Politics Government Books

Off the bat I'll say that I happen to be a huge fan of Mr. Laqueur, who I consider one of the greatest living english-language historians. It is fortunate, then, that he is also one of the most prolific. In The Last Days of Europe, Mr. Laqueur describes primarily the social and economic ailments that will almost certainly hinder Europe's Great Power pretensions in the 21st century. It is not a happy book, predicting a schlerotic Europe beset with sectarian and ethnic problems stemming from the combination of a social and economic system that is unsupportable in the long-term, as well as masses of culturally incompatible illegal and legal immigrants who largely have no intention of assimilating into mainstream European society.

Although altogether depressing, the work is a needed corrective to progressive/socialist panegyrics forcasting a united, self-confident European community that will present a more acceptable alternative to perceived Yankee ideological, economic, and social backwardness. Europe ain't it.

This book is very important not just because it shows the European future, but, it also predicts the future of America, as America has similar problem, even dual, due to threat of illegal immigration plus muslim immigration. American tolerance towards both threats is suicidal.

Walter Laqueur is no Mark Steyn but who else possibly could be? The latter's America Alone was one of the most energetic and engaging accounts imaginable concerning the decline of the west and it sits atop my list of the best books of 2006. However, The Last Days of Europe, which did not get any of the fanfare Steyn's recent classic did, is an erudite and sober account covering many of the same themes. Laqueur's authority on the subject is undeniable and I found myself shaking my head in affirmation countless times while devouring these pages. What I most admired about him was his refusal to wildly speculate about the future. He admits that we cannot be certain about what will be and that trends are just that, and never a precise predictor of future events.

Will Europe eventually become little more than a museum? I doubt it. The folks who will run it will not be the kind who respect the integrity of old churches and the remnants of a democracy they utterly despise. Thirty years ago many presumed that Europe would be the new dominant power in the world but Laqueur suggests (in Chapters 1 and 4) that, as a result of demographic and economic decline, there is little likelihood of this occurring. Socialism slowly corrupts and destroys those who find themselves unfortunate enough to live under its auspices. By allowing the state to take over their economies, Europe will soon implode and manage to destroy itself. Americans would be wise to learn from their example and roll back the expansion of our own state before the next election brings in a nationalized health care industry...which will break us. Indeed, at the very moment I now type, the growth of our leviathan has brought us to the precipice of a recession. It's time to return the wages of the people to the people, and to memorize Thomas Jefferson's maxim that a government big enough to give you what you want is strong enough to take everything you have away.

Walter Laqeur, who is an expert on terrorism No End To War: Terrorism In The Twenty-first Century has decided to put his pen to paper on the historr and fate of Europe. After examining European history he shows how endless wars, and the shame of the Holocaust, caused a great melancholy to sweep the continent. It resigned itself to its fate under Communism and when it survived that threat it met challenges by not working and vacationing and abandoning its CHristian heritage and abandoning its western-secular heritage and giving in to the cult or moral-relativism, self-loathing, nihilism and post-modernism.

Multi-culturalism drove Europeans to excess in their excuses and appologies for the hateful people they important as immigrants and the intolerant cultures they allowed to grow in their midst. They supported the birth of immigrant children even as they realized demographics were against them. in Laqueur's view Europe has simply dug its own grave and these are its last days. THis book is more depressing than likeminded essays by Oriana Fallaci,The Rage and The Pride, and Norman PodhoretzWorld War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism but it is no less important. Although some such asDecline and Fall: Europe's Slow Motion Suicide andMurder in Amsterdam: Liberal Europe, Islam, and the Limits of Tolerence have given less or more extreme views this book is sure to make an important impact.

