What do you think?
Rate this book
American Dreamers: How the Left Changed a Nation
A panoramic yet intimate history of the American left—of the reformers, radicals, and idealists who have fought for a more just and humane society, from the abolitionists to Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky—that gives us a revelatory new way of looking at two centuries of American politics and culture.
Michael Kazin—one of the most respected historians of the American left working today—takes us from abolitionism and early feminism to the labor struggles of the industrial age, through the emergence of anarchists, socialists, and communists, right up to the New Left in the 1960s and ’70s. While the history of the left is a long story of idealism and determination, it has also been, in the traditional view, a story of movements that failed to gain support from mainstream America. In American Dreamers , Kazin tells a new one in which many of these movements, although they did not fully succeed on their own terms, nonetheless made lasting contributions to American society that led to equal opportunity for women, racial minorities, and homosexuals; the celebration of sexual pleasure; multiculturalism in the media and the schools; and the popularity of books and films with altruistic and antiauthoritarian messages.
Deeply informed, at once judicious and impassioned, and superbly written, American Dreamers is an essential book for our times and for anyone seeking to understand our political history and the people who made it.
Michael Kazin—one of the most respected historians of the American left working today—takes us from abolitionism and early feminism to the labor struggles of the industrial age, through the emergence of anarchists, socialists, and communists, right up to the New Left in the 1960s and ’70s. While the history of the left is a long story of idealism and determination, it has also been, in the traditional view, a story of movements that failed to gain support from mainstream America. In American Dreamers , Kazin tells a new one in which many of these movements, although they did not fully succeed on their own terms, nonetheless made lasting contributions to American society that led to equal opportunity for women, racial minorities, and homosexuals; the celebration of sexual pleasure; multiculturalism in the media and the schools; and the popularity of books and films with altruistic and antiauthoritarian messages.
Deeply informed, at once judicious and impassioned, and superbly written, American Dreamers is an essential book for our times and for anyone seeking to understand our political history and the people who made it.
352 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2011
20 people are currently reading
1199 people want to read
About the author
Michael Kazin
56 books66 followersMichael Kazin is a professor of history at Georgetown University. He is co-editor of Dissent magazine.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews
September 9, 2023
Contrary to the hysterical rhetoric of conservatives, the United States is unique among Western nations in the absence of a truly viable left-wing political movement. Unlike in the nations of Europe, radical and socialist parties have never succeeded in establishing more than a temporary foothold in American politics. Yet as Michael Kazin notes, their failure to establish an enduring political presence stands in stark contrast to their success in shaping the moral culture of American society. This contrast forms the core of his new, book, a survey of the American left from the early 19th century to the present day, in which he chronicles both the battles lost by the left in American politics and the broader wars they won to change the values and attitudes of the nation over the past two centuries.
Kazin begins in the 1820s with the emergence of the first social movements dedicated to the moral transformation of the country. These groups pioneered the basic approach that would be followed by their successors: charters outlining their goals, the use of public protests to demonstrate their commitment, and the exploitation of media to broadcast their message. Though such groups pursued a range of goals, Kazin focuses on those which campaigned for the abolition of slavery and the rights of women. These movements challenged not just the legal shackles binding these groups but the prejudices underlying them as well. While the campaign for women’s rights stalled, the cause of abolitionism grew in popularity with the outbreak of the Civil War, turning “anti-slavery firebrands into respectable figures.” (pg. 49) Motivated by the moral arguments of abolitionists, Northern politicians turned the Civil War into a war for freedom, eventually bringing about the emancipation of the slaves.
Yet emancipation did nothing to bring about racial equality. Here Kazin develops another theme persistent in the history of the American left: the role of racism played in fragmenting their political efforts. Nowhere was this more evident than in the burgeoning labor movement in the nineteenth century. With the concentration of wealth becoming a pressing issue in post-Civil War America, workers sought to band together to demand more equitable treatment. Yet despite the efforts of a few activists, workers usually remained divided along racial and ethnic lines, frustrating attempts at unity. Racism also plagued the formation of a successful socialist movement in the late 19th century, with organizers often forced to bow to racist attitudes in their efforts to win over working-class Americans to their cause. Kazin’s examination of socialism in America is one of the strengths of the book, as he identifies three different, yet concurrent, socialist movements that existed in the country at the turn of the century: that of midwestern workers and farmers, that of secular Jewish immigrants from Europe, and that of a “modernist left” of the bohemian communities of major cities in the Northeast and Midwest. In the end, though, none of these succeeded in creating a viable political movement, and collapsed amid the “Red Scare” at the end of World War I.
The political left reemerged in the 1930s amid the economic collapse of the Great Depression. By then socialism had been superseded by Marxism, with a Communist Party trading obedience to the Soviet Union for financial support. Amidst the widespread suffering of the 1930s, thousands flocked to the Communists searching for a better way, and though the party remained small, Kazin notes the disproportionate cultural influence they exerted through this period in a variety of arenas, crediting them in particular with reintroducing the issue of racial equality into the political scene. While the Communist Party ultimately failed to establish itself more broadly, the issue of equal rights for African Americans survived the party’s collapse, taking hold as a key issue of the New Left that emerged in the 1950s. Kazin details the massive shift the New Left effected in the attitudes of most Americans towards women and minorities, yet the triumph of equality overshadowed a larger failure to establish an enduring radical movement in the country, one which impeded prospects for further change as the 20th century came to an end.
