|
|
Therapist Directory: Find a Psychologist, Find a Therapist, Find a Marriage Counselor
PSYCHOLOGY TOPICS
Selected topics in psychology
and mental health.
|
|
|
|
|
THE THERAPIST PSYCHOLOGIST BOOK STORE
 | |
 View Larger |
The Age of Reagan: A History, 1974-2008 By Sean Wilentz ( Harper )
Release Date: 2008-05-01
Average Customer Rating:
List Price: $27.95
Price: $18.45
Eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25.
Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours
|  Add to Cart |
|
|
Product Description
One of the nation's leading historians offers a groundbreaking and provocative chronicle of America's political history since the fall of Nixon. The past thirty-five years have marked an era of conservatism. Although briefly interrupted in the late 1970s and temporarily reversed in the 1990s, a powerful surge from the right has dominated American politics and government. In The Age of Reagan, Sean Wilentz accounts for how a conservative movement once deemed marginal managed to seize power and hold it, and the momentous consequences that followed. Ronald Reagan has been the single most important political figure of this age. Without Reagan, the conservative movement would have never been as successful as it was. In his political persona as well as his policies, Reagan embodied a new fusion of deeply right-leaning politics with some of the rhetoric and even a bit of the spirit of Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal and John F. Kennedy's New Frontier. In American political history there have been a few leading figures who, for better or worse, have placed their political stamp indelibly on their times. They include Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt—and Ronald Reagan. A conservative hero in a conservative age, Reagan has been so admired by a minority of historians and so disliked by the others that it has been difficult to evaluate his administration with detachment. Drawing on numerous primary documents that have been neglected or only recently released to the public, as well as on emerging historical work, Wilentz offers invaluable revelations about conservatism's ascendancy and the era in which Reagan was the preeminent political figure. Vivid, authoritative, and illuminating from start to finish, The Age of Reagan raises profound questions and opens passionate debate about our nation's recent past.
|
|
 Could have been better ( jsd4963 )
Sean Wilentz is a famous historian who wrote an excellent book, The Rise of American Democracy, a few years ago. This book is not as good. Wilentz's liberal biases doom a potentially terrific book. He seems incapable of praising Ronald Reagan without qualifying his praise with a cut-down. (By no means am I a fan of Reagan, incidentally). I believe a historian should be more able to evaluate history free of bias, and I can give The Age of Reagan only three stars.
|
Read Carefully -- And Remove the Adjectives ( d21150 )
The thrust of author's Wilentz's polemic is that Reagan's Presidency and brand of conservativatism defined the Republican Party and underscored the political events in the US to the current day (2008.) Yes, I know the book starts the Age at 1974, long before Reagan went to the oval office, but Reagan's movement had already started by that time. Somehow most of the reviewers and commenters on the reviews missed that thrust, preferring to concentrate only on Reagan's Presidency.
The author's analysis concludes that Reagan was more important and better than generally thought (in the far-left academic circles in which the author moves), an amazing admission by a person of Wilentz's political stance. On this point at least, this book supports that contention and one must (somewhat critically) take the author at his word. The contention of Reagan's importance is also valid and worthy of consideration in attempting to understand the developments in both the Democrat and Republican parties.
The good in this book is that the thread of history is followed through the events of this period in a concise and very readable manner. He does a good job covering the events although the degree of coverage on specific events might be more or less than what the reader would like. If a reader wants a reference on events, this book is satisfactory, but one must overlook the adjectives and the sweeping statements unsupported by evidence.
The book is also instructive with regard to how far towards the left the academic world has moved, particularly since World War II, and that FDR would be center-right today in its viewpoint. For an exponent illustrating this phenomenon, read N. Ravitch's review and his many comments blasting conservatives. That's why this book is worthy of a careful read and close study. There is much to learn here with regard to how one makes back-handed comments and uses ennobling adjectives for those on the author's side and pejorative characterizations for those on the other. In short, Wilentz descends into propaganda, making short comments that are accurate, but then burying those statements with pages of polemic that lead the reader to conclude otherwise. Supporters of the author can point to those statements to refute the notion of bias, but then overlook the 500 pound gorilla in the living room. No wonder Eric Foner praised this book and that Wilentz was in the running for an ultra-far-left Pulitizer Prize.
The author also makes many absolute errors of fact in addition to his ubiquitous use of defining adjectives bolstering his far-left polemic. For example he gives Paul Volcker, (Bilderberg, CFR and Trilateral Commission member) credit for restoring the economy in Reagan's early years, when it was Volcker who had given the US the "misery index" of double-digit inflation and unemployment. That's like giving Barney Frank credit for fighting the current mortgage mess when he was a prime contributor in bringing it about. Alas, the usual suspects are back since Obama has named Volcker to head up his economic advisory group. One should remember that it was Volcker who said Americans needed to lower their living standard and come more into line with the world's average. Hardly a friend of the middle class.
All in all, this book is actually important -- not for its scholarship (it follows the current trend of extensive end notes and listing of sources, whether the author has read them of not) or content, but for how the author presents his material in a supposedly unbiased manner yet clearly moves the reader into believing the underlying far-left ideology espoused (from this one can also more readily discern the pervasive leftist bias in the American media.) For the generations of Americans who have been brought up learning history. political science and civics from textbooks written by the likes of Howard Zinn or Eric Foner, the bias will be unperceived and the propaganda swallowed whole. Conservatives need to study this book -- not throw it away. It's a prime example of how the country is being driven to the left.