Seth J. Frantzman

This book could not be discussed in the mainstream European media. Because it would act as an eye-opener to all of those who are not already seeing what lies ahead of us: the end of our civilization in its very birthplace, if no reaction or opposite trend appear ( do not hesitate to compare this with the fate of the Roman Empire). And political correctness does not allow that.
Walter Laqueur manages to give a sober, dispassionate and erudite account of the continent's very gloomy future. And with his track-record as a professor and author of numerous books, he cannot be suspected of right-wing sympathies.
The birthrate amongst native Europeans is desperately low and below reproduction rate; it has been low since 1900 but is now reaching pathetic levels. Europe is shrinking, Europe is dying.
Meanwhile, an alien population of Muslims, introduced to Europe from the 1960s without consulting its local population, is growing fast. In its majority, even amongst the second or third generation, it seems to be unable to integrate into Western European society and is even rejecting its values with increasing force. For years, focused on other issues, Europeans did not see how much of a problem these opposing demographic evolutions would cause.
Even now, politicians and the media are focusing on the problems that the aging population is bringing; who will pay for pensions and health care? Nobody seems to realize that at some point, in 20 to 30 years' time, when the baby-boom generation will have rejoined its ancestors, Muslims in Europe will most probably represent 25% if not more of Europe's population, an even bigger proportion of its younger age groups, those that represent the future, and a clear majority in a number of large cities and their surrounding regions.
That would happen even if immigration should stop today. But it is not stopping but accelerating, with all those poor and illiterate people attracted by the magnet of European prosperity, seeing the " hen with the golden eggs".
Muslims in Europe are optimistic. They know all they have to do is to wait, because Europeans are either not realizing what is happening, or refusing to admit it, and therefore are not reacting. Why? Because European civilization lost its vigor on the battlefields of WWI and WWII, lost its self-confidence and pride, does not believe in its own fundamental values enough to defend them, because the process of European integration (that has largely ground to a halt) cannot replace that emptiness.
There might be a radical yet acceptable approach and Laqueur does not speak of it. Europe should seal its borders as much as possible, introduce managed immigration, keep Muslims out, favor migrants from other parts of the world, and above all that, set up natalist policies that reverse the trend. But I repeat: all that is not compatible with the political correctness prevailing today and natalist policies remind Europe of fascism.
But who knows, if we try dreaming a bit, Europe's problems might also contain within themselves the welcome germs of change. Aging will cause the final collapse of the welfare state as we know it, reducing the attractiveness of Europe to fascinated outsiders, and it will no longer be affordable (sadly)to keep people alive beyond a certain age. There will also be less unemployment as this was largely created by the arrival of the baby-boomers on the job market. The renewed job opportunities as well as the capital left behind by these same baby-boomers will encourage their less numerous children to reproduce with more enthusiasm...

After finishing this book and a number of others on both sides of the gun argument, I would rate this book 10 stars if possible. Lott leaves no doubt whatsoever after his careful, most detailed analysis of state by state, county by county statistical analyses of crime rates both before and after the introduction of "right to carry" laws in each of the 40 states that now have such laws. THANK GOD I HAD A GUN, is another worth reading of a case by case analysis of actual incidents of self protection wherein mostly home intrusions were stopped just by the occuupant having a gun. Most incidents did not even require a shot; just the presence of a weapon stopped the intrusion. I have personally experienced three (3) incidents (I am wheel chair bound) of attempted robbery, or worse, merely by presenting my concealed weapon. I have NEVER had to fire a shot, and I hope I never will. My local police dept. and sheriff dept. highly commend the armed citizens. "They are the ones most likely to help an officer in trouble and never even draw a weapon unless absolutely necessary, and they follow the officer's guidance. We welcome them."

Great book, very heavy on statistics and imperical data. Amusing that the New England Journal of Medecine reviews books on firearms as opposed to reviewing books on bullets and the wounds they inflict, would that not make more sense?

The book is full of informative arguments about why gun control increases violent crime. It is well written and very enjoyable to read.

On an average day in the United States, guns kill some 100 unarmed citizens and are used in about 3000 serious crimes against unarmed citizens.

Imagine how low the numbers if the would be victim was an armed citizen and pulled out a glock.

As the stats from this book show the numbers would approach zero.

John Lott puts up a persuasive argument for the notion that the best way to combat gun crime is to increase the general availability of arms. This may seem like a crazy notion to many but, when looking through his economic graphs and socio-political analyses, an alternative yet persuasive perspective comes across. While I disagree with his call for the relaxation of the law preventing juveniles from carrying concealed firearms, I too came to the conclusion that a legal obligation for citizens to be armed would be for the force of greater good. Food for thought includes the account of the parking-violation that was successfully thwarted (with deadly force) by a gun-toting civilian who was no longer willing to sit back and let crime happen. If there were more common-sense thinkers like John Lott in the world, we should all be far safer. Guns for peace!

Ron Brownstein provides an excellent historical context for how we have come full circle to again embrace extreme polarization in our political system. He leaves the judgment to the reader as to whether this is someting we should decry or embrace for a great portion of the book and then postulates a rational critique as to what this does to the system and potentially how it might be overcome. This book is not for those for whom history is a mystery, but is for those who understand how politics is an everchanging and dynamic system and that we are at a point where we must decide if, at this critical time, can accept continuing gridlock.

i have to say that this book is extremely well documented. it is well written. it offers hope and pragmatic possible solutions for many of the problems our nation faces in the next 20 years. it is also one of the driest books that i've read in the past year or two, falling asleep or shifting to something different after a dozen pages or so ... it's captivating, but, well, simply dry. well worth the read and the price, new. it is an excellent book that, i wish, more politicians and decision-makers would read, especially the last half of the book. thank you for this masterpiece!

