Hailed in The New York Times Book Review as "the single best book written in recent years on the sweep of American political history;" this groundbreaking work divides our nation's history into three "regimes;" each of which lasts many; many decades; allowing us to appreciate as never before the slow steady evolution of American politics; government; and law. The three regimes; which mark longer periods of continuity than traditional eras reflect; are Deferential and Republican; from the colonial period to the 1820s; Party and Democratic; from the 1830s to the 1930s; and Populist and Bureaucratic; from the 1930s to the present. Praised by The Economist as "a feast to enjoy" and by Foreign Affairs as "a masterful and fresh account of U.S. politics;" here is a major contribution to the history of the United States--an entirely new way to look at our past; our present; and our future--packed with provocative and original observations about American public life.
#266473 in Books Morton Keller 2009-03-11Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 5.70 x 1.00 x 8.90l; 1.18 #File Name: 019537424X384 pagesAmerica s Three Regimes A New Political History
Review
3 of 4 people found the following review helpful. I only choose to read books about 'things that matter' that are recommended by sources I respectBy olyjanI felt tricked. I only choose to read books about 'things that matter' that are recommended by sources I respect. (I do read for fun; too.) And then I plan to spend a fair amount of time actually studying and taking notes and writing. I did so with Three Regimes. Then; the last 50 pages or so completely threw me. I keep reading subtle or slyly written lines that sounded very much like so many right-wing 'opinions'. For instance; implying that activists on "the left" are pretty much responsible for much of what is wrong with government - the regime we are in now; "Populist-Bureaucratic." He doesn't say "wrong"; but the presentation leads me to that conclusion. There is a lot of "liberal-left" discussions; not much "right-wing"; though.For instance; "As the Populist-Bureaucratic regime evolved...the policy emphasis shifted from equality of opportunity to equality of results." This has long been a 'conservative' shortcut to dismissing education; housing; health care; etc; programs for poor - many of whom were minorities. (You have probably heard this phrase from Republican candidates - a different way of saying "the takers"). As one of those old "advocates"; I don't know anyone that said the goal was that everyone should be the 'same' - same house; car; years of education; income...NO ONE said that. The common term (which I dislike; but it's the one conservatives emulate) "The American Dream" is the supposed goal of us all. So; it is referenced when speaking of the obstacles to taking the path to the American Dream. The point is the PATH; not the DREAM. However; conservatives skipped the 'path' and went immediately to 'they want houses and cars like us and we worked hard for those!' Yes; they probably did; but no; their 'path' to those things would have to be the same as your's. The problem to be solved was that the 'path' was not available to everyone. My point being; the author makes many of these subtle choices of old words that say much more than one would imagine; especially if you weren't around to hear who was saying them first.The book was published before Obama was elected; so many things in the last 50 pages (our current 'regime') do not ring true. While 'you can't know what you don't know'; I would expect this author to be close in his 'predictions' of where we are only 8 years since his writing. Maybe time will out for his analysis; as it stands some things are wrong - "Now; the stress is on expanding [voting]..." "As the parties retain the power that comes with being major spenders of campaign money." Referencing (IRS) 527-groups as the new power; and others. What I did find worth my time was early history of America. It never is a waste of time to read others' take on how 'we' got here. I am open to the 'redefinition' of historical time into something other than 'this war; that war; this pres that pres'. I think that this suggestion is useful to push the reader to 'think otherwise'. As for the #3 of the Three Regimes; I remain skeptical of the author's analysis of what it means; even though he describes the structure as it now exists. So; here's advice I've never given to anyone reading anything - read the end first. It won't spoil the story; but if those last pages give you an uneasy feeling that somehow the author is not being very forthcoming with his own political philosophy; choose something else.0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. Was required for a class and even though this subject ...By Andrew BeresWas required for a class and even though this subject is not related to my major; still found it an interesting book.0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. Four StarsBy Nicholas Norrisboring but interesting
