[Cross-posted from New Books in Political Science] Daniel Stedman Jones is the author of Masters of the Universe: Hayek, Friedman, and the Birth of Neoliberal Politics (Princeton University Press, 2012). The book tells a portion of the intellectual history of neoliberalism through a focus on the period of the 1950s through the 1980s. Stedman Jones tracks the development of a set of ideas by Karl Popper, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, and later Milton Friedman, George Stigler, and James Buchanan, first in Europe and then in the United States. This intellectual movement soon becomes a transatlantic political movement, as the leaders of the neoliberal agenda sought to influence policy makers in the UK and US. Policy making in the late 1970s and early 1980s, particularly deregulation and other market-based reforms, reflected the success of the “masters of the universe” to move beyond the academy. The book ends with a reflection on the legacy of neoliberalism in current times. Scholars in political science, public policy, history, and economics would all benefit from the story Stedman Jones tells about the relationship between the history of ideas, politics, and policy. The book was short-listed for the Royal Historical Society, Gladstone Prize.

What can the United States learn from Europe? One good answer, says Steven Hill, is social capitalism, a form of economic management that is responsive to markets and productive of broadly-shared prosperity. First known for his work on electoral reform in the United States, Hill began travelling through Europe in the late 90’s to study the use of proportional representation (PR) in European elections. Once there, his research agenda gradually broadened to include European approaches to healthcare, corporate governance, support for families, transportation, energy, media, and other policies that together constitute what Hill calls “The European Way,” as compared to “The American Way.” This comparison is laid out with clarity and a wealth of examples in Hill’s highly-readable book Europe’s Promise: Why the European Way is the Best Hope in an Insecure Age (University of California Press, 2010). In the first half of this interview, we discuss the compatibility of European healthcare systems with thriving economies, focusing on models from Germany for controlling costs and increasing transparency. Hill explains how Europe manages to maintain more Fortune 500 companies than the U.S. and China combined, while at the same time offering benefits to workers like paid maternity leave, generous vacations, paid sick leave, and low-cost child care. We also discuss CEO perspectives on codetermination—a form of corporate power-sharing among workers and management—in German companies like Deutsche Bank, Mercedes, and Volkswagen. In the second half of the interview, we take up the American side of the question. I ask Steven if European-style policies are only possible in small countries with PR, or if they are also possible in a large country without PR, like the United States. Hill describes what it would it take for U.S. states to enact similar policies and where, if anywhere, that is most likely to happen.

[Cross-posted from New Books in Law] Every hundred years or so, the Supreme Court decides a question with truly vast economic implications. In 2012 such a decision was handed down, in a case that had the potential to affect the economy in the near term more than any court case ever had. The substance of the case, and its lasting legal implications, are the subject of Andrew Koppelman’s The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2012).

The plaintiffs in the “Obamacare” case, NFIB v. Sebelius, had political and legal goals. Politically, they failed, because Justice Roberts was not willing to undo the huge Congressional effort to reform the country’s health-insurance system. But legally, in terms of doctrine, the litigation was a smashing success, altering principles that reach back hundreds of years.

Andrew Koppelman has written a superb layman’s guide to what was at stake, legally, in last year’s case — and what the plaintiffs accomplished. They persuaded five justices of the Supreme Court to call into question both of the Court’s most economically significant previous decisions, one from the early days of the Republic, and one from the New Deal.

In 1819, the Court agreed unanimously that the federal government could solve national problems:
“Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adopted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.” (James Marshall)

In 1935, the vote on a similar question was five to four: ”Although activities may be intrastate in character when separately considered, if they have such a close and substantial relation to interstate commerce that their control is essential or appropriate to protect that commerce from burdens and obstructions, Congress cannot be denied the power to exercise that control.” (Charles Evan Hughes)

But the dissent in 1935 took a very different view, one that resonates with the conservative voices of 2012: “The right to contract is fundamental, and includes the privilege of selecting those with whom one is willing to assume contractual relations.” (James McReynolds)

In 2012, the Court is now split 4-5, in the other direction, on both of these topics. Prof. Koppelman shows that the “necessary & proper” clause, held to trump states’ rights by Justice Marshall, is hollowed out by Justice Roberts’ opinion. And Justice McReynolds’ “right to contract,” made infamous by the Lochner court, has returned in ghostly form, as a new individual right not to contract with insurance companies. In economic matters, the tide of constitutional law is shifting.

The power of the Tough Luck constitutional doctrine was not exercised because of Justice Roberts’ forbearance in preserving the Affordable Care Act on other grounds. But with the help of Prof. Koppelman’s lucid and persuasive book, any reader can now fully grasp the legal significance of this line of thinking. Its practical implications, meanwhile, are becoming visible in the context of Medicaid, because a secondary holding in the case empowered governors to refuse new federal money for health care for the working poor.