A great book that is rather right down the middle. It does a great job of covering the history of politics back to the early 1900s while still focusing on the recent dynamics. Clearly a lot of Bush and Clinton references but it does a good job of removing bias.

A definite eye-opener.

I am amazed how much I learned about American History - this book is a great synopsis of how things really happened.

Brownstein's book provides a wealth of detail and some really interesting US political history for a little over a century. The book is well researched, at least in a historical sense. I don't believe he absolutely proves his case that partisanship is the worst that it has ever been because it has clearly been very bad in the past. Unfortunately, though I believe Brownstein tried very hard for impartiality, his bias, perhaps unwitting, shows through. Republicans are nearly always excessive and provocative, Democrats are nearly always only responding to Republican over reach. Democrat solutions are almost always conveyed as the only realistic ones. To be fair, he doesn't completely whitewash Democrats, it's more a matter of scale. As to be expected, he gives major media a pass for the most part, while indicting Fox for partisanship. Even so, I would have give the book four stars instead of three simply because of the useful information it contains and the fact that it's well written. But when the 'Fairness' doctrine is offered up as one of the solutions to the problem that was a real crippler. Any objective observer knows that there is no problem with people's access to opposing points of view, the only problem is that the liberal left for decades had almost total control of the media and they simply can't accept that the right now has at least a semblance of a public voice. Too bad the LA Times mentality showed through in the end.

"The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States" is a book that everyone should read and keep. I read it the whole way through--the text of the documents and commentary--and I keep it for reference and to refresh my knowledge on these two important pieces of our nation's foundation.

Every U.S. citizen should be familiar with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and I cannot recommend this wonderful Bantam Classic book enough.

Compact, thorough, and informative, the Bantam Classics edition of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States is a great book to have around. For students or anyone wanting to understand the factors that led to the writing of both of these important documents, this edition discusses the reasons that led Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and other important politicians in the newly created United States to draw up such charters.

Editor Pauline Maier does a good job of covering the background of events that led to the Declaration and Constitution. Being compact in size, I see this book as being helpful for most high school students or prospective candidates for American citizenship because it can be carried in a pocket, purse, or coat pocket, and can be pulled out whenever necessary. The book's price is also a great incentive to buy a copy, because it won't blow a hole in your budget.

Overall, a great book at a great price!

Every American should know the contents of the The U.S. Constitution and review it annually.

The Constitution defines, empowers, and limits the U.S. government. After the 13 colonies had issued the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, they needed to write the Constitution in order to define the Government of the United States of America. The Constitution was signed by 39 delegates at the Constitutional Convention on September 17, 1787. The oldest person to sign the Constitution was Benjamin Franklin (81). The youngest was Jonathan Dayton of New Jersey (26).

Some members of the Constitutional Convention refused to sign the final document because they were fearful of an all-powerful government and wanted a bill of rights added to protect the rights of the people. The states refused to ratify the Constitution until the Bill of Rights was added. Hence the Bill of Rights became the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution in 1789.

The original U.S. Constitution was 6 pages and contained 4,400 words. It is written in plain English to be understood by all Americans. It is the oldest and the shortest written constitution of any government in the world.

Constitution of the United States 1791 (Summary)

Preamble

The Preamble defines those roles and responsibilities that are unique to the Federal Government. Justice, common defense, general welfare and tranquility, and liberty.

Articles

The first 3 articles of the Constitution define the branches of Government:

Article 1 defines the Legislature, also called Congress, comprised of the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Article 2 defines the powers and duties of the Executive Branch (President), and the rules for impeachment
Article 3 covers the Judicial Power embodied in the Supreme Court, including the definition of treason.
Article 4 covers States rights.
Article 5 describes how the Constitution can be amended.
Article 6 relates to Constitutional supremacy.
Article 7 describes how the Constitution will be approved by the states.

