New Books in Politics

$800 billion is a lot of money. That is the amount of cash the Obama administration pumped into the American economy through the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Ever wonder what happened to all that dough? In The New New Deal: The Hidden Story of Change in the Obama Era (Simon & Schuster, 2012), Michael Grunwald offers a readable yet painstaking account of the “Stimulus” bill’s significance. Based on interviews with White House insiders, readers get a front row seat for the deliberations and sausage making which led to this gargantuan bill. Countering conventional wisdom, Grunwald claims the Stimulus package successfully kept the economy out of depression and has established the groundwork for new industries. In effect, Obama has updated liberalism for a new era. Hope you enjoy my conversation with Michael Grunwald.

[Cross-posted from New Books in Public Policy] In his new book Spoiled Rotten: How the Politics of Patronage Corrupted the Once Noble Democratic Party and Now Threatens the American Republic (Broadside  Books, 2012), Jay Cost, a political analyst and columnist for The Weekly Standard, traces the history of the Democratic party from its 1828 conception through to the modern day. Costa believes the party has strayed from its once noble goal of standing up for the “little guy” and become a political force ruled by the combined influences of a variety of special interest groups. In our interview, we talked about why he sees Woodrow Wilson, not FDR, as the founder of the modern Democratic party, the relationship between the Democrats and the press, and how American labor unions have changed over time.  Read all about it, and more, in Cost’s tough new book. Please become a fan of New Books in Public Policy on Facebook if you haven’t already.

[Cross-posted from New Books in Political Science] Matt Grossmann, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Michigan State University, has authored the recently released book, The Not-So-Special Interests: Interest Groups, Public Representation, and American Governance (Stanford University Press, 2012). The book challenges scholarly and conventional notions of how interest groups influence the policy process. Grossman argues that the focus of political scientists on collective-action and free riding, which has dominated the field for decades, has overlooked the significant contributions of David Truman. In fact, Grossman argues, the few good predictions that Olson made were in general the same ones made by Truman. The approach of the book is empirical and includes many statistical models, but the writing is clear and accessible to non-academics. It seeks to answer the question of why certain advocacy organizations are so visible in public debates, by foregrounding the prominence of Jews, lawyers, and gun owners. In one of the more interesting cases, Grossmann follows the formation and evolution of the AARP as the leading voice for seniors in Washington, and why conservative opposition groups have failed to challenge their influence over key policy issues. Grossman ends by offering a theory of Institutionalized Pluralism to explain the system of advocacy in the US today.

Is there a liberal media elite in our country? If there is, do the New Media have the potential to displace it? According to Andrew Breitbart‘s Righteous Indignation: Excuse Me While I Save the World! (Grand Central Publishing, 2011) the answer to both questions is a resounding “Yes!”  The author, an internet and media provocateur, explores his own upbringing as a “go along, get along” liberal and examines the media-related events in his life that transformed his worldview and started his own ambitious initiative to transform the entire media culture. In our interview, we talk about American Studies, Arnold Schwarzenegger’s sadistic approach to tennis, and Matt Drudge’s first job folding t-shirts at a CBS gift shop in LA.  Read all about it, and more, in Breitbart’s provocative new book.

[Crossposted from New Books in History] Historians are by their nature public intellectuals because they are intellectuals who write about, well, the public. Alas, many historians seem to forget the “public” part and concentrate on the “intellectual” part. Our guest today–sponsored by the National History Center–is not among them. Julian Zelizer has used his historical research and writing to inform the public and public debate in a great variety of fora: magazines, newspapers, online outlets, radio, TV–and now New Books in History. Today we’ll be talking about his efforts to bring the historian’s voice to the public and his most recent book Arsenal of Democracy: The Politics of National Security From WWII to the War on Terrorism (Basic Books, 2010) (which itself is a contribution to that effort). The book proves that in the U.S. politics does not “stop at the water’s edge”–not now, not ever. From the very beginning of the Republic, American foreign policy has been informed by a subtle mix of electoral politics, ideology, and institutional infighting. Julian’s book focuses on the most recent episode in this long story–the period from the Second World War to the present. He shows that politics plain and simple had a powerful effect on the major foreign policy decisions of the era: Korea, the Cuban Missile Crisis, Vietnam, Reagan’s volte-face on disarmament, the First Gulf War, and the Second. It is, Julian says, in the nature of our political culture to cross swords and break lances over issues of foreign policy. Never truer words… We also discuss the History News Network and the History News Service. Their webpages can be found here and here. Please become a fan of “New Books in Politics” on Facebook if you haven’t already.

