Scan barcode
lucasmiller's review
3.0
I enjoyed this book, but it was a real slog to get through parts of it. I appreciated the critical assessment of Reagan that was willing to give credit where credit was due but the overly forgiving portrait of Bill Clinton raised my hackles some. Perhaps, this just shows how much the assessment of Clinton's administration has shifted since 2008. It is always hard to read recent American history that doesn't include the shocking advent of the Trump era. I think that Wilentz argument for the victory of Reaganite politics in George W. Bush and its exhaustion by 2008 is compelling, but I know, that it gets more complicated afterward. More a functional book than a real barn burner.
skitch41's review
3.0
When I first saw that Sean WIlentz, the respected historian of book "The Rise of American Democracy," was publishing a history of the past 30 years of political history, I was very excited and bought it as soon as it was available. Now, having just finished it, I am very disappointed in it. Whereas his previous book was meticulous and painstakingly detail oriented, with nearly one footnote for every paragraph written, this book is short and offers very little in terms of footnotes. Wilentz is also hypercritical of nearly every president since Ford with very little to commend them for. It seems he doesn't have too much of a kind word to say about any of them. This creates a tone of cynicism and hopelessness that seems to be as much a symptom of the times he is trying to put into historical perspective. On the other hand, and by his own admission, this is suppose to be only a general overview of a period of history that has generated very little serious historical reflection and has been hampered by recent Bush administration regulations that have cut off most of the critical historical research into this period, especially the most controversial incidents (i.e. Iran-Contra). In summation, this is a good place to start for the general reader interested in our most recent past, but there probably are, or will be, better and more authoritative works on this period.
kbc's review
2.0
1. I guess the dates need to be changed to 1974 to ???????
2. Read Rick Perlstein. Yes it's more pages and words, but better pages and words.
3. The Bill Clinton chapters are a hagiography of the Clinton administration. Yet, many of the problems we struggle with now - deregulation (including banks which plunged us into a global economic collapse), mass incarceration, the erosion of the social net - all continued to be aided by his administration. But Wilentz would just say I'm a cranky old New Deal liberal that can't realize things have changed and I'm the problem with the American left.
2. Read Rick Perlstein. Yes it's more pages and words, but better pages and words.
3. The Bill Clinton chapters are a hagiography of the Clinton administration. Yet, many of the problems we struggle with now - deregulation (including banks which plunged us into a global economic collapse), mass incarceration, the erosion of the social net - all continued to be aided by his administration. But Wilentz would just say I'm a cranky old New Deal liberal that can't realize things have changed and I'm the problem with the American left.
lissielove's review
3.0
So I'm not qualified to accurately gauge how well Wilentz tackles a lot of this book. I was born in 1984, and while I know things about 1974-1995(ish) most of what I know is ephemeral. It's not an era I've studied in any detail.
I have two major problems with this book. One, it's billed as a political history. Sure, if by that you mean a presidential history. Wilentz is better about giving Congress more even coverage during the 70s and 80s (not great, but better) but it completely disappears in the 1990s when Congress becomes the enemy going after poor Bill Clinton.
I am a liberal. Members of my family call me a dirty liberal, so when I say that Wilentz is a Clinton apologist, I want you to understand exactly what I mean. Those going after Clinton are painted as villainous hypocrites, but there's no space given to the people who honestly thought they were doing right.
Slate just did a great podcast series on this subject (Slow Burn), doing a good job of pointing out where there was a witch hunt (White Water) and where Clinton was definitely guilty. There was a lot more at work on both sides of the aisle about whether or not to investigate or impeach Clinton, but Wilentz didn't talk about it. If this was the only information you ever read about the impeachment, you might agree with him that the entire thing was a right-wing conspiracy from start to finish. I don't disagree that Republicans took advantage, but he excuses any wrongdoing on Clinton's part almost entirely and it doesn't sit right with me.
He conducted no interviews, which is a choice that I'm glad he acknowledged but I cannot understand. You are discussing a period in which 80% of the people involved are alive and might actually talk to you. How do you not even seek out some of them?
This book shouldn't have gone past 2000. I know Wilentz argues for it in the introduction but I disagree with his handling. George H.W. Bush's eight years in the White House cannot be accurately described in thirty pages, and it's a superficial analysis in order to prove Wilentz's conclusion about the end of the age of Reagan. It actively damaged the book for me.
This epilogue was written after the rest of the book and stops just short of the 2008 election, but it has several errors and uncomfortable judgments. Barack Obama is cast as the "political newcomer with a sketchy past" (452) while Wilentz misnames the Louisiana Senator accused of sexual misconduct in 2007 (he writes James Vitter, not David Vitter). (454) There's no exploration of what Wilentz means by sketchy past, and it's downright irresponsible because this book was released DURING the election of 2008 (May 6, 2008). I am appalled by that characterization of the candidate with no explanation. Prove your point.
I've read Sean Wilentz for other grad classes and I've been happy with his other works. This is out of his wheel house and it shows.
I have two major problems with this book. One, it's billed as a political history. Sure, if by that you mean a presidential history. Wilentz is better about giving Congress more even coverage during the 70s and 80s (not great, but better) but it completely disappears in the 1990s when Congress becomes the enemy going after poor Bill Clinton.
I am a liberal. Members of my family call me a dirty liberal, so when I say that Wilentz is a Clinton apologist, I want you to understand exactly what I mean. Those going after Clinton are painted as villainous hypocrites, but there's no space given to the people who honestly thought they were doing right.
Slate just did a great podcast series on this subject (Slow Burn), doing a good job of pointing out where there was a witch hunt (White Water) and where Clinton was definitely guilty. There was a lot more at work on both sides of the aisle about whether or not to investigate or impeach Clinton, but Wilentz didn't talk about it. If this was the only information you ever read about the impeachment, you might agree with him that the entire thing was a right-wing conspiracy from start to finish. I don't disagree that Republicans took advantage, but he excuses any wrongdoing on Clinton's part almost entirely and it doesn't sit right with me.
He conducted no interviews, which is a choice that I'm glad he acknowledged but I cannot understand. You are discussing a period in which 80% of the people involved are alive and might actually talk to you. How do you not even seek out some of them?
This book shouldn't have gone past 2000. I know Wilentz argues for it in the introduction but I disagree with his handling. George H.W. Bush's eight years in the White House cannot be accurately described in thirty pages, and it's a superficial analysis in order to prove Wilentz's conclusion about the end of the age of Reagan. It actively damaged the book for me.
This epilogue was written after the rest of the book and stops just short of the 2008 election, but it has several errors and uncomfortable judgments. Barack Obama is cast as the "political newcomer with a sketchy past" (452) while Wilentz misnames the Louisiana Senator accused of sexual misconduct in 2007 (he writes James Vitter, not David Vitter). (454) There's no exploration of what Wilentz means by sketchy past, and it's downright irresponsible because this book was released DURING the election of 2008 (May 6, 2008). I am appalled by that characterization of the candidate with no explanation. Prove your point.
I've read Sean Wilentz for other grad classes and I've been happy with his other works. This is out of his wheel house and it shows.
More...