Bill of Rights (first ten amendments) 1791

1 - Freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition
2 - Militia and the right to keep and bear arms
3 - Housing of soldiers
4 - Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure
5 - Due process
6 - Speedy trial
7 - Trial by jury
8 - Cruel and unusual punishment
9 - Rights
10 - Powers not defined
The following Amendments have been added to the Constitution:
11 - Judicial powers (1795)
12 - Election of president and vice-president (1804)
13 - Slavery abolished (1865)
14 - Limits upon states (1868)
15 - Right to vote not limited by race (1870)
16 - Income tax (1913)
17 - Election of senators (1913)
18 - Prohibition of alcohol (1919) [repealed by 21st Amendment (1933)]
19 - Right to vote given to women (1920)
20 - Terms of office of president, vice president, senators, and representatives (1933)
21 - Repeal of Prohibition (Amendment 18) (1933)
22 - Presidency limited to two terms (1951)
23 - Presidential vote in D.C. (1961)
24 - No poll tax (1964)
25 - Presidential disability and succession (1967)
26 - Voting age lowered to 18 (1971)
27 - Congressional pay (proposed in 1789, ratified in 1992)

Check out the U.S. Constitution. You will find it both interesting and informative.

This is the most important work ever devised by free men. NUFF SAID.
I have several copies of the the constitution both in book form and on the internet. The best part about this copy is that its cheap and it can fit in your pocket.
I carry this particular copy in my truck to show police officers when they forget that they took an oath to uphold it.
You should see there befuddled faces when I ask them to recite the first, second, and fourth amendments. Its truly pathetic. Any body who takes an oath to uphold the constitution should be required to commit it to memory

If you are the least bit interested in politics and why it happens the way it does, begin here, of course! Great price, informative historical background of the document included.

If you are a political junkie like I am, some of the language used is a little out there. I haven't read this cover to cover, but what I had to look up explained things very well to me. I keep this with whatever political book I'm reading at the time and it make things a little more understandable. I would recommend this.

A comprehensive guide and literal dictionary on the subject from a man who knows what he's talking about. "Safire's Political Dictionary" is a massive, thick tome of 862 pages, each covered with invaluable information on the shaky language that so covers today's political landscape. This new and expanded edition covers terms such as regime change, red/blue state, triangulation, moonbat/wingnut and so many more terms that muddle political language. Written by presidential speech writer and Pulitzer prize winner William Safire, "Safire's Political Dictionary" is highly recommended for community library politics collections.

You will love this whopper of a book - all 896pp! William Safire belongs to the delightfully patrician generation of political insiders alongside the likes of radio columnist Alistair Cooke Alistair Cooke's America and Ted Sorenson, speechwriter and adviser to JFK. Safire, who has contributed his own fair share of speeches on the Republican side, (it was he who added alliterative relief to Spiro Agnew's barren verbal landscape through phrases such as "nattering nabobs of negativism") has a keen ear for political language and he rises above partisanship simply because he is fascinated by the provenance and meaning of political language. As he points out, a political dictionary is fascinating because the language has been chosen to either inspire or inflame - it is rich, sometimes explosive emotive fuel.

- This very complete dictionary, fully updated, provides a rich journey and explains where so many of our commonly used and extremely colorful phrases really come from.
- It is comprehensive: reaching back to historic phrases, that go back beyond the original era of pork-barrel politics, and coming right up to the present to include the words of McCain, Clinton and Obama.
- It highlights the hidden agendas behind the language we hear: the phrases designed to make headlines, the sayings that are used to bring a folksiness to our sometimes aloof politicians.
- The dictionary does this with real panache. Safire is part wit, part journalist and part investigator - and he makes great company for the reader. It is a treat to dip into.

And yes, it is election year, so a tour of duty through Safire's fascinating lexical battleground will leave you ready for the speeches to come: your BS detectors set on full alert, your sense of irony and history sharpened. What an excellent book.

Perfect for students of political studies. Ideal for journalists. Essential for voters of all stripes. Democracy may be messy sometimes, but as this book shows - the language of politics is always darned colorful.

What is the significance of a president's 'First Hundred Days'? What is a 'spoiler,' and is it good or bad? And what the heck was a mugwump, anyway?

Whether you're deciphering an archaic term from the first days of the Republic or reading today's headlines, Safire's dictionary is a valuable and entertaining resource. You'll be tempted, as I was, to read it through from A to Z like a novel. Even everyday words and phrases like 'perks,' gridlock,' and 'rhetoric' have interesting derivations, while obscurities like 'thumbsucker,' 'magnet issue,' and 'break all the china' illustrate the surprising (to anyone stuck watching TV news) richness of the American political landscape.

Safire's POLITICAL DICTIONARY is a MUST READ and MUST KEEP for those who value and appreciate the art, science and practice of politics.