Kazin’s book is an insightful study of the history of American radicals and their impact upon the nation. In an age of historical specialization, his effort to provide an encompassing overview provides a useful account of how the left evolved over the course of American history, particularly in response to the larger social and economic forces shaping the nation’s development. Some may quibble with particular aspects of his analysis, but the overall narrative he provides is insightful and convincing. With its accessible prose and helpful bibliography at the end, this is a superb book that should be read by anyone seeking to better understand the often derided or overlooked role the left has played in shaping America into the country in which we live today.
Kazin begins in the 1820s with the emergence of the first social movements dedicated to the moral transformation of the country. These groups pioneered the basic approach that would be followed by their successors: charters outlining their goals, the use of public protests to demonstrate their commitment, and the exploitation of media to broadcast their message. Though such groups pursued a range of goals, Kazin focuses on those which campaigned for the abolition of slavery and the rights of women. These movements challenged not just the legal shackles binding these groups but the prejudices underlying them as well. While the campaign for women’s rights stalled, the cause of abolitionism grew in popularity with the outbreak of the Civil War, turning “anti-slavery firebrands into respectable figures.” (pg. 49) Motivated by the moral arguments of abolitionists, Northern politicians turned the Civil War into a war for freedom, eventually bringing about the emancipation of the slaves.
Yet emancipation did nothing to bring about racial equality. Here Kazin develops another theme persistent in the history of the American left: the role of racism played in fragmenting their political efforts. Nowhere was this more evident than in the burgeoning labor movement in the nineteenth century. With the concentration of wealth becoming a pressing issue in post-Civil War America, workers sought to band together to demand more equitable treatment. Yet despite the efforts of a few activists, workers usually remained divided along racial and ethnic lines, frustrating attempts at unity. Racism also plagued the formation of a successful socialist movement in the late 19th century, with organizers often forced to bow to racist attitudes in their efforts to win over working-class Americans to their cause. Kazin’s examination of socialism in America is one of the strengths of the book, as he identifies three different, yet concurrent, socialist movements that existed in the country at the turn of the century: that of midwestern workers and farmers, that of secular Jewish immigrants from Europe, and that of a “modernist left” of the bohemian communities of major cities in the Northeast and Midwest. In the end, though, none of these succeeded in creating a viable political movement, and collapsed amid the “Red Scare” at the end of World War I.
The political left reemerged in the 1930s amid the economic collapse of the Great Depression. By then socialism had been superseded by Marxism, with a Communist Party trading obedience to the Soviet Union for financial support. Amidst the widespread suffering of the 1930s, thousands flocked to the Communists searching for a better way, and though the party remained small, Kazin notes the disproportionate cultural influence they exerted through this period in a variety of arenas, crediting them in particular with reintroducing the issue of racial equality into the political scene. While the Communist Party ultimately failed to establish itself more broadly, the issue of equal rights for African Americans survived the party’s collapse, taking hold as a key issue of the New Left that emerged in the 1950s. Kazin details the massive shift the New Left effected in the attitudes of most Americans towards women and minorities, yet the triumph of equality overshadowed a larger failure to establish an enduring radical movement in the country, one which impeded prospects for further change as the 20th century came to an end.
Kazin’s book is an insightful study of the history of American radicals and their impact upon the nation. In an age of historical specialization, his effort to provide an encompassing overview provides a useful account of how the left evolved over the course of American history, particularly in response to the larger social and economic forces shaping the nation’s development. Some may quibble with particular aspects of his analysis, but the overall narrative he provides is insightful and convincing. With its accessible prose and helpful bibliography at the end, this is a superb book that should be read by anyone seeking to better understand the often derided or overlooked role the left has played in shaping America into the country in which we live today.
November 17, 2011
Perfect read for a Progessive like me. Kazin does a really wonderful job of researching the history of the Left movement in U.S. since the 1820s. This is no Pollyanna story of the Left. Kazin has many criticisms, most notably that the Left has never been able to sustain a strong cohesiveness or focused message. However, the Left certainly has had an incredible influence on policy making and the vision of a humane, democratic society. I laughed and smiled quite a bit because the causes are still the same today! Even if the players are different. Equality remains a goal for minorities, women, and the gay community. The stuggle continues to rein in the excesses of the richest amongst us. We continue to debate the merits of Capitalism, Communism, and Socialism. The eternal war between corporations and the workers still exists. Don't get me wrong, we have made incredible progress since the 1820s. However, this history book really exemplifies how the more we change the more things stay the same.
August 5, 2019
A rather pedestrian account of leftist figures, parties, causes and movements in the USA from about 1820 until 2001, this survey serves as a sketch which would be useful insofar as it might suggest to some readers avenues for further exploration. For me the most interesting parts were those tracing various contemporary figures back to roots in the CPUSA and its various front organizations. Unlike some, while acknowledging the party's slavish relations with the USSR, author Kazin credits the many progressive accomplishments of its members.