It's worth the price of this book to learn how and why the country is moving so rapidly to the left. Unfortunately, the author will receive financial benefit from such sales and be further reinforced in the idea that he is on the correct course. From my viewpoint, he's going the wrong direction, and I fear there are too many like him who are already past redemption.
|
Reagan - Moderate
Reagan was a moderate. Consider the facts:
He:
- Cuts taxes in 1981, then raised then in 1982 and '83. And overall taxes (as a percentage of GDP) were slightly *higher* in 1988 than in 1980, as reported by economist Robert Samuelson.
- Nominated Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy to the Supreme Court -two left-right deciders, not true conservatives. If anything, O'Connor was a liberal...and this was feared by conservatives upon her nomination.
- Signed off on amnesty in 1986, letting in tens of millions of undocumented workers over the next two decades.
- Backed out of Beruit in 1983 after terrorists killed hunderds of our marines. No neocon.
- Made friends with the enemy - the U.S.S.R. - after calling them "evil". No neocon, again.
Then two other things, not related to ideology:
He:
* Took credit for "reviving" the dreadful economy of the 1970s. According to Samueulson and other economists, this is not true. It was Paul Volker who tamed inflation and provided a stable currency that ultimately helped fuel growth. This followed the advice of Milton Friedman - no inflation !
* Had little to do with the demise of the Soviet Union. The evil empire's economy was crumbling - and we knew it - back in the late 1970s. Then their fumbled invasion of Afghanistan and ensuing occupation. Plus, Eastern Europe was getting stronger economically throughout the 1980's, they watched "Dallas". Finally Gorbachev - with his political reforms and letting E. Europe break off without a response was the final nail in the U.S.S.R. coffin.
And Reagan supporters say he "ended the cold war".......
|
The Age of Clinton: A History, 1992-2000
I enjoyed this book for its deep insight, vast scope, readability, laugh inducing bipartisanship and observant narration. But as Sean established in the introduction that personal beliefs should not muddle the mind of the Historian, and that he is aligned with the Left, I can't help but feel this clandestine hatred for Regan. It seemed at least to me that in many sections there were unnecessary jabs at the Republicans covered. There were several instances where it appeared that he was forced to write a book about Regan but couldn't resist the insertion of disparaging adjectives at convenient opportunities. Now this was the 1st book I have ever read on Regan, it was an original take and wasn't a whimsical wax poetic white washing of his presidency which many people are guilty of. But in the same regard it almost feels personal, and I now feel that I have to read another book on the subject just to make sure the information I was given was accurate. It seemed as the book progressed more and more it fixated on how awful a person he was and everyone around him. On other occasions the actual facts presented were disputed by an uncited 'critic'. As my reading continued I completely lost faith with the source when Ted Kennedy's involvement in the death of Mary Jo, was explained as a unfortunate event that the media had blown out of proportion, unjustly as well.
"The Democrats disarray reflected, in part, shifts in the unwritten rules of presidential politics. There was a time, earlier in the century, when politicians could conduct reckless sexual adventures. What happened after hours, in particular, was nobody's business...The full coverage by journalist and partisan operatives after the notorious drowning at Chappaquiddick and during the ensuing scandal involving Senator Edward M. Kennedy in 1969 proved an early sign of changing times. The investigative mind-set that then arose after Watergate gave reporters, as they saw it, license - indeed, a righteous moral imperative - to track down and report on a politicians slightest transgression or hypocrisy as if it were a political crime. Indeed, the line between the personal; and the political became blurred." Page 267
How about the line between murder and man slaughter that must have been pretty blurred. I mean look at Fatty Arbuckle he was involved in the death of a women in 1921 and it destroyed his career. Why should Ted Kennedy a man involved in the drowning of a women while drunk, be the victim of some changing times.
By the time I got to the end it seemed like I was reading a 300 page introduction on the Greatness of the Clinton years, with 60 pages of insight on how Jimmy Carter is responsible for the end of the Cold War, establishing the war in Afghanistan, all of Regan's financial success, while saying the Regan's involvement in the end of the Cold War was happenstance, blaming Regan for the Rise of Bin Laden, and some how blaming Regan for the recession early in his term not attributing much to the Carter administration at all. And even if all of this were true, by the tone, it seems that the Lefts hatred of Regan for his dominance and popularity to the point of blindness may be somewhat of an inspiration.
|
 disappointed ( trcamp )
I sure wish I had read the comments on this page before buying this book. I have read a lot of political history, and I think most liberal authors (and conservative authors) can write unbiased, readable political history. This book, however, is definitely not that. I read about a third of it and decided enough was enough. If you are a liberal, you might like the point of view of this book, but If you want history, look elsewhere. I am unfamiliar with this author, but it may be that he is just too far left to be capable of presenting an unbiased work.
If you think NPR and the networks are unbiased, as the author does, you'll probably think this book is too. That point in the book, incidently, is where I finally quit. I personally believe that Fox News, Rush Limbaugh etc. were a reaction to the liberalness of most of the media. Anyway, I still would not read Limbaugh (or Hannity etc.) and expect unbiased history or reporting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addiction