[Cross-posted from New Books in Political Science] Cyril Ghosh is Visiting Assistant Professor at Wagner College where he teaches courses in American government, political theory, and immigration. His new book, The Politics of the American Dream: Democratic Inclusion in Contemporary American Political Culture (Palgrave-MacMillan 2013), explores the development and meaning of this powerful national myth. Ghosh tracks the historical development of the American Dream and answers important questions about its conflicted meaning in contemporary politics. Candidates for public office often evoke the American dream, but Ghosh argues that these evocations are rarely consistent and the definitions often in conflict with each other. Ghosh is an enthusiastic author. His prose reflects an eagerness to share what he has learned, resulting in an enjoyable and accessible read.

[Cross-posted from New Books in Big Ideas] Most people think that professors are more liberal, and some much more liberal, than ordinary folk. As Neil Gross shows in his eye-opening Why are Professors Liberal and Why do Conservatives Care? (Harvard UP, 2013), “most people” are right: academia is much more left-leaning than any other major profession in the U.S . But why is this so? As Gross points out, there are a lot of “folk” explanations out there, but none of them holds much water. Gross looks the data (a lot of which he collected himself) and searches for a more compelling explanation. It’s surprising: the fact that most college students think professors are liberal (which is true) makes those among them who are conservative think they wil not be welcomed in the profession (which, as it turns out, may not be true). By analogy, men don’t generally become nurses because they think of nursing as a “female” profession. Just so, conservatives don’t become professors because they think of academia as a “liberal” profession. But does it matter that academia is liberal? Listen in and find out.

The “rise” of the Tea Party has become one of the most exaggerated political stories in recent memory. The hullabaloo regarding the Tea Party reminds me of what a leading neo-conservative once said about the New Left, “What’s new isn’t new and what’s left isn’t left.” In other words, there isn’t much new about the Tea Party and their principles are not necessarily more conservative than orthodox Republicanism. Kevin Mattson’s new book, Just Plain Dick: Richard Nixon’s Checkers Speech and the ‘Rocking, Socking’ Election of 1952, (Bloomsbury, 2012) argues just that. According to Mattson, the infamous “Checkers Speech” established a rhetorical and political template for the New Right and today’s Tea Party. This book is funny, insightful and worth reading. Listen to the interview, buy the book, and tell a friend.

Mitt Romney must feel like Charlie Brown. Always facing an uphill climb against a popular incumbent, Romney truly believed he would kick the veritable football and take the White House. Unfortunately for the GOP, Lucy (Obama) jerked the football away leaving Romney to fall flat and conservatives to wander the political wilderness. Take heart Mitt Romney—Scott Farris has written the book for you.

Scott Farris‘ Almost President: The Men Who Lost the Race But Changed the Nation (Lyons Press, 2011) details how “losers” changed American politics. A journalist who has dabbled in the dark arts of politics, Farris has spent decades writing about state and national politicians. Understanding this rare species enabled him to pen a sprawling work that depicts nineteenth, twentieth and twenty-first century losers. This is a fine book and fun read. Listen to the interview, buy the book and tell a friend.

The 1970s and the Israel-Palestinian Conflict are quite possibly the two most depressing subjects an academic could study. With shag carpeting, disco, Watergate, malaise defining the former and an internecine and (seemingly) eternal clash characterizing the latter who on earth would want to study those topics in one monograph? Well, Gil Troy is up to that task. The McGill University history professor not only took up this unenviable task, he has penned a remarkable work, Moynihan’s Moment: America’s Fight Against Zionism as Racism (Oxford University Press, 2012).

On the surface, Troy details Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s iconic 1975 speech at the United Nations that took issue with that body’s definition of Zionism as racism.  The author’s work, however, is much more than the history of a speech. Troy expertly depicts the history of the contemporary Western left as it pertains to Israel and Zionism while also detailing the work and life of an American original, Daniel Patrick Moynihan. If you are at all interested in contemporary US political history or the modern Middle East—this is a must read.

[Cross-posted from New Books in Political Science] Scott Melzer is the author of Gun Crusaders: The NRA’s Culture War (New York University Press 2012). Scott earned his Ph.D. from the University of California, Riverside and now is an associate professor of Sociology at Albion College. His book adds to the growing list of scholarship on gun control and gun rights. Scott’s disciplinary background in Sociology contributes to a better understanding of the nature of the NRA’s members, the links between their views towards guns and other issues, and what lies ahead for the organization. Through in-depth interviews with NRA members, we learn more about what it means to be a part of this organization, something few scholars have addressed directly in the past. The book is both a great read about policy, about an influential interest group, but also about the sociology of an organization.