May 1, 2012
An important topic and a book many Americans should read. Although Kazin is sympathetic towards leftists, there is no sugar coating their monumental failure in their overarching goals: winning elections, creating a social democratic order, etc. Yet there is also no denying that they achieved more than many Americans care to admit, and America is largely better because of their efforts (and I believe we're also better for their failure to achieve all that they sought). For all those who think that the causes of the lefties are wholly wrong, think about how happy you are that there are child labor laws, racial equality (or less inequality), gender equality, safe work environments, safe food and water, etc. etc. Some of America's noblest achievements were accomplished by those deemed radical back in the day. For a moderate like me, it's a useful thing to keep in mind, for all sorts of vicious things were justified because my predecessors didn't want to rock the boat. Thanks goodness my predecessors often lost. And thank goodness the lefties lost a lot too.
January 19, 2012
An important and unusual book, especially in this Fox News saturated age. Here are the heroes and heroines of the American Left, which means stories you didn't read about in grade school--probably not even during college. So many of the freedoms we take for granted today wouldn't exist without the exertions of Left on behalf of ordinary working people. From the union movement, which gave so many Americans the wealth and comfort they enjoy today, to civil rights for women, for blacks and indigenous people, all was achieved by the often denigrated and belittled Left. After all, these are the folks who continue to believe that human beings can change for the better.
May 13, 2014
My mother, father, stepfather, and an aunt and uncle from both sides of the family, were all communists back in their day. And I mean members of the CPUSA, though, as is typical of red diaper babies, I don’t know the exact years, or even whether they carried cards. So when I checked out Michael Kazin’s American Dreamers—How the Left Changed a Nation from the library, I turned to immediately to Chapter Five, “The Paradox of American Communism, 1920s-1950s.”
The New York Review of Books article on Kazin’s book had already pissed me off, though. In it SeanWeilentz took great pains to say that this history of the left should not have focused on leftists at all, but instead on liberals, who had accomplished so much good for our nation. Call me crazy, but I expected him to focus on the actual topic of the book.
Liberals often exhibit an unrelenting hostility toward those to their left; American social democrats do the same toward American communists; and of course, that doesn’t even get to the numerous groups so tiny that their endless arguments truly seem meaningless. The right, of course, is totally out of hand as they label Obama a socialist/communist/fascist. In all this everyone, including Kazin, exacts their pound of flesh from the fact that the American CP idolized the Soviet Union under Stalin.
For example, the “anti-racist rigor” exhibited by the CP at a time when that was virtually nonexistent in the rest of white America? According to Kazin, “Like any noteworthy stance the Party adopted, (it) was stamped with the imprimatur of Moscow.” (p. 167)
Okay, okay–but what about the courage of party members who went South to protest lynchings? (See Jessica Mitford’s A Fine Old Conflict.) What about the beauty of raising communist children in the midst of segregation to use the word “Negro,” instead of “nigra” or “colored?” To argue with their schoolmates every time a phrase like “jungle bunny” was used? To never ever utter the original words to “eeney-meeney-miney-mo” aloud?
Furthermore, per Kazin, “the downfall of the CP cannot be blamed primarily on the wave of legal and extralegal repression that began in the Truman era and ended during the Eisenhower presidency.” (p. 204).
Oh, really? Well, try this.
Listen to your mother brag about how the only thing she was ever scared about was the Red Squad and their threats to deport her children (all born in the U.S.). Have your collection of Children’s Digests, brought to school at your teacher’s request, purloined and destroyed by the school. Were they considered left-wing, or what? Go with your mother down to the principal’s office, to request an explanation which she never receives.
Listen to your mother talk about becoming indispensable before the FBI showed up on each new job, so she wouldn’t get fired. Then discover out that your parents’ best friend, with whom they bought a home for the first time in their lives, is an FBI snitch. Home sold; move again.
Be dogged by nightmares about trucks running down union organizers in dark alleys, repetitive fears of a wounded man dragging himself up the stairs.
Explain to the kids in junior high why your mom is on the front page of the LA Times telling HUAC it can go “flummox itself.” Listen to your parents worry about how all this will affect your sister in high school. Five years later, explain to your own high-school history teacher, in front of the class, why you thought it was wrong to assign J. Edgar Hoover’s Masters of Deceit as required reading.
Be honest with your teenage girlfriends about the fact that you liked a black boy. Find a cardboard cross burned on your locker door. Go with your mother when she storms into the principal’s office, to demand an apology. Move to a different part of town, where she won’t be afraid that you will get hurt.
Realize just recently, way way into your adult life, that if Dewey had won against Truman–and remember, the nation went to sleep that election night believing he had–J. Edgar had detailed plans for interning 12,000 communists, and was working on the facilities to detain 12,000 more. Would your parents, with you as a baby, have been in the first wave or the second?
You’re right, Kazin. We weren’t, by and large, jailed (though some were, of course), killed or tortured. But a bunch of stuff did happen to us and it hurt, so it’s hard to have that wave of repression dismissed so easily.
Where is a lyrical description of the American communists’ hard-bitten dedication to counter-acting “the outrageous misery of the Depression?” (p. 158) Where is the wonder that some people are so troubled by material inequality that they struggle all their lives, against impossible odds, for the notion that everyone on this planet should have enough to eat, clothes on their back, a place to live, education and medical care? Where is the sense that this tenacity is admirable–spiritual, even?
No. Here is Kazin’s conclusion: “Nothing (the CP) did mattered as much as their allegiance to a foreign power, and when that allegiance became a serious handicap, the CP was finished.” (p. 207) Simple, right?
Well, when I think about Marx, Darwin and Freud, it seems they all wrote in a time of searching for the one unified theory that would explain the troubles of humankind. Sexual instincts repressed in childhood morphed into every family’s history. The survival of the fittest became the perfect justification for this dog-eat-dog world.
