Political Book List, 9-16-2010 (Part Three)

 [Continued from Political Book List, 9-16-2010 (Part Two). sch 4/5/23.]

7. The Age of Jackson by Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr.. This I read late in life and ought to have read earlier. Its thesis is that all political parties since 1828 either were pro or anti Jackson. I admit Jackson remains one of my favorite presidents for all his faults (such as he was a little nuts and a slaveholder; he would have hung John Calhoun), but the Jacksonian egalitarianism has surpassed, exceeded, the man. 

[I believe Trump declared Jackson his favorite President, also. That seems to me to do more with Jackson's pugnacity than any concern for democracy or the Union. Without Jackson, there would have been no Lincoln. I suggest reading John Meacham's Jackson biography, American Lion. sch 4/5/23.]

8. Gore Vidal's United States: Essays 1952-1992. I think Vidal is a great stylist and essayist, and many may dispute me on that. Oh, well. Go read his political/historical essays and see what you think. He is anon-academic writer, a liberal who wants the return of a Republic from being an Empire. He does not talk down to his readers. You may do as I did and argue with him as you read. More importantly - be careful, you will need to think for yourself.

9. Walter Karp's Indispensable Enemies. I read this about 25 years ago, and it was a bit old at the time. Karp argued that our political parties are not opposition parties but oligarchic collaborators. Gore Vidal makes a similar argument in several of his essays. I vary on the idea - when I think he is wrong, something happens to make me agree with him. It may be the rise of the Tear Partyers ends this symbiotic relationship. What I understand of the Tea Partyers they want the purity of one-party rule. While this requires a superhuman effort on their part to chooses correctly every time, this also requires a fundamental alteration in American politics. In one way, I can understand interparty collaboration as (at least) a neutral thing because American political parties were not ideological but agreed on the Declaration of Independence as the nation's credo. Implementing that credo divided the parties, in my mind. Especially since the 1860 election, the country has avoided a fight ideological lines. It may also be that the major political parties find themselves upended by regional and specialized political parties. Then the question becomes are prepared for this change?

sch

[There is much I would extend, and some I would modify, in the last paragraph. It seems the Republican Party has become the Death Cult of Donald J. Trump - hiding its personality cult nature behind ideology - and is certainly no oligarchic partner with the Democrats, except maybe in times of mutual advantage.Continued in Political Book List, 9-16-2010 (Part Three). sch 4/5/23.]