Hofstadter ranks with Bancroft, Beard, and Tuckman as one of the great scholars of American history. AGE OF REFORM definitely shows why; his scholarly, permeating style impresses his words into your mind, changing both your scope and sense of American history. In this book, he tracks various reformist groups that shaped America, starting with the Populists of the late 19th century and ending with the New Deal reforms of FDR.

Hofstadter's thoughts on the early 20th century Progressives and New Dealers conform with the writings of most other historians. It is Hofstadter's section on the Populists that has always generated the most controversy, both in the past and still today. In the first third of the book, Hofstadter writes of the American "agrarian myth" and how the Populist farmers sought the "lost agrarian ideals" of Jefferson and Jackson. He emphasizes how the Populists were basically reactionary whiners who impetuously thought themselves deserving of some special privelage, simply because they were farmers, the supposed "All-American" profession. Hofstadter goes further by describing the Populists as jingoistic proto-facists. By use of effective documentation, he shows this "dark side" of Populism, with its demagogic rants against politicians, urbanites, Britons, Jews, and immigrants.

Although Hofstadter indeed is very effective in his writing and documentation, he fails in the aspect of fair historical analysis. When one reads AGE OF REFORM, one should always remember the Populists from a broader perspective than Hofstadter's biased urban views. In truth, the Populists are one of American history's unfortunate losers; like the Loyalists and Native Americans, the Populists failed in almost all their immediate objectives; their leaders, like William Jennings Bryan and Tom Watson, are best remembered as lost crusaders. They lost because they were simply ahead of their time; they were New Dealers in a time when the New Deal was ignored and not accepted. The Populists lost in their present because their reforms were meant for the future; thus, at least the future should appreciate and judge the past correctly. Although Hofstadter writes an enthralling historical work, his unjust view of the Populists should not be taken by modern readers as absolute truth.

At one time I used to believe that the Progressive Era in America, roughly from 1900- 1920, was the real source of post World War II ideas of social progress such as Truman's Fair Deal, Kennedy's New Frontier and Johnson's Great Society. Previously I had placed those ideas on the doorstep of Franklin Roosevelt. Ah, but those were the silly days of my youth when I believed that the Democratic Party could be pushed to the left and made the equivalent of a European social-democratic organization responsible to its working class base. I now believe that the progressive period is decisive but for a different reason, that is, its role in sucking up the leftist political landscape and preventing a hard core working class-centered socialist party from crystallizing in this country.

For those, like myself, who look hard for antecedents, this is important to an understanding of why today, in face of incredible provocations by the two major political parties we have no independent class party of the working people. Thus, a look at the period becomes essential for understanding the malaise that we find ourselves today. A good place to start, and I would emphasize the word start since the book originally took form in the 1950's, is Professor Hofstadter's book on the period. While one does not have to be sympathetic to his generally pro-Progressive tilt this little book, complete with important footnoted source references, gives a very good outline of the personalities, issues and sociological trends that broke the back of fight for an independent mass socialist party in the period.

Ironically in Europe, in the period under discussion, large, well-organized class-conscious labor parties some of them, like the Bolsheviks in Russia even revolutionary were rearing there heads. Although a relatively small, loosely organized, and programmatically amorphous Socialist Party did emerge in the United States at this time it was definitely (and occasionally, by choice) subordinated to the Progressive movement. Unless one is eternally committed to the political strategy of the `popular front', that is multi-class organizations based on the lowest common denominator policies in order to achieve social change this was a very badly missed opportunity by socialists.


Hofstadter makes the interesting, and basically true, point that the whirlwind Populist movement that sprang out of the farms of the American prairie in the early 1890's and embraced Free Silver and Bryan in 1896 was fundamentally hostile to the urban classes and particularly to the working class. I have argued elsewhere that the working class had no interest in the inflationary silver coinage issue. Moreover the populist movement, except in the South where it had the potential of driving a wedge into the race question, was the last gasp effort of the small capitalist family farmer in the face of the victory of mass industrialization and the rise of finance capital. I would however, argue that as late as 1896 it was still possible that the bedeviled populist movement could have been an auxiliary to an urban-based workers party. With the rise of the middle class Progressive movement such a possibility was derailed.

The rise of the Progressive movement is the strongest part of this book. Hofstadter having staked out his own personal political philosophy under the aegis of that movement has many interesting things to say about it. The fundamental driving force behind this movement was the fact of ruthless industrialization and the reaction to it by those who either had previously benefited from society, the classic "Mugwumps", or were being driven under by ` the captains of industry'. Particularly well done are the analysis of the rise of the professoriat, the increase in the number of cities and their size and with it the creation of new political organizations, the change in the status of the clergy and the free professions, immigration (that round of it any way) and the changing mores which broke down the prevailing ideology.