Then there was the way the bosses took the surplus value of their workers’ labor for personal profit. So, the communists decided if the workers could only throw off their chains, things would progress. And, to them, in Russia that had occurred, notwithstanding unremitting hostility from the capitalist classes of Europe and America, which helped goad a ruthless civil war.
Was there too much reliance on the Soviet Union as an example of virtue? You bet! Just watch the documentary Seeing Red, and you’ll hear the communists say it themselves.
All this before human beings were able to tabulate instantaneously endless amounts of data; before we saw images of our planet from space; before we realized we were the smallest dot in an infinite field of galaxies. Now thoughtful people know better–this situation of the human species is too complex for a unitary analysis.
As for that pesky Marxism, though, revolutions threatened moneyed interests at the core, and whew–is the ruling class relieved that communism didn’t succeed! The profiteers profit on, their gobs of money threatening the sustainability of the very planet we all depend on. (If you doubt it, this blog’s post from July 30th and check out Bill McKibben’s math on how the oil companies are trading in our weather for their profit.)
The liberals have made progress on alleviating poverty, yes. And so have the socialists, by creating/defending social safety nets and continuing to insist that all this matters. As for communism, as an economic system it has disappeared everywhere except Cuba and North Korea. So why do we have to choose? Why can’t we form a respectful spectrum, from center to left, struggling to find solutions to that ever-present inequality, now confronted by an emergent understanding of the need for sustainable practices.
Yet–although the people in my family, all unionists, spent more time organizing workers than praising Russia–let me make my position clear. One should never ever apologize for a dictator like Stalin. It’s bad to murder millions! There should be endless acknowledgment, and everyone needs to search their respective souls right now about what to do to stop this incessant human slaughter, whether perpetrated by left, right or center
But during those decades of CP denial of Stalin’s crimes, weren’t the liberals in denial also? How many apologies were there around that time about the internment of the Japanese, Jim Crow, genocide of the American Indian?
When did you last hear a right-winger slam all those who idolize murderous dictators during the endless cycle of modern America war? In this current crazy season, how often do those right of center lay into the Santorums, the Huckabees, the survivalists, the Timothy McVeys, those who murder the abortionists, those multitudes who support the murder of abortionists. No—those right of center go relatively easy on each other. You’ll never catch me saying this again, but perhaps we can learn something here.
So, Kazin, I admire all the work you’ve put into this book–I really do. But I probably won’t read more than the one chapter. Something about where is the love…
The New York Review of Books article on Kazin’s book had already pissed me off, though. In it SeanWeilentz took great pains to say that this history of the left should not have focused on leftists at all, but instead on liberals, who had accomplished so much good for our nation. Call me crazy, but I expected him to focus on the actual topic of the book.
Liberals often exhibit an unrelenting hostility toward those to their left; American social democrats do the same toward American communists; and of course, that doesn’t even get to the numerous groups so tiny that their endless arguments truly seem meaningless. The right, of course, is totally out of hand as they label Obama a socialist/communist/fascist. In all this everyone, including Kazin, exacts their pound of flesh from the fact that the American CP idolized the Soviet Union under Stalin.
For example, the “anti-racist rigor” exhibited by the CP at a time when that was virtually nonexistent in the rest of white America? According to Kazin, “Like any noteworthy stance the Party adopted, (it) was stamped with the imprimatur of Moscow.” (p. 167)
Okay, okay–but what about the courage of party members who went South to protest lynchings? (See Jessica Mitford’s A Fine Old Conflict.) What about the beauty of raising communist children in the midst of segregation to use the word “Negro,” instead of “nigra” or “colored?” To argue with their schoolmates every time a phrase like “jungle bunny” was used? To never ever utter the original words to “eeney-meeney-miney-mo” aloud?
Furthermore, per Kazin, “the downfall of the CP cannot be blamed primarily on the wave of legal and extralegal repression that began in the Truman era and ended during the Eisenhower presidency.” (p. 204).
Oh, really? Well, try this.
Listen to your mother brag about how the only thing she was ever scared about was the Red Squad and their threats to deport her children (all born in the U.S.). Have your collection of Children’s Digests, brought to school at your teacher’s request, purloined and destroyed by the school. Were they considered left-wing, or what? Go with your mother down to the principal’s office, to request an explanation which she never receives.
Listen to your mother talk about becoming indispensable before the FBI showed up on each new job, so she wouldn’t get fired. Then discover out that your parents’ best friend, with whom they bought a home for the first time in their lives, is an FBI snitch. Home sold; move again.
Be dogged by nightmares about trucks running down union organizers in dark alleys, repetitive fears of a wounded man dragging himself up the stairs.
Explain to the kids in junior high why your mom is on the front page of the LA Times telling HUAC it can go “flummox itself.” Listen to your parents worry about how all this will affect your sister in high school. Five years later, explain to your own high-school history teacher, in front of the class, why you thought it was wrong to assign J. Edgar Hoover’s Masters of Deceit as required reading.
Be honest with your teenage girlfriends about the fact that you liked a black boy. Find a cardboard cross burned on your locker door. Go with your mother when she storms into the principal’s office, to demand an apology. Move to a different part of town, where she won’t be afraid that you will get hurt.
