The Politics of Normalcy: Governmental Theory and Practice in the Harding-Coolidge Era

Norton Essays in American History

by Murray K Robert

Robert K. Murray, K. Murray Robert
W. W. Norton & Company
01/01/1973
180
Binding Paperback
0.44lbs
8.00h x 5.00w x 0.41d
9780393094220

About the Author
Murray, Robert - Robert K. Murray is a professor of history at the Pennsylvania State University. He received his Ph.D. from Ohio State University. Among his other publications are Red Scare and The Harding Era .

Genres: American History, History, Politics, Nonfiction

180 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1973

Reviews

[Michael Lewyn · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book focuses on Harding's governing style and policies more than the scandals of his subordinates, showing how Harding was a much more active and engaged President than conventional wisdom suggests. Harding often rejected the advice of party bosses his choosing his Cabinet; he sometimes made excellent choices, and sometimes picked cronies who turned out quite badly. He originally sought to be merely a facilitator, allowing the Republican Congress to make policy choices. But this policy yielded undesirable results, partially because he disagreed with Congress on some issues (such as subsidies for the merchant marine, which he favored) and partially because of gridlock on some issues. So he became more aggressive over time, until his premature death. Murray also gives us a sense of what issues Harding was concerned about. He supported tax and spending cuts (though this part of his platform does not seem to have been very controversial), protective tariffs, and of course shipping subsidies.

[Trent · Rating 3 out of 5]

Robert K. Murray’s The Politics of Normalcy encompasses a concise political history of Warren G. Harding’s presidency centered around his campaign rhetoric: “Return to Normalcy.” While insightful at times, the books' theoretical approach attempts to obfuscate blame away from Harding for his administration's various scandals. There is considerable truth to Murray’s sympathetic narrative, however it leaves the reader feeling a more critical tone would be warranted to exploring the agency and power of a President. Nevertheless, this book does spark important questions regarding what ‘normalcy’ is, how Harding defined it, how historians defined it within this era, and more so how it has become internalized within political discourse to this day. Therefore, with a critical lens attached, readers will find this book to offer important inquiries into how we understand the political era of the early 1920s.

[Matt · Rating 3 out of 5]

Intriguing book, though I don't agree with its thesis. The book defends Harding and his politics against the onslaught of scholarship that he was a personable but incapable president. The book also minimizes the corruption scandals of the period by calling them "unorganized."

[Chad Lamb · Rating 3 out of 5]

Great connection between Harding and Coolidge's presidencies.

[Kevin · Rating 3 out of 5]

I suppose someone has to be a Warren G. Harding apologist and Murray does a fine job of providing a different perspective.