[Crossposted from New Books in History] This week we talk to Matt Wasniewski. Matt is the historian and publications manager in the Office of History & Preservation, U.S. House of Representatives. He earned his Ph.D. in U.S. history from the University of Maryland, College Park, in 2004. In this interview we talk to Matt about Women in Congress, 1917-2006. He led the team (including Kathleen Johnson, Erin M. Lloyd, and Laura K. Turner) that produced the book. It’s a remarkable piece of work, thoroughly researched, lavishly illustrated, and beautifully executed. By the way, the picture above is of Matt and his team, plus some special guests. From left to right: Erin Hromada, Laura Turner, former Congresswoman Lindy Boggs of Louisiana, Matt, and Kathleen Johnson. Please become a fan of “New Books in Politics” on Facebook if you haven’t already.

[Crossposted from New Books in History] In just a few days, the United States will inaugurate its first black president, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.  And though it’s a momentous day for the cause of equality, Mr. Obama is hardly the first African American to come to DC to serve the people of the United States. His way was paved by well over one hundred black legislators who served over the past 140 years in the House and Senate. Happily, you can read all about them in wonderful Black Americans in Congress, 1870-2007 (U.S. House of Representatives, Office of the Clerk, Office of History and Preservation, 2008). This is book has three cardinal virtues. First, it’s timely, as we’ve said. The editors and authors deserve praise for seeing it into print at exactly the right moment. Second, it’s well researched and written. The entries–one for each black legislator–are at once informative, rich in detail, and full of humor and pathos. Finally, it’s a beautifully designed and produced work. This book is, like its companion Women in Congress 1917-2006, a work of great craftsmanship, and should be acknowledged as such. Black Americans in Congress, 1870-2007 is the sort of book you buy to keep and hand down to your children. So buy it, hand it down, and preserve the memory of those who came before President Obama. Please become a fan of “New Books in Politics” on Facebook if you haven’t already.

[Crossposted from New Books in History] This week on New Books in History we interviewed Donald Ritchie about his new book Electing FDR: The New Deal Campaign of 1932 (University Press of Kansas, 2007). Ritchie is an associate historian at the U.S. Senate Historical Office and is also the author of seven other books, including the Richard W. Leopold prize-winning Press Gallery: Congress and the Washington Correspondents. In Electing FDR, Ritchie argues that, contrary to popular belief, it was not inevitable that FDR would become president in 1932. There were multiple factors standing in the way of FDR’s election, and it was only through successful campaign strategies that FDR was able to overcome those obstacles. Patrick J. Maney, author of The Roosevelt Presence: The Life and Legacy of FDR, calls Electing FDR “The best account of the most important presidential campaign of the twentieth century. Holds some surprising lessons for today’s presidential candidates.” Please become a fan of “New Books in Politics” on Facebook if you haven’t already.

[Crossposted from New Books in History] As some of you may be aware, there’s a big election coming up. Yes, it’s time to pick a new auditor for Iowa City, Iowa, my hometown. It’s a hotly contested race between a jerk with a drinking problem and a twenty-four-year-old who ran a cake business into the ground. The pundits are having a field day. And then there’s the presidential race between McCain and Obama. That’s been in the news as well round these parts. It sort of reminds one of the race-that-almost-was between Richard Milhouse Nixon and RFK in 1968. Nixon wanted to give us “peace with honor” and RFK wanted us “out now.” With this parallel in mind we are happy to have Ray E. Boomhower on the show today. We’ll be talking about his fascinating book  Robert F. Kennedy and the 1968 Indiana Primary (Indiana UP, 2008). It’s a very enlightening bit of scholarship. I was under the impression that RFK was somehow destined to run against Johnson in ’68. Not so! He came in only after Eugene McCarthy showed LBJ’s vulnerability to a strong anti-war message. RFK saw his chance, and took it. I was also under the impression that RFK would have doubtless won the Democratic nomination had he not been assassinated. Again, not so! McCarthy gave RFK a run for his money, and a very strong Humphrey was waiting in the wings. As Ray shows, RFK ran well in Indiana (and gave a speech on the day Martin Luther King was killed for which he is justly famous), but faltered elsewhere. Would RFK, had he been nominated, defeated Nixon? Nothing is sure in politics, as we in the United States are about to find out on November 4. Happy Election Day! Please become a fan of “New Books in Politics” on Facebook if you haven’t already.