Realize just recently, way way into your adult life, that if Dewey had won against Truman–and remember, the nation went to sleep that election night believing he had–J. Edgar had detailed plans for interning 12,000 communists, and was working on the facilities to detain 12,000 more. Would your parents, with you as a baby, have been in the first wave or the second?
You’re right, Kazin. We weren’t, by and large, jailed (though some were, of course), killed or tortured. But a bunch of stuff did happen to us and it hurt, so it’s hard to have that wave of repression dismissed so easily.
Where is a lyrical description of the American communists’ hard-bitten dedication to counter-acting “the outrageous misery of the Depression?” (p. 158) Where is the wonder that some people are so troubled by material inequality that they struggle all their lives, against impossible odds, for the notion that everyone on this planet should have enough to eat, clothes on their back, a place to live, education and medical care? Where is the sense that this tenacity is admirable–spiritual, even?
No. Here is Kazin’s conclusion: “Nothing (the CP) did mattered as much as their allegiance to a foreign power, and when that allegiance became a serious handicap, the CP was finished.” (p. 207) Simple, right?
Well, when I think about Marx, Darwin and Freud, it seems they all wrote in a time of searching for the one unified theory that would explain the troubles of humankind. Sexual instincts repressed in childhood morphed into every family’s history. The survival of the fittest became the perfect justification for this dog-eat-dog world.
Then there was the way the bosses took the surplus value of their workers’ labor for personal profit. So, the communists decided if the workers could only throw off their chains, things would progress. And, to them, in Russia that had occurred, notwithstanding unremitting hostility from the capitalist classes of Europe and America, which helped goad a ruthless civil war.
Was there too much reliance on the Soviet Union as an example of virtue? You bet! Just watch the documentary Seeing Red, and you’ll hear the communists say it themselves.
All this before human beings were able to tabulate instantaneously endless amounts of data; before we saw images of our planet from space; before we realized we were the smallest dot in an infinite field of galaxies. Now thoughtful people know better–this situation of the human species is too complex for a unitary analysis.
As for that pesky Marxism, though, revolutions threatened moneyed interests at the core, and whew–is the ruling class relieved that communism didn’t succeed! The profiteers profit on, their gobs of money threatening the sustainability of the very planet we all depend on. (If you doubt it, this blog’s post from July 30th and check out Bill McKibben’s math on how the oil companies are trading in our weather for their profit.)
The liberals have made progress on alleviating poverty, yes. And so have the socialists, by creating/defending social safety nets and continuing to insist that all this matters. As for communism, as an economic system it has disappeared everywhere except Cuba and North Korea. So why do we have to choose? Why can’t we form a respectful spectrum, from center to left, struggling to find solutions to that ever-present inequality, now confronted by an emergent understanding of the need for sustainable practices.
Yet–although the people in my family, all unionists, spent more time organizing workers than praising Russia–let me make my position clear. One should never ever apologize for a dictator like Stalin. It’s bad to murder millions! There should be endless acknowledgment, and everyone needs to search their respective souls right now about what to do to stop this incessant human slaughter, whether perpetrated by left, right or center
But during those decades of CP denial of Stalin’s crimes, weren’t the liberals in denial also? How many apologies were there around that time about the internment of the Japanese, Jim Crow, genocide of the American Indian?
When did you last hear a right-winger slam all those who idolize murderous dictators during the endless cycle of modern America war? In this current crazy season, how often do those right of center lay into the Santorums, the Huckabees, the survivalists, the Timothy McVeys, those who murder the abortionists, those multitudes who support the murder of abortionists. No—those right of center go relatively easy on each other. You’ll never catch me saying this again, but perhaps we can learn something here.
So, Kazin, I admire all the work you’ve put into this book–I really do. But I probably won’t read more than the one chapter. Something about where is the love…
August 10, 2012
Kazin's thesis is that liberal reforms (like abolition and the Voting Rights act)became institutionalized due to pressure from radicals. Liberals effectively co-oped progressive/radical ideas, took the credit, and watered them down in order to preserve the status quo. According to Kazin, this does not mean that radicals were ineffective. Without them we would not have had liberal reforms. It means that those reforms were limited and the radicals became discredited "prophets." While the political achievements of radical progressivism were limited, Kazin assigns them more influence in the cultural sphere. Artists like Steinbeck and even Bruce Springsteen created archetypes that were more influential in bringing a change of consciousness than any political track. See Sean Wilint's review essay in the New York Review of Books for an argument that Kazin does not give enough credit to liberals and that his historical analysis is selective. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archi...
February 15, 2012
I will still recommend this book to people who would benefit from reading a broad survey, but ultimately I was disappointed by this. Among other things: I didn't recognize the decade I lived through in his chapter on the late 60s/early 1970s. While I thought his treatment of the Communist Party, USA, in the 1930s and 40s was strong, he all but ignored the non-communist left. Maybe most importantly I thought there was a circularity to the argument. Kazin suggests that the left's contribution lies in its cultural achievements not its political gains. Surely there is much to this, but at points where the left did win real concrete political gains he seems to get around the problem by denigrating their significance. I expected more from a writer a couple of whose earlier books I really admire.
April 2, 2013
Having seen myself as a leftist most of my life, I was interested in reading a history of my political leanings. I found the book to be a very balanced look at the different areas that the Left became involved in politically from the 1820s through 2010 in the United States. He highlights the works of abolitionists, trade union people, Socialists, Communists, anti-war activists, feminists, and environmentalists. It would have been interesting to see how they impacted politics in certain states like Minnesota, but that is missing. I found it to be an interesting book, one that could be read by anyone of any political stripe.