While one may, as the writer does, disagree with the depth of the positive effects that the various pieces of legislation that the Progressives were able to get passed one can nevertheless see that a different class axis would have been necessaryin order to make fundamental changes. Thus, although Hofstatder will not be you last place to look in understanding the evolution, such as it is, of American society for this crucial period in working class history it certainly should be your first.

It's not every book that can change one's thinking about a political movement and a period in history, but Hofstadter's book did just that for me when I first read it many years ago. It's an incisive critique of the populist and progressive movements that sprang up in the last quarter of the 19th century and exerted strong influence on American politics until the onset of World War I. But Hofstadter's great achievement is that he sets both these movements in historical perspective, showing us that no movement flowers without roots.

Hofstadter is at his best in revealing that the populist movement played -- and preyed -- on the longing of Americans for a pastoral, agrarian past that was ironically little more than myth by the end of Reconstruction. In an increasingly industrial, urban America, the populists were able to set themselves up as downtrodden victims of various villians, chief among them the railroads and the banks.

Yet Hofstadter convincingly argues that the farmers of the West were eager to become businessmen in the boom years following the Civil War, when land and capital were cheap. It was not until they were battered by the economic slumps that are an inevitable part of a market economy that the agrarian movement began demanding government intervention to reign in capital and portraying agriculture as especially worthy of special attention.

The populist's appeal to the little man, dwarfed by powers beyond his control, played well in some segments of the U.S., but Hofstadter portrays a darker side of populism, exposing its anti-foreign and anti-Semitic leanings. Reading about the populist's railings against foreigners and their dark hints of conspiracy by vast economic and political powers, I heard echoes of the speeches of Pat Buchanan.

As for the progressives, the urban reformers who overlapped to some extent with the populists, Hofstadter cogently points out that this middle class movement was in large part a reaction to the growing influence of immigrants in large American cities. The middle class, he argues, was feeling squeezed between the waves of immigrants, who were increasingly catered to by machine politicians, and the new and enormously rich industrial class. The progressive movement was an attempt to wrest back some measure of political strength by undercutting the power of the bosses with "good government" and to reign in the economic clout of the industrialists through reform.

This is required reading for the student of American history. We have produced few historians who match the stature and achievement of Hofstadter, and this book is one of his best.

Richard Hofstadter (1916-1970) was a prolific writer and commentator on the Gilded Age and Progressive Eras, a founding member of the "Consensus School" of American history, and a scathing critic of the conservatism of his day. Often portrayed, in his day and since, as the "finest and also most humane historical intelligence of our generation", Hofstadter was one of the most distinguished historians of the twentieth century . Over the course of his too brief life, Hofstadter the DeWitt Clinton Professor of American History at Columbia University, was the author of several groundbreaking books including, `The Age of Reform (1955) and Anti-intellectualism in American Life (1963), both of which won the Pulitzer Prize in non-fiction . A vigorous champion of the liberal politics that emerged from the New Deal, Hofstadter fought public campaigns against liberalism's most dynamic opponents from McCarthy in the 1950s to Barry Goldwater and the Sun Belt Conservatives in the 1960s. His distaste of the extreme politics of post war America, expressed in his books, essays and public lectures, marked him as one of the nation's most important and prolific public intellectuals. The range of his interests was unusual, extending from the earliest phases of the American Experience through to the concerns of his day. A `specialist' he was not, a master of the subjects he covered he was; which was widely acknowledged and respected. Hofstadter's principle theme of the importance of ideas in history, more precisely the relation between the way people behaved, in politics and other realms of effort, and the use they made of their mind, along with the idea that history is akin to literature, had an immense impact on his students, colleagues and the entire academic world. Extremely active, Hofstadter was continuously embarking on new thought provoking work right up to his death, caused by leukaemia on October 24, 1970, which caught him, as he himself had written of one of his favourite politicians many years before very much "in the midst of things" .

Hofstadter's "The Age of Reform: From Bryan to FDR" played a significant role in establishing his influence and reputation. The book received critical acclaim when published in 1955 and won the Pulitzer Prize the following year. "The Age of Reform" many are inclined to agree, even its detractors of which are many "is the most influential book ever published on the history of twentieth century America" . This landmark book in American political thought is a study of American political culture from the Populist Movement of the 1890s through the Progressive Era ending with the New Deal of the 1930s. "The Age of Reform" is an evaluation of the reform associations from Bryan to F.D.R., and analyses the ideas of each participant, rather than the legislative or political philosophies, and does not regurgitate the number of details of each reform movement. Hofstadter's analysis of the reformations in a modern perspective and the definitions between each of them, created a unique and vastly influential contribution, which has been seen as not only his most original and influential book but one that solidified Hofstadter as one of the great historians of his time .

