes well. Still, it's not altogether clear why the author, a senior editor at the neoconservative National Review, would want to write about someone like Morris. It's not even clear that in the end the author finds him particularly appealing. Brookhiser's critical remarks about Edmund Burke and John Randolph of Roanoke, both of whom admittedly are more interesting figures, detract from the story and may turn off more conservative-minded readers.
Why is Morris important to us? America, especially New York, has changed considerably since Morris's time; some might say it has become decidedly less civilized. We live in an age of mass democracy, globalism, and consumerism where monetary values are held to be supreme, the sole measure of one's worth. The state of once-grand places like the Bronx, as Brookhiser shows in the concluding chapter, is a living symbol of this decline. If Morris was a rare enough individual in his own time, he would be inconceivable in ours. Yet, his rich life represents to modern Americans a model for a better way of living. Take heart from his cheerful fortitude, his aristocratic acceptance of life's vicissitudes, the sheer pleasure he got out of living according to God's plan. As Morris said: "To enjoy is to obey". Life is good.
2111930
I enjoy AJP Taylor as a prose stylist and frequently provocative historian, especially when his focus is on European history. In this foray into domestic matters, he provides a good overview of 30 tumultuous years in British history. However, it was only in reading Correlli Barnett's "Collapse of British Power" that I realized a glaring deficiency of Taylor's book.

Barnett tackles head-on the key issue of this time period: Britain's decline from a first-rate world power to its near-defeat in World War II and its subesequent loss of economic independence to the United States. Taylor skirts this crucial question, instead paying closer attention to topics more congenial to his "progressive" political stance, such as the condition of the working classes and the slow climb to power of the Labour party.

Taylor concludes his book by noting that after World War II, Britons no longer sang "Land of Hope and Glory" or "England Arise" but argues that "England had risen all the same." It is hard to agree with that contention.
3603885
Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" makes it clear from the onset that the book's goal is to move away from the traditional telling of United States history from the perspective of the economic and political elite to the ordinary people whose stories are seldom ever retold or examined.  What emerges is a piece of history that is bold, unique, and a vast departure from the U.S. history curriculum that we have all waded through as students.  Unfortunately, it is the many shortcomings of Zinn's history that happen to derail what could be a seminal piece in American history literature, specifically its exclusive view of history -- in fact, it is a great irony of the book that it aims to steer away from the exclusive telling of American history through the oppressors and, instead, tells the history of American exclusively through the oppressed.  A somewhat tedious and formulaic style of presentation gives the book much weight behind some of Zinn's claims and arguments but it also makes the reading a bit of a drag, especially the oft repeated theme of evil, rich white men stomping vigorously over the saintly and helpless oppressed -- a theme that is by no means incorrect but a point that is easily enforced through a few hundred pages, let alone 700 or so.  Perhaps what I wish will come out of Zinn's splendid work of history is that it will give future historians more material to work with when holistically evaluating American history, in combination with the patriotic narrative we have all learned and the voice of the ordinary people whom Zinn sheds so much light upon.
2116091
Updike uses the young Arab-American terrorist as a device for criticizing modern American popular culture.  The criticism is withering and effective.  The book also uses humor and satire to poke some more holes in American culture.  On the whole, the humor was quite well done and effective.

On the down side, some of the plot twists and character sketches seem surprisingly amateurish for a writer of Updike's caliber.  Also, the "terrorist" as a character is not quite fleshed out and is more effective as a device for criticizing American culture than he is as a realistic, fully developed character.

The ending of the book was well done, and the last few passages beautifully written.

Worthwhile, but flawed.
4019954
The author does a good job with some historical facts but tends to omit others that may or may not conform with his political views or desired outcome of his story.  The biggest flaw is his tendency to blame the "old Constitution" for many of our problems or lack of solutions to our problems.  The root problem is us, not the document we have chosen to ignore and bastardize for its entire existence.  I have to subtract two stars, one for not achieving a credible level of objectivity, the other for blaming a piece of paper for the failings of humans.
2459332
The author (no relation to reviewer) hearkens back to a Progressive (perhaps even populist) tradition in history that goes back to Charles Beard et al and the economic interpretation of the Constitution's framers of 1787. Unruly Americans focuses on the backlash against state governments' fiscal policies in the 1780s, which were designed to pay down states' bond debts at the expense of farmers and other "small folk" who possessed not the means to pay the taxes levied on them. Most are familiar with Shays' Rebellion and its causes; Woody Holton argues that such rebellions were much more widespread than previously thought. More importantly , Woody Holton argues that historians and Constitutional scholars have neglected to incorporate the extensive effect these grumblings had on the US Constitution at its framing, and have perhaps taken too much at face value the Federalist argument that debtor relief laws were financially reckless.

Woody Holton provides a interesting thesis: that what he calls "unruly Americans" contributed to the writing of the US Constitution by the opposition to the Framers' designs. This book is primarily an economic rather than a political history, and so focuses on such arcane issues as bonds and currency. The book advances its thesis primarily through inferences--that the atmosphere engendered by the controversies over fiscal policies forced the Founders to rein in some of their more ambitious ideas to pare down democracy, nay even to remove democracy from the new national government.

Interesting enough for this book being in the Progressive tradition, the author does not really engage some contemporary arguments about the Constitution until the epilogue; given the importance that Americans place on the Constitution, it would  have been better to see these arguments incorporated earlier in the book.
2299897
This book is tremendously written.  It has a great narrative flow and is chock full of citations.  However, liking this book is a matter of choosing sides.  You either choose to believe in Zinn's history: that much of the history of America is a small rich group using their wealth and power to subjugate the lower class, and the gains of the lower class have come through them coming together and demanding it from their leaders.  Or you believe that the leaders, the ruling elite with the money and power always try to do what's best for the American people as a whole, and it's often the fault of the people in the lower class that they are where they are.  Basically, it's a socialist view vs. a social Darwinist view.  The funny thing is that people who aren't of the ruling class can buy the social Darwinist view, since it shows them to be inferior to their rulers.