December 10, 2012
It's amazing how much we take for granted, things which were radical changes when first proposed by leftists, such as racial equality, women's rights, child labor, economic justice for the poor, and so on. We need books like this to remind us that history has not always been kind to everyone, and that visionary people were brave enough to stand up for what is right.
Want to read
November 8, 2011
November 1, 2015
A bunch of interesting information told in a less-than-interesting way.
July 12, 2021
This book offers a broad chronological survey of radical left movements in the United States from Abolitionism to Occupy Wall Street, the latest movement at the time it appeared in 2011. The central argument is that Leftism, though it never achieved true mass appeal in the U.S., did not entirely fail. Kazin believes radical leftists contributed significantly to ending slavery and Jim Crow, and to gaining greater equality for women, LGBTQ+ rights, environmentalism, and recognition of cultural plurality. Kazin acknowledges, however, that these gains are much more in the area of individual rights than socioeconomic equality. One thing he never quite admits is that the reason for this is surely that the defense of individual rights is in any case much more compatible with the dominant ideology of free market capitalism than a deeper drive for material equality. The other thread running through much of the book is that the Left's successes have often been less the result of political organization than of the cultural impact of a small, persistent group such a the New England Abolitionists, the New York Bohemians, or the counterculture of the New Left. Kazin sees this cultural influence gradually changing the sensibility of U.S. society -- though never, so far, in the direction of rejecting capitalism; only in an ever-more expansive understanding of the meaning of individual rights. I would have welcomed a more theoretical exposition of this argument; sometimes the focus is a little too much on the details of the individual movements. But then again, it is clearly designed to be useful as a handbook that can be consulted for specific chapters, as well as being read cover-to-cover.
One of the most valuable revelations is the pervasive influence over a long period of two books, Henry George's "Progress and Poverty" (1879) Edward Bellamy's "Looking Backward" (1887). I knew of them and their impact at the time, but was impressed by how often Kazin brought them up in chapters relating to later periods. Even Martin Luther King, Jr., we are told, in his student days read and was influenced by the utopian socialist vision of "Looking Backward." Kazin gives his "take" on every major Leftist leader from Frances Wright, Thomas Skidmore, and David Walker through Eugene V. Debs and Big Bill Haywood to Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore. It is a very useful compendium to which I am sure I will return often as a reference.
Among the omissions, perhaps the most glaring is the almost complete lack of any discussion of Native American activism. There is little, either, about Latinos. Of course, Black Lives Matter had not begun yet, nor had Bernie Sanders' 2016 campaign yet revived "democratic socialism" at the level of national politics, nor had the reaction against Trump given us AOC and the Squad. So the rather muted tone of Kazin's final plea for utopian ideals could seem a bit dated, ten years later. Time for a revised edition?
One of the most valuable revelations is the pervasive influence over a long period of two books, Henry George's "Progress and Poverty" (1879) Edward Bellamy's "Looking Backward" (1887). I knew of them and their impact at the time, but was impressed by how often Kazin brought them up in chapters relating to later periods. Even Martin Luther King, Jr., we are told, in his student days read and was influenced by the utopian socialist vision of "Looking Backward." Kazin gives his "take" on every major Leftist leader from Frances Wright, Thomas Skidmore, and David Walker through Eugene V. Debs and Big Bill Haywood to Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore. It is a very useful compendium to which I am sure I will return often as a reference.
Among the omissions, perhaps the most glaring is the almost complete lack of any discussion of Native American activism. There is little, either, about Latinos. Of course, Black Lives Matter had not begun yet, nor had Bernie Sanders' 2016 campaign yet revived "democratic socialism" at the level of national politics, nor had the reaction against Trump given us AOC and the Squad. So the rather muted tone of Kazin's final plea for utopian ideals could seem a bit dated, ten years later. Time for a revised edition?
April 2, 2024
The author gives us the history of the American Left from the 1820s to the early 21st century (the book was published in 2011).
In the early 19th Century, the left was defined mostly by the abolitionists – and also those who wanted better working conditions for the labour force. Women’s groups latched onto the abolitionist movement to ask for voting rights. The author also mentions that some abolitionists did not believe in the equality of races.
Unlike in Europe, left-wing movements in the United States were not secular, they were affiliated with Christian beliefs. In the latter half of the 19th century, with increasing immigration to the U.S., this would prove to be a conundrum for newly arrived left-wing radicals who were secular and/or atheist.
With the ascendancy of communism after the 1850s (The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848) the author starts defining the left-wing as being solely Communist Party members – while leaving out other left-wing, or even liberal thinkers in the U.S.
The advocacy of the Communist Party for the equality of races did not appeal to the inherent racism of most white Americans.
The author makes a valid point that no Communist Party or leftist groups has ever held power in the U.S. But culturally, the left, has had a far greater influence – on women’s rights, civil rights, gay rights, environmental awareness… All these have inserted themselves into popular culture since the 1960s.
Page 213 my book, in the 1960s
The New Left [of the 1960s] helped cause a mighty dislocation in the national culture [and] nudged Americans to change some deep-seated ideas about themselves and their society… [but] did little to change the structures of power in the workplace or the halls of government.
