cdc-coteauxdegaronne
» » Liberalism and Its Challengers: From F.D.R. to Bush
eBook Liberalism and Its Challengers:  From F.D.R. to Bush ePub

eBook Liberalism and Its Challengers: From F.D.R. to Bush ePub

by Alonzo L. Hamby

  • ISBN: 0195070305
  • Category: Humanities
  • Subcategory: Other
  • Author: Alonzo L. Hamby
  • Language: English
  • Publisher: Oxford University Press; 2nd edition (March 12, 1992)
  • Pages: 431
  • ePub book: 1254 kb
  • Fb2 book: 1911 kb
  • Other: mbr azw lrf rtf
  • Rating: 4.1
  • Votes: 771

Description

Hamby shows the pragmatic side of liberal policy formulation from FDR to Bush. Liberalism and its challengers is a thorough and balanced look at recent American History.

Hamby shows the pragmatic side of liberal policy formulation from FDR to Bush. This realpolitik side of liberalism brings the political process down to the practical world. -John L. Rector, Western Oregon State College. Dr. Hamby goes through many of the recent Presidencies giving an open minded and fair evaluation of recent American History. Not clouded by the misinformation of the revionist historians movement this book is very fair.

Liberalism and Its Challengers book. Start by marking Liberalism and Its Challengers: From . to Bush as Want to Read

Liberalism and Its Challengers book. to Bush as Want to Read: Want to Read savin. ant to Read.

Alonzo L. Hamby (born January 30, 1940) is an American historian and academic. His books include: Liberalism and Its Challengers: From . He is distinguished professor of history emeritus at Ohio University and the recipient of two National Endowment for the Humanities Fellowships, a Harry S. Truman Library Institute Senior Fellowship, a Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Fellowship, and the Ohio Academy of History Distinguished Service Award. Man of Destiny: FDR and the Making of the American Century. Man of the People: A Life of Harry S. Truman. For the Survival of Democracy: Franklin Roosevelt and the World Crisis of the 1930s.

Liberalism and Its Challengers: From . to Bush (Paperback) " (more) Key Phrases: black militance, United States, New Deal, White House (more.

If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with i. k.

The book uncovers a conception of political participation that went beyond the limited possibilities of the Cold War era and influenced . Its goal was to halt integration by destroying the NAACP in Florida and smearing integrationists.

The book uncovers a conception of political participation that went beyond the limited possibilities of the Cold War era and influenced the political struggles of later decades in both East and West. Описание: The Johns Committee, a product of the red scare in Florida, grabbed headlines and destroyed lives

Liberalism and Its Challengers From F D R to Bush.

Liberalism and Its Challengers From F D R to Bush.

Liberalism and Its Challengers.

Focusing on ten key individuals, from Franklin Roosevelt to Martin Luther King, Jr. to Ronald Reagan, The Roosevelt of the Right, Hamby employs lively biographical essays to illuminate the ideological bases of American liberalism and conservatism. Liberalism and Its Challengers. Publication Date - March 1992.

Knowledge is fast becoming one of the main sources of wealth, yet it can also become a source of inequalities. The New Knowledge Economy in Europe attempts to determine whether it is possible to hasten the transition towards a knowledge-based economy and enhance competitiveness with increased employment and improved social cohesion across Europe.

Related to Liberalism and Its Challengers: From F.D.R. to Bush

Comments

Manesenci Manesenci
I last read Alonzo Hamby's work when I was an undergrad in the late 1970's. I find him more compelling a generation later given what is going on in the nation now. What I am trying to understand is the roll of Robert Taft as a progenator of the "right" wing. So little of serious, critical and insightful nature exists about Taft and his times. That said, Hamby's work has the sure-feel of insight. He paints the larger picture from the 1930's to the early 1990's. That makes this book important.
Yadon Yadon
I found this book to be somewhat interesting. Some of it is a little dry but over all it is a good book that follows the political transformation of liberalism.
Zuser Zuser
Hamby takes an in depth look at the good bad and ugly of each President with special focus n the legacies they left.
lubov lubov
I am baffled--BAFFLED--that Hamby could write a book on twentieth century political leaders, and an entire chapter on Truman, in which he discussed aspects of Truman's early years before he was a political leader, for pity's sake--and somehow he left out any discussion of Truman's decision to drop the atomic bombs.

He also left out any mention of FDR's Executive Order 9066 and the subsequent Japanese American internment.

And Eisenhower's farewell address in which he warned the American public about the military-industrial complex. The phrase "military-industrial complex" appears nowhere in the book.

And that's just as far as I've read. Will he be leaving out the Bay of Pigs, too? I'll have to come back and update you when I get to that chapter. I'm reading this for a graduate course and I'm shocked this is considered an appropriate survey of American 20th century political history.

And ultimately, I could see omitting Executive Order 9066, if you are a conservative historian who somehow still manages to hero-worship FDR to the point of not wanting to "dwell" on that stain on his career.

I could see leaving out the military-industrial complex because as a conservative historian, that *would* no doubt be an awkward thing to discuss.

But I DON'T UNDERSTAND leaving out the single most important military and political decision of the 20th century (and beyond). A decision with such a profound impact not only on the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not only on the American soldiers, not only on the world at large in 1945, but on the Cold War! On issues that concern us today. Fear of WMDs, anyone?