[Part of the above review is taken from; "An Enduring Influence: Richard Hofstadter and The Age of Reform" by Alexander Rayden.
© 2005 Alexander Rayden, All Rights Reserved]

Historians still consider the late Richard Hofstadter one of the great American historians of the 20th century. His voluminous output when he worked as a professor at Columbia continues to draw readers and researchers both inside and outside of academia. "The Age of Reform" is Hofstadter's analysis of Populism and Progressivism in American history, which the author defines as a period running roughly from 1890 to 1940. This historical treatment won the Pulitzer Prize for History in 1956, although it is difficult at times to see why. If we accept the idea that historians should always strive to lift themselves above their own biases and personal backgrounds, we must conclude that Richard Hofstadter was little more than a prejudiced city dweller who sought to tar American rural movements with an overarching label of anti-Semitism. Fortunately, new work concerning the Populists is available, work that patently refutes many of this author's scurrilous claims.

The author claims that Populism sought to reaffirm the American agrarian lifestyle in an age of increasing industrialization and urbanization. He attacks what he refers to as the "agrarian myth," or the idea that the backbone of American society was the benevolent, hard working farmer; an idea once advocated by none other than Thomas Jefferson. Hofstadter scoffs at the Jeffersonian idea of democratic virtues imbued by working with the soil, going so far as to conclude that Populism, which was a political movement by farmers and their associates to challenge what they saw as hegemonic behavior directed against rural areas by the cities and governmental organs, was deeply and irrevocably devoted to anti-Semitism in its most virulent strains. "The Age of Reform" cites Populist leaders Mary Lease and Ignatius Donnelly as two of the more strident proponents of rural anti-Jewish discontent.

While it is obvious that there was an element of anti-Semitism swirling through parts of the Populist movement, this animosity in no way formed the foundation of rural discontent. Farmers' concerns encompassed a host of disturbing issues, including railroads, the banking industry, corruption in politics, and moral values. Hofstadter commits a grave error in claiming that racial motives constituted the sublime principle for the millions of farmers who harbored a beef with the political system. Author Peter Novick, in his superb treatment of American historians, unearthed a letter proving that Hofstadter admitted to greatly exaggerating his claims about anti-Semitism among America's rural population. If one takes this claim to its logical, and disturbing, conclusion, the author of "The Age of Reform" essentially misrepresented his evidence in order to support a theory. That this is an egregious crime worthy of professional exile has had little effect on the endless accolades accorded Richard Hofstadter over the years. If lesser mortals were to commit such an indiscretion, they would find themselves drummed out of the discipline with great haste.

The second part of this book concerns Progressivism. According to Hofstadter, the concern of the progressives didn't involve a disbelief in the system of American society and government, but rather their position in a world increasingly fraught with the tectonic changes of industrialism. Specifically, Progressive initiatives involved status, as diverse sections of the populace attempted to find a new role in a changing country. As an example, the author refers to the clergy as one of these classes threatened with change. In an increasingly secularized culture, and one in which social scientists and the industrialists rose to undreamt of heights in social influence, those who worked for the churches lost considerable clout. Those men of the cloth wise to the changes in America embraced the reform minded social gospel in order to regain influence over the masses. In short, the changes in American society during the turn of the century led to a restructuring among all classes, not merely the working class or farmers. When a response to industrialism became necessary, everybody responded to it in some manner in an attempt to preserve their social station.

In a way, I understand Hofstadter's concern about the dangers of mass political movements. Look at the author's ethnic background; he was a Jewish-American who worked closely with other Jewish-American scholars in post-WWII America. What Jew wouldn't look for the seeds of an anti-Semitic basis in any political movements with Hitler's final solution still looming large in the popular mind? Populism in its expressions never resembled the scenes in "Triumph of the Will," but even a slender reed of anti-Jewish thought amongst the few was enough to set off alarm bells in the minds of Hofstadter, Daniel Bell, and others. "The Age of Reform" contributes an explanation of one facet of American Populism, but fails to convince me that anti-Jewish sentiment was the driving force of the movement. Hofstadter and company saw brown shirts instead of bib overalls, Nordic warriors instead of the Joads.