Somewhere Hannah Arendt is smiling. In the pages of the 1945 Partisan Review Arendt declared, “The problem of evil will be the fundamental question of postwar intellectual life in Europe.” In the short-term, Arendt couldn’t have been more wrong.  With Marxists and postmodernists rejecting the very idea of “evil,” academics and intellectuals (yes, there is a difference between the two) rarely investigated the “problem of evil.”

The international security issues of the post-Cold War era, however, have brought Arendt’s proposition to the fore. From the Balkans and Rwanda to Osama bin Laden, American policymakers have confronted issues of ethnic cleansing, genocide, and mass terror that have forced intellectuals to reconsider “evil.” One of our culture’s leading public intellectuals, Alan Wolfe, has penned a marvelous work on the issue, Political Evil: What It Is and How to Combat It (Vintage, 2012)). In this readable and timely book, Wolfe defines political evil, offers some definitional accuracy, and urges readers to become serious about the issue. If you are at all interested in the politics of foreign policy and crafting a intellectual framework for a serious strategy go listen to this interview and go buy and read this book.

You wouldn’t know from the 2012 president race but the United States remains engaged in a fairly bloody conflict in Afghanistan. In addition to boots on the ground, we deploy scores of drones in Pakistan, Yemen and the Horn of Africa to keep Al Qaeda and its affiliates at bay. In the post-9/11 world does the US have any other option aside from semi-permanent war against non-state actors that operate in developing and/or failed states? Dr. Rachel Kleinfeld thinks American policymakers have viable options, alternatives and policies that can address the national security challenges of the 21st century.

In Let There Be Light: Electrifying the Developing World With Markets and Distributed Energy, co-authored with Drew Sloan, (Truman National Security Institute, 2012), they reveal that “energy,” or the lack thereof, keeps many nations mired in poverty. To jump start-developing economies, Kleinfeld offers some relatively doable innovations to make energy plentiful. In so doing, failed states could very well become success stories or, at the very least, less likely to incubate poverty, lawlessness and threats to international security. In the same vein, Kleinfeld’s second book, Advancing the Rule of Law Abroad (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2012), offers additional policies to promote the rule of law in developing nations. In both cases, these books give viable policy solutions that address the national security challenges of the 21st century.

Tired of politics? I grew tired of campaign commercials, especially once Mitt Romney identified Pennsylvania (where I live) as a battleground state. Now that the ad wars have ended and the ballots have been counted, I am really interested in understanding what has happened to modern American conservatism. That is why I had Patrick Allitt on to discuss his new book, The Conservatives: Ideas & Personalities Throughout American History (Yale University Press, 2010).

Professor Allitt traces the evolution of American conservatism from its Federalist roots up through the George W. Bush administration. Accessible and written in a lively style, this is a fine book that deserves a wide reading.

The “Personal is Political” was the mantra for the women’s movement and a generation of social historians interested in the lives of women and assorted minorities. This lens, looking at the interior lives of individuals to decipher their exterior choices, has long been a staple of biographers. Bill Chafe, however, takes this maxim to a higher and more intensive level in his joint biography, Bill and Hillary: The Politics of the Personal (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2012). The Duke University historian of women’s history and American liberalism brings these insights to bear on a masterful depiction of Bill and Hillary Clinton’s inner-lives and the public consequences thereof. Chafe’s work is readable and captivating. This work represents an inventive avenue to understand why politicians behave in ways that otherwise seem inconceivable. Seriously, if you want to understand the Clinton presidency go buy this book.

In the 2012 presidential race two major issues are ever present but never mentioned: Mormonism and homosexuality. According to opinion polls, a significant number of Americans either won’t vote or are wary of voting for a Mormon. Likewise, though opinions are rapidly changing a large plurality or slight majority (depending upon the poll you consult) of Americans oppose gay marriage.

Craig Harline boldly takes on both controversial issues in his new book, Conversions: Two Family Stories from the Reformation and Modern America (Yale University Press, 2011). Written in an innovative and accessible fashion, Conversions delves into both issues and discusses them in a subtle yet profound manner. In an age where partisans tune into the cable news show that best jibes with their pre-conceived notions Harline’s work is most welcome. Do yourself a favor, listen to our discussion and go out and buy the book.

The 2012 presidential election might be closely contested but the battleground states are almost all exclusively outside of the Old Confederacy. Florida, Virginia, and, to a lesser extent, North Carolina might be contested but only because these states have become remarkable less Southern. Indeed, southern Virginians refer to the northern parts of their state as “occupied Virginia.” In terms of American political history, specialists call the South’s evolution to the GOP “realignment.’ Typically, historians and political scientists explain the South’s remarkable political change in one word “racism.”

In his fine  Strom Thurmond’s America (Hill and Wang, 2012), Joseph Crespino muddies that clear and simple explanation. In his work, the South’s realignment is more complicated than pure and simple bigotry. I hope you enjoy our conversation.

$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.