You can be a conservative historian, deny the importance of the Japanese American internment and the military-industrial complex, etc., but to IGNORE the dropping of the atomic bombs? Justify it, sure. It's been done ad nauseum. Ignore the arguments and histories that question the ethics and necessity of dropping them, sure. But ignore the entire decision? The entire event?

When I say "Franklin Roosevelt," people think "New Deal." (And some people also think, "Japanese American Internment." But whatever, they don't count.) When I say "Harry Truman," people think, "ended WWII with the dropping of the atomic bombs." This is assuming the people in question have any grasp of American history, of course.

The fact that the very assertion that dropping the atomic bombs ended WWII can be contested is of no consequence, of course. At least, if you're Alonzo Hamby. A discussion of Truman's decision-making process in choosing to drop the bombs, whether he deliberated, who advised him, whether there is enough evidence to prove that that's what brought about Japanese surrender (read Tsuyoshi Hasegawa if you don't know what I'm talking about here)... well, that would be WAY too much to ask.

Blatantly avoiding controversial issues when writing a history is unethical and cowardly. They can be handled any number of ways; preferably in a balanced, intelligent manner that promotes critical thinking. That did not happen here.
Flocton Flocton
Don't read this book. Don't buy it.

I don't really know where to start with this book...

I suppose I should start by saying that this book is completely biased. As far as academics are concerned this book does not do justice to research and journalistic goals. It paints pictures that are often untrue or at best half true.

It doesn't really talk about the most important things that occurred in each of these periods.

It is also written badly, it is terribly boring, you will fall asleep.

Honestly I just can't think of a good thing to write about it.
Perdana Perdana
If you like political biographies with a right-of-center slant, you'll probably give this book 5 stars. I don't particularly -- I had to read this book for a class -- so I'm not.

This book covers the the period from the 1930s on to 1992 via biographies of the presidents during that period. I have two problems with this: you lose a lot of what was going on by concentrating largely on a single person for each period, and biographers often stress the good features of those subjects they like, and the lesser features of those they don't.

I think the author, Alonzo L. Hamby, possibly intended to write a reasonably unbiased book, but that attempt breaks down particulary in the epilogue, which covers the period 1988 to 1992. I have to say that in writing a book in 1992 about events in 1992 it's going to be difficult for the author to take an historical perspective. So, for instance, when Hamby says, in 1992, that the Republicans have a lock on the presidency, that was a big oops, with Bill Clinton winning that year.

Bias creeps in elsewhere, as when Hamby complains that LBJ's Great Society programs pushed liberalism too far. He gives the example of a program that gave cash to drug addicts for training -- an obviously bad idea. But he neglects to mention other programs that LBJ started that have helped millions, like Medicare. Historians need to be as evenhanded as possible.

In another example of bias, Hamby gives high marks to Reagan's handling of the economy, pooh-poohing the complaint that median wages began to stagnate in the mid-1980s. He attempts this by showing that GDP went up during this period -- one of the few times he offers statistics on anything. But GDP measures overall production that doesn't necessarily affect economic well-being and has nothing to do with worker compensation. E.g., encouraging people to smoke would raise GDP because of increased cigarette production and more medical procedures.

Hamby also repeats a common materialistic fallacy that as people have ever more material goods, things must be progressing. Two problems with that: with salaries not increasing, people have to go deeper into debt to buy these things, and, secondly, collecting material goods is not the main purpose of life. After all, if you live in a depressed Rust Belt with no job security and little hope for the future, does it really much matter if you can buy nicer sneakers?

By way of disclaimer, I have to admit that I was disposed to look at this book critically from the start, because there are no footnotes. Without footnotes, you don't know what statement is fact, what is opinion, and, if opinion, is it also someone else's opinion and what is it supported by.

Part of the problem I have with the book is the title. "Liberalism and Its Challengers" makes it sound more philosophical than it is, and certainly doesn't make it sound like biographies of politicians. I would maintain that very few politicians, and probably no presidents, are terribly consistent in their positions -- because they have to make compromises to get what they want. Even FDR tried to balance the budget in 1936, abandoning a number of New Deal programs, and LBJ gave us a full-scale war in Vietnam, despite opposition from many liberals. On the other hand, for all his talk about small government, Reagan continued Social Security, Medicare, and other social programs, though at a slower rate of growth than previously. So it would actually make more sense, I think, to discuss specific liberal positions and its challengers, rather than take an entire philosophy that no president ever fully committed to, and no president ever fully challenged.

Hamby never actually gives his definition of liberalism. He seems to use a I-know-it-when-I-see-it rule, which leads him astray. Personally, I would offer the definition that political liberalism means committing the government to put fairness and empathy above social stability or economic freedom. That's just me, but I think if you write a book with a title like this you need to come up with some definition. Coming to the end of the book, I wasn't sure what the thesis was, though on going back, I see that he offers conclusions in the 1991 preface.

In Hamby's favor, he's a good writer and the book flows very well. It beats most history books for readability.
Grosho Grosho
Liberalism and its challengers is a thorough and balanced look at recent American History. Dr. Hamby goes through many of the recent Presidencies giving an open minded and fair evaluation of recent American History. Not clouded by the misinformation of the revionist historians movement this book is very fair. A good and informative read.