[Crossposted from New Books in History] There are some topics that historians know not to touch. They are just too hot (or too cold). The assassination of JFK is one of them. Most scholars would say either: (a) the topic has been done to death so nothing new can be said or (b) it’s been so thoroughly co-opted by nutty theorists that no sane discussion is possible. Thank goodness David Kaiser believes neither of these things, for if he did we would never have his thought-provoking  The Road to Dallas. The Assassination of John F. Kennedy (Harvard UP, 2008).  Taking a professional historian’s skills to documents old and new, Kaiser provides what is doubtless the best argument available that the assassination was in fact a conspiracy, though not the one you may know from a certain movie by Oliver Stone. He weighs each piece of evidence and builds his case point by point. Conclusions are never forced but follow naturally from the record. Not everyone will agree with Kaiser’s position, but it must be taken seriously by anyone interested in the topic. Kaiser has thrown down the gauntlet to those who believe Oswald acted alone. Now it is for other historians to take it up. PS: Read David’s blog “History Unfolding.” Please become a fan of “New Books in Politics” on Facebook if you haven’t already.

[Crossposted from New Books in History] You could fill a large library with books about JFK’s assassination. We’ve even touched on the subject here. The topic of the transfer of power from JFK to LBJ, however, has been neglected. I was under the impression that after JFK was pronounced dead, LBJ took an oath and that was that. As Steve Gillon points out in his terrific new The Kennedy Assassination–24 Hours After. Lyndon B. Johnson’s Pivotal First Day as President (Basic, 2009), that was not that. Rather, the transition was marked by confusion, doubt, anger, mistrust, jealousy, intrigue, and drama of every sort. At the center of it all were two parties–the out-sized president-presumptive, LBJ, and the Kennedy Clan, led by RFK. They were not on good terms. LBJ liked and admired JFK, but he resented the pretense and privilege of the Kennedy Clan. He hated RFK. JFK liked and admired LBJ, but his “people” thought Johnson was a buffoon, and they could not imagine him as president. RFK hated LBJ. JFK managed to kept LBJ and the Clan separated. But he was now dead and the battle was therefore joined. Read all about it in this page-turner of a book. By the way, the History Channel has made a documentary based on Steve’s book. You can read about it here. Please become a fan of “New Books in Politics” on Facebook if you haven’t already.

[Crossposted from New Books in History] I think that many smart people, particularly on the Left, make a really ill-considered assumption, to wit, that “Republican” means “Conservative.” I don’t mean lower case “c” conservative, as in wanting to maintain the status quo. Nearly all (there are important exceptions) twentieth-century Republicans were conservatives in that generic sense. Rather, I mean capital “c” conservative, that is, pro-religion, traditional family centered, militarily hawkish, arch-patriotic, Constitution protecting, States rights shielding, free enterprise loving, individual responsibility promoting, values matter Conservative. It was only in the 1980s that a goodly number of Republicans endorsed this set of beliefs. [pullquote]They were believers, it’s just that they believed things that most members of the East Coast commentariat (at least before the rise of Limbaugh, et al.) did not. From the results of the recent mid-term elections in the United States, I think it’s fair to say they still don’t.[/pullquote] In his wonderfully written, witty, and engaging book The Rise and Fall of Modern American Conservatism (Princeton UP, 2010), David Farber tells the story of how Conservatives took over the Republican Party and reshaped American politics. He does so using a devise that I find particularly appropriate for any story of political change, namely, through the lives of the people who founded, grew, and led the movement. Farber, who clearly believes that leadership matters a great deal in democratic politics (I couldn’t agree more), has a talent for linking biography to political history. Farber’s sketches of Robert Taft, William Buckley, Barry Goldwater, Phyllis Schlafly, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush show us the degree to which their personalities shaped the rise (and fall) of American Conservatism. Each vignette is a pleasure to read and full of enlightening and entertaining observations. And though Farber pulls no punches (he does not shrink, for example, from calling a liar a liar), it’s clear that he respects his subjects and suggests that we should respect them too. In his estimation (and mine as well), they were not the collection of benighted, fearful, blinkered, country-bumpkin bigots that you can read about in The Nation. They were believers, it’s just that they believed things that most members of the East Coast commentariat (at least before the rise of Limbaugh, et al.) did not. From the results of the recent mid-term elections in the United States, I think it’s fair to say they still don’t. Please become a fan of “New Books in Politics” on Facebook if you haven’t already.