The Communist Party tended to be too doctrinaire, causing it to lose membership over the years; and was simply not appealing to “the masses”. They hardly seemed aware of mainstream America.
The “New Left” made many Americans question the nature of their society – the role of authority, alienation, and the deteriorating environment. Not much of this was on the platform of the Communist Party.
The subtitle of the book “How the Left Changed a Nation” is misleading, with an over-emphasis on the Communist Party. There was also a lot of name-dropping per page that muffled whatever context the author was trying to present.
In the early 19th Century, the left was defined mostly by the abolitionists – and also those who wanted better working conditions for the labour force. Women’s groups latched onto the abolitionist movement to ask for voting rights. The author also mentions that some abolitionists did not believe in the equality of races.
Unlike in Europe, left-wing movements in the United States were not secular, they were affiliated with Christian beliefs. In the latter half of the 19th century, with increasing immigration to the U.S., this would prove to be a conundrum for newly arrived left-wing radicals who were secular and/or atheist.
With the ascendancy of communism after the 1850s (The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848) the author starts defining the left-wing as being solely Communist Party members – while leaving out other left-wing, or even liberal thinkers in the U.S.
The advocacy of the Communist Party for the equality of races did not appeal to the inherent racism of most white Americans.
The author makes a valid point that no Communist Party or leftist groups has ever held power in the U.S. But culturally, the left, has had a far greater influence – on women’s rights, civil rights, gay rights, environmental awareness… All these have inserted themselves into popular culture since the 1960s.
Page 213 my book, in the 1960s
The New Left [of the 1960s] helped cause a mighty dislocation in the national culture [and] nudged Americans to change some deep-seated ideas about themselves and their society… [but] did little to change the structures of power in the workplace or the halls of government.
The Communist Party tended to be too doctrinaire, causing it to lose membership over the years; and was simply not appealing to “the masses”. They hardly seemed aware of mainstream America.
The “New Left” made many Americans question the nature of their society – the role of authority, alienation, and the deteriorating environment. Not much of this was on the platform of the Communist Party.
The subtitle of the book “How the Left Changed a Nation” is misleading, with an over-emphasis on the Communist Party. There was also a lot of name-dropping per page that muffled whatever context the author was trying to present.
June 8, 2017
Wrangling a narrative of something as factious, fractious, conflicted and sprawling as "the America left" is probably an impossible job, so it's not faint praise to say Kazin does it pretty well. He tells a more or less unified story, starting with the abolitionists and ending with Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, Naomi Klein and Howard Zinn. He makes the argument that the primary driver of American leftism is a utopian vision of equality and/or authenticity. He also argues that the division of the "and/or" is a defining (and maybe also sometimes defeating) feature.
The big thing the book doesn't do is deliver on the promise of the subtitle. It's not clear, here, how the left changed a nation. Kazin asks the question, but doesn't focus much on trying to answer it.
The real driving question of the text is why the left has had so few actual successes. The answers aren't definitive, and some of them are not worked out very thoroughly. But they seem to be a) organization and institution-building, b) coalition building (esp. with liberals and what might be called "middle America"), and c) articulating the left vision in the language of America. When the left built organizations, found and made allies, and painted their dream in red, white and blue, they won. When they didn't, they didn't. There were times this argument could have been more carefully substantiated, though. It's sketchy, in places.
The later chapters are the weakest. Kazin seems rushed and less careful when talking about the 1960s and onward. Two middle chapters, 4 and 5, are really good, though, and offer really useful theoretical explanations the history of the left. I will definitely return to the "Three Socialisms" and "Paradox of American Communism" chapters for reference.
The big thing the book doesn't do is deliver on the promise of the subtitle. It's not clear, here, how the left changed a nation. Kazin asks the question, but doesn't focus much on trying to answer it.
The real driving question of the text is why the left has had so few actual successes. The answers aren't definitive, and some of them are not worked out very thoroughly. But they seem to be a) organization and institution-building, b) coalition building (esp. with liberals and what might be called "middle America"), and c) articulating the left vision in the language of America. When the left built organizations, found and made allies, and painted their dream in red, white and blue, they won. When they didn't, they didn't. There were times this argument could have been more carefully substantiated, though. It's sketchy, in places.
The later chapters are the weakest. Kazin seems rushed and less careful when talking about the 1960s and onward. Two middle chapters, 4 and 5, are really good, though, and offer really useful theoretical explanations the history of the left. I will definitely return to the "Three Socialisms" and "Paradox of American Communism" chapters for reference.
February 5, 2018
Kazin attempts to condense the whole, frustrating history or the American Left into 278 pages of text. He is not unsuccessful, but many sections seem to somehow drag while very lightly skipping past whole movements and personalities. Perhaps some more structured arrangement of the book would have made things feel less disconnected.
There is a sense of sadness, perhaps resignation, that pervades the book, especially its final chapters. It is painful to read anything predictive of the future written in the final years of the Obama administration. The embryonic re-energizing of the left in the Trump era is still to new to count for anything, but I have a suspicion that Kazin would recognize it for the fractious pissing contest it probably is, but "Socialism is the name of our desire." The failure of making the Left attractive to those who would be its primary beneficiaries is a crucial part of the larger history Kazin tackles. I would like this argument to be the central thesis of the book, and have the history serve it, rather than the book claim to be a general history and sort of cobble the argument together. Perhaps, my reading was clumsy.