All is not lost with Richard Hofstadter, as there is plenty here and in his other works that sparkle with his easy prose style and all-encompassing eye for detail. One of the things I love about this author is how he discusses these obscure writings from various historical figures. In "The Age of Reform," Hofstadter discusses in some depth Ignatius Donnelly's apocalyptic novel "Caesar's Column," a discussion that made me instantly want to procure a copy. His observations on such literary obscurities are always a lot of fun, inspiring the reader to investigate these topics further. In short, when one reads Hofstadter, don't always take his word as gospel just because historians continue to adore him. "The Age of Reform" is an important work on Populism and Progressivism, but it certainly isn't the final analysis on these fascinating subjects.

If you want to know how egypt changed socially and economically in the last 50 years this is the book to start from. It offers an entertaining as well as deep, board look and what happened to Egypt and how it slowly transformed to what it became now. One of the great features of Galal Amin in this book is that he maintains strict neutrality, neither supporting and attacking a certain side or group, he simply tries to relay to the reader what happened giving the reader a chance to decide for himself whether what happened was bad or good. For us young Egyptians who want to understand what the older folks are talking about when they ramble about the good old days, this is a must read. Truely entertaining.

This book, as well as "Whatever Else Happened to the Egyptians" inform, very entertainingly, about the dramatic Social and Economical changes that has taken place in Egypt since Nasser's era. They also show how in some situations the Egyptian society has been blindly moving in the direction of westernization. The book is divided into different articles, addressing different aspects of the society, eg. income, marriage, etc..., which makes it very easy and more interesting to read.
I was one of Galal Amin's students in the American University in Cairo, and his very charming personality that always made his classes a joy to learn, vividly appears in his writings.

The social history of Egypt in the Middle Ages was well documented by the legendary historian Al Maqrizi who wrote volumes of fascinating history of Egyptians, their rulers, classes and habits. In the last few hundred years starting with Edward Lane writing the social history of Egypt became dominated by the Orientalists who brought their own baggage and prejudices and often supremacist attitudes to the task. Few rare exceptions such as Cairo City Victorious defy the traditional orientalist narratives. (This can be observed from the review of the former colleague of Amin who essentially says this is just good enough for the natives if not in so many words.)

Galal Amin wrote a light hearted, mostly easy to read book about the massive changes that occurred in the Egyptian society since the 1952 military coup aka The Revolution. Amin attributes much of the change in Egypt's society to a massive expansion of the middle class started under Nasser but accelerated under Sadat with the Open Door policy and the massive demand for Egyptian workers (including unskilled and semiskilled) in the oil rich Arab countries.

Amin used a number of personal but very interesting yard sticks to track the changes in the society. He contrasted his university professor salary with that of the house servant. The gap narrowed significantly after 1952 and much more so after 1972 and started to widen again in recent years. Amin also addressed the role of women in the society and contrasted the changes from his mothers, to his sisters to his daughter. Remarkable change has occurred and Amin's admittedly non scientific findings correlate closely with those of Leila Ahmed (Women & Gender in Islam). For many women in Egypt the headscarf serves a tool of liberation not oppression, a point almost always lost on many. Also interesting is Amin's demonstration of the reduced dependence on the state comparing the days of his father (the famous Egyptian Writer & Professor Ahmad Amin) to the generations of his kids and nephews and nieces.

Overall it is a really nice easy to read book, it is a compilation of different articles and research papers that mostly mesh in nicely to form a reasonably coherent whole

This unbiased work provides a good overview of the societal changes that have occurred in Egypt during the last 50 years and the challenges that remain. It will prove particularly helpful for people who are planning to go to Egypt and/or deal with Egyptians on more than a superficial level, as well as for those who want to add some depth to their understanding of the Middle East generally. A good overview of a fascinating country.

I personally and professionally know Galal Amin. I was his colleague at the American University in Cairo for several years and have had the pleasure of socializing with him on many occasions. Though I disagree with him about 99 percent of the time, especially on his views of the West and of the economics profession (he seems to have contempt for both), I find him to be one of the most entertaining, charming, and articulate individuals I have ever met. This comes across very clearly in his work. His book is very readable and does indeed offer insights into Egyptian society, much the way Andy Rooney does of American society, and the rapid changes it has gone through. In a way this book, and the man himself, epitomize Egypt. To the Westerner, Egypt is a charming place full of contradictions which both seduces and exhausts the outsider. If one takes it too much to heart, the same can be said of Amin's work. It is best to keep in mind that this book is based on a series of articles that were written for an Egyptian audience. With that in mind, I highly recommend it.