Kazin rights engaging prose. He injects himself into the text just enough to remind you that reading history books is about human connection and relationships. He is sarcastic and funny without seeming to try too hard. He likes to take down sacred cows, but isn't showy and it is never the only reason to talk about a historical figure. I look very forward to reading his biography of William Jennings Bryan. Recommended.
There is a sense of sadness, perhaps resignation, that pervades the book, especially its final chapters. It is painful to read anything predictive of the future written in the final years of the Obama administration. The embryonic re-energizing of the left in the Trump era is still to new to count for anything, but I have a suspicion that Kazin would recognize it for the fractious pissing contest it probably is, but "Socialism is the name of our desire." The failure of making the Left attractive to those who would be its primary beneficiaries is a crucial part of the larger history Kazin tackles. I would like this argument to be the central thesis of the book, and have the history serve it, rather than the book claim to be a general history and sort of cobble the argument together. Perhaps, my reading was clumsy.
Kazin rights engaging prose. He injects himself into the text just enough to remind you that reading history books is about human connection and relationships. He is sarcastic and funny without seeming to try too hard. He likes to take down sacred cows, but isn't showy and it is never the only reason to talk about a historical figure. I look very forward to reading his biography of William Jennings Bryan. Recommended.
July 28, 2025
I truthfully didn’t finish this book, I didn’t like that leftist ppl were called radicals in the book . I also feel a lot of the history in the book was sanitized . Like the creation of planned parenthood was a woman that was really racist and believed in eugenicist and the author didn’t mention the later part . I wonder if the goal was just to talk about social movements in general and not get in the full history of each , alas tho I was not enjoying it .
April 19, 2021
Remember that period in history class we all forgot about? The late 1800s-early 1900s was a fast-paced time; a time sandwiched in-between two war-torn periods in American history. While this stretch wasn't the most significant foreign-policy-wise, it was monumentally important in dealing with domestic issues of economics. It was this period that served as the height of the progressive movement in America, and Michael Kazin leans into the stars that championed it. From William Jennings Bryan to Woody Guthrie and everyone in-between, Kazin explains how mid-western politics shaped economic populism and political/social progressivism in a time most known for fat cats and robber barons. Starting in the early to mid 1800s and going all the way through the 2000s, Kazin amazingly showcases his knowledge and perspective on populists, progressives, socialists, and Marxists throughout history, and how their influence spread to across the country. Policy demands ending child labor, providing healthcare, gaining women's suffrage, mandated work days and better working conditions; commonplace practices now (maybe besides providing healthcare, unfortunately), but once not-so-common - all of these pushed by politically left groups in America.
I recommend this book to history buffs and leftists. The union of those groups, especially, will find this book an absolute joy.
I recommend this book to history buffs and leftists. The union of those groups, especially, will find this book an absolute joy.
February 9, 2017
Interesting and very readable history of the left in USA. The author reviews the accomplishments as well as reasons why various movements were short lived. He also had some interesting insights on the growth of the right wing agenda. At the end of the work he states: "Reformers from above always needed the pressure of left-wing movements from below..."
December 13, 2011
Smoothly written and well-footnoted, the book provides a nicely-packaged historical summary of the influence of American liberal and radicals. Kazin's basic point - that "the left" has been generally successful in changing the culture and enacting many of their goals piecemeal over time - is a solid one. The book suffers, I think, from oversimplification at times, and fails to take into sufficient account varying views on what "justice" or "liberty" might mean. This is particularly true with regard to the "right," but he does manage to steer generally away from over-romanticization of his favorites.
May 17, 2013
It's interesting. The main point the book makes is that the American left has been much more influential in social and cultural ways than in economic ways. It gives lots of examples of how this is the case, and sometimes delves into discussions of why the left succeeded on some fronts but failed on others. I guess, though, that I often found myself wishing that it spent more time telling better stories about interesting events, instead of wrapping up mentions of historical incidents within a matter of sentences.
June 3, 2014
A lively, informative chronological overview of progressive movements and its activists, and the impact they have had on American culture and politics. Kazin never explores any of these movements or individuals to great depth but he does make them all interesting enough to whet the appetite for further exploration.
December 15, 2011
This is an excellent overview of the American Left--I thought Kazin did a good job showing both the histories of the various movements and explaining why they succeeded or failed when they did. He also shows their occasional moral failures--as with frequent exclusions of minority groups. I found especially interesting his look at the 80s since those were my high school and college years.
April 26, 2013
A sympathetic yet realistic history of America's left-wing, from their victories (Kazin's thesis is that radicals have nudged the debate in American society leftward, never quite achieving a radical vision of their own) to their failures (I quite liked his somewhat sobering take on the reductionist history of Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, despite being a fan of the latter).
February 13, 2014
A great introduction to the history of the American Left. So many gems, so many heroes lost to history, so many tales of dreams achieved and deferred. The author has a deep respect for his subjects, but is distant enough to offer insightful critiques. Highly recommended!
December 20, 2013
This read served me well as an activist for social justice in the U.S.A.
March 20, 2016
This was an OK book about the history of leftism in the US. It covered a lot of territory but there was not much depth.
Want to read
January 21, 2017Him CG in he in! G!I he had dorm MNR hefjen rush Ben km moment's not he just Mr Hands NRL Lowe men man on did NMR!?RM! Lem king UK
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews