What do you think?
Rate this book
Our Divided Political Heart: The Battle for the American Idea in an Age of Discontent
Our Divided Political Heart will be the must-read book of the 2012 election campaign. Offering an incisive analysis of how hyper-individualism is poisoning the nation's political atmosphere, E. J. Dionne Jr. argues that Americans can't agree on who we are because we can't agree on who we've been, or what it is, philosophically and spiritually, that makes us Americans. Dionne takes on the Tea Party's distortions of American history and shows that the true American tradition points not to radical individualism, but to a balance between our love of individualism and our devotion to community.
Dionne offers both a fascinating tour of American history-from the Founding Fathers to Clay and Lincoln and on to the Populists, the Progressives and the New Dealers-and also an analysis of our current politics that shatters conventional wisdom. The true American idea, far from endorsing government inaction or indifference, has always viewed the federal government as an active and constructive partner with the rest of society in promoting prosperity, opportunity, and American greatness.
The ability of the American system to self-correct is its greatest asset and Dionne challenges progressives to embrace the American story. Our fractious but productive past offers us the resources both to rediscover the idea of progress and to put an end to our fears of decline. Our Divided Political Heart will be required reading for all who seek a path out of our current impasse.
Dionne offers both a fascinating tour of American history-from the Founding Fathers to Clay and Lincoln and on to the Populists, the Progressives and the New Dealers-and also an analysis of our current politics that shatters conventional wisdom. The true American idea, far from endorsing government inaction or indifference, has always viewed the federal government as an active and constructive partner with the rest of society in promoting prosperity, opportunity, and American greatness.
The ability of the American system to self-correct is its greatest asset and Dionne challenges progressives to embrace the American story. Our fractious but productive past offers us the resources both to rediscover the idea of progress and to put an end to our fears of decline. Our Divided Political Heart will be required reading for all who seek a path out of our current impasse.
336 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2012
69 people are currently reading
1074 people want to read
About the author
E.J. Dionne Jr.
29 books123 followersEugene Joseph "E. J." Dionne, Jr. is an American journalist and political commentator, and a long-time op-ed columnist for The Washington Post. He is also a Senior Fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution, a University Professor in the Foundations of Democracy and Culture at the McCourt School of Public Policy, a Senior Research Fellow at Saint Anselm College, and an NPR, MSNBC, and PBS commentator.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 72 reviews
August 15, 2012
If rational, balanced thought ultimately loses in the marketplace of ideas for America's future, E. J. Dionne's disappointing "Our Divided Political Heart" may serve as an object lesson into why. Dionne confronts the passion and the historical fiction excesses of the Tea Party and recent conservative radicalism with such a cool, emotionally inert equanimity that one's nodding agreement quickly turns into nodding off.
Dionne's central frame -- that we Americans have been struggling with the twin Angels of individuality and community since before our founding -- is not only accurate but is also the font of our unique strength. We have a profound history of moving the pendulum back and forth over the central balance between these two natures, perhaps most concretely in the Hamilton/Jefferson (commercial/agrarian) tug-o-war early in our history. The historical antecedent to the current Tea Party period is not, as they would enshrine, our revolutionary period but rather the 30 year aberration of high-individualism and robber-barons know as the Guilded Age that ended in the early 1900's during the presidency of Republican Teddy Roosevelt.
Dionne says all the right things, but in such a pedantic and erudite-to-the-point-of-obfuscation manner that the reader is left either to assume that no winning idea would be this obtuse or that community could never match the red meat entertainment of conservatism: "get your governmental hands off my medicare!"
But lest we leave this review with a sense of dread, I'd like to quote the non-Dionne of his time, H. L. Mencken, who observed the balance-seeking nature of the american electorate when they abandoned the Democrats of Wilson to embrace the Republicans of Warren G. Harding in 1920: "tired of the intellectual charlatanry, the electorate turns to honest imbecility."
Dionne's central frame -- that we Americans have been struggling with the twin Angels of individuality and community since before our founding -- is not only accurate but is also the font of our unique strength. We have a profound history of moving the pendulum back and forth over the central balance between these two natures, perhaps most concretely in the Hamilton/Jefferson (commercial/agrarian) tug-o-war early in our history. The historical antecedent to the current Tea Party period is not, as they would enshrine, our revolutionary period but rather the 30 year aberration of high-individualism and robber-barons know as the Guilded Age that ended in the early 1900's during the presidency of Republican Teddy Roosevelt.
Dionne says all the right things, but in such a pedantic and erudite-to-the-point-of-obfuscation manner that the reader is left either to assume that no winning idea would be this obtuse or that community could never match the red meat entertainment of conservatism: "get your governmental hands off my medicare!"
But lest we leave this review with a sense of dread, I'd like to quote the non-Dionne of his time, H. L. Mencken, who observed the balance-seeking nature of the american electorate when they abandoned the Democrats of Wilson to embrace the Republicans of Warren G. Harding in 1920: "tired of the intellectual charlatanry, the electorate turns to honest imbecility."
February 28, 2019
Having read a number of Dionne's articles before, I had a general idea the direction he'd be taking this book. He certainly approaches it with an ideological point of view, but does a fairly good job (in most instances) of keeping this restrained.
Dionne examines American history through the lens of two viewpoints-small-r republicanism, which he feels involves the bonds of community which can be nurtured through both the private and public sphere--and individualism, or radical individualism, which he believes is represented in a go-at-it-alone towards politics and life. While he feels both of these ideals have played a role in shaping America, Dionne wrote this book to express his concern that there has been a movement towards radical individualism, (particularly among one of the two major American political parties), that has been 30 years eating away at the bonds Americans used to feel toward one another. He expresses worry that we too often refer to the voting public as "They" and not "We." He also feels that politics have shifted so far to the right since the 1980s that the the "middle" is now several degrees away from where it once was.
The book reads fairly quickly due to Dionne's non-choppy writing style, but be warned that some of the passages reveal Dionne's political leanings. He does raise some interesting points about how Populism/populism has been transformed and redefined since it first began in the late 19th/early 20th century, something particularly compelling now in the light of Donald Trump's primary staying power. It's not the best book on the topic of American governance I've read, but it's not the worst either. A good companion book would be Thomas Frank's What's the Matter with Kansas.
Andrew Canfield Shreveport, La.
Dionne examines American history through the lens of two viewpoints-small-r republicanism, which he feels involves the bonds of community which can be nurtured through both the private and public sphere--and individualism, or radical individualism, which he believes is represented in a go-at-it-alone towards politics and life. While he feels both of these ideals have played a role in shaping America, Dionne wrote this book to express his concern that there has been a movement towards radical individualism, (particularly among one of the two major American political parties), that has been 30 years eating away at the bonds Americans used to feel toward one another. He expresses worry that we too often refer to the voting public as "They" and not "We." He also feels that politics have shifted so far to the right since the 1980s that the the "middle" is now several degrees away from where it once was.
The book reads fairly quickly due to Dionne's non-choppy writing style, but be warned that some of the passages reveal Dionne's political leanings. He does raise some interesting points about how Populism/populism has been transformed and redefined since it first began in the late 19th/early 20th century, something particularly compelling now in the light of Donald Trump's primary staying power. It's not the best book on the topic of American governance I've read, but it's not the worst either. A good companion book would be Thomas Frank's What's the Matter with Kansas.
Andrew Canfield Shreveport, La.
March 3, 2016
“It is a peculiarity of the United States, and one particularly powerful at the moment, that our Constitution is not just honored but venerated. … Did it endure because we have chosen to live by every word, strictly interpreted or did it work because its language was elastic enough to accommodate the great transformations that have occurred since 1787?”
Politics is on my mind this year as we elect a new president. I like reading Mr. Dionne’s columns so I thought I would give his book a chance. It is a well-written discourse on what is happening at this moment in our history.
I enjoyed his reading of history and what really happened versus some peoples interpretations of what happened. He likes to call himself a Communitarian liberal, which means his views revolve around the community in a liberal sense. He explains that the Conservatives used to have a community based belief also until they turned it all into an individual’s freedom in place of the community as a whole.
Although written by a liberal, I felt that he gave equal time to many political beliefs. He made an interesting point about George W. Bush’s early presidency. If 9/11 hadn’t happened would the Republican Party be where they are today? President Bush had pushed for a compassionate conservative party.
I enjoyed this book and the views expressed in it. I will continue to read Mr. Dionne’s columns and future books.
Politics is on my mind this year as we elect a new president. I like reading Mr. Dionne’s columns so I thought I would give his book a chance. It is a well-written discourse on what is happening at this moment in our history.
I enjoyed his reading of history and what really happened versus some peoples interpretations of what happened. He likes to call himself a Communitarian liberal, which means his views revolve around the community in a liberal sense. He explains that the Conservatives used to have a community based belief also until they turned it all into an individual’s freedom in place of the community as a whole.
Although written by a liberal, I felt that he gave equal time to many political beliefs. He made an interesting point about George W. Bush’s early presidency. If 9/11 hadn’t happened would the Republican Party be where they are today? President Bush had pushed for a compassionate conservative party.
I enjoyed this book and the views expressed in it. I will continue to read Mr. Dionne’s columns and future books.
July 24, 2012
In depth discussion of the two essential elements of the American experiment: the tension between individualism and community. Seriously looks at many sides of each issue and is clear that his bias is toward the liberal/progressive...which we all know from reading his fine essays/opinion pieces. At times a bit slow going, but ultimately felt that I had such a deeper understanding of not only the process of the American political and social processes, but of my own part in it. Definitely a recommended read, but it is not light!
June 21, 2012
A literate, non-partisan discussion of the twin threads of the American fiber: individualism and community. The book is an enlightening review of the shifting interpretations of history throughout the years. While we are currently "divided" as a nation, Dionne proposes that this division need not be permanent or destructive. Discourse, debate and healthy disagreement are integral parts of the great American Experiment and they always will be.
September 23, 2012
I came back to the US after 30 years abroad and found myself utterly mystified by the assumptions and attitudes in economics and politics. E.J. Dionne explained so much. I may go back and read it again. Especially in connection with Ellis's First Family about John and Abigail Adams.
May 9, 2019
This was a very interesting and well researched history of America's two political parties and how they evolved over the last 200+ years leading up the formation of the Tea Party movement that followed the election of Barack Obama. I appreciate that Dionne was willing to hold both parties accountable for their hypocrisies and pointing out their flaws without singling either out as generally the "right or wrong" one. It was also enlightening for me as a novice to see all of the known and recorded examples of strife between our various founders which make it unreliable to anyone today to say that they are right because "it's what the founders intended".
It was strange reading this book that was published in 2012 (the middle of the Obama presidency) with the likely hope of encouraging the citizenry to come together through civil discourse, not knowing that in the following 4 years this country would become more divisive than most any living American has ever seen.
It was strange reading this book that was published in 2012 (the middle of the Obama presidency) with the likely hope of encouraging the citizenry to come together through civil discourse, not knowing that in the following 4 years this country would become more divisive than most any living American has ever seen.
January 21, 2024
A very thorough look at how our national discourse became so derisive and some ideas on what needs to be done to fix it.EJ Dionne has the expertise & the will to take on a difficult topic & the courage to tell all involved how it hurts the country as a whole.
February 25, 2013
I begin this review of “Our Divided Political Heart” (ODPH) with a sort of heads up. This is not a book for political or historical rookies. Professor Dionne presents the current poisonous and dysfunctional Washington atmosphere in a format of not only the discussion of present political issues between warring parties, but within the whole context of decades old political historical and social movements which he weaves into his narrative, and have now both incrementally morphed into the most hyper-caustic environment in decades. The author details essentially two fundamental elements of American political philosophy that were once considered compatible, but have now developed into extreme party polarities.
My warning to political novices is succinctly made based on Prof. Dionne’s methodology in weaving his narrative of both political philosophies having evolved through various examples of government policy, respective of right or left leaning, specific to the presidency or the subsequent majorities in Congress, as well as Supreme Court influences. Many of the historical/political references are, shall we say, in many respects obscure to the non-political consumer, but highly meaningful within the general framework of public opinion.
“Our Divided Political Heart” is a masterfully written and important book for the citizen who wants to understand how our nation’s political conversation reached its extremely vitriolic state. Professor Dionne leads the reader through a political labyrinth of interpretation, where both the meaning and intent of the textual U.S. Constitution and in many cases history itself are often massaged and revised in order to validate poltical movements and change administrative governing policy. The author distills the primary opposing American political philosophies from the initial Federalist/States Rights debate, to the current struggle between individualism vs. commutarianism.
In the 20th century the idea that private initiative and public enterprise worked hand and hand to build what was to be the great American century through what the author describes as the “Long Consensus.” He further consolidates his thesis through the various actions of past presidents and political leaders; Hamilton, Jefferson, Adams Jackson, TR, FDR as well as more recent eras of JFK, Reagan and Bush I and II. They all worked with their political opponents to achieve the essential political consensus needed to effectively govern. And how real progress was only possible through compromise. Professor Dionne argues that the currently unsustainable dysfunctional American government is a product of very distinct recent events and quasi-populist movements.
The author highlights the very important and highly controversial U.S. Supreme Court decisions of Bush v Gore, where right wing jurists in theory selected a right leaning president. And more recently the Citizens United decision which initiated a torrent of unlimited corporate monies to influence elections (and subsequently their pro-corporate outcomes) This coupled with the rise of quasi-populism in the form of the anti-government Tea Party, vs. anti corporate Occupy Wall Street movements have acted as catalysts for undermining federal credibility and polarizing attitudes along the lines of either extreme individualism or commutarianism.
In conclusion, author Dionne asserts that the re-election of President Barrack Obama may have signaled a sea change in American politics. By maintaining a steady hand on the pursuit of a working consensus, Obama has made in roads in the echo chamber of extremist individualist sentiment, where all government is bad and only unbridled private individual effort will revive America.
For those of us who self describe as “political junkies”, this book is a clear look into how we’ve arrived at the current national political status quo. For those without a penchant to explore the underlying depths of the core origins of our political conflicts, this book will be as rewarding as it is eye opening. Just stay close to the Google.
My warning to political novices is succinctly made based on Prof. Dionne’s methodology in weaving his narrative of both political philosophies having evolved through various examples of government policy, respective of right or left leaning, specific to the presidency or the subsequent majorities in Congress, as well as Supreme Court influences. Many of the historical/political references are, shall we say, in many respects obscure to the non-political consumer, but highly meaningful within the general framework of public opinion.
“Our Divided Political Heart” is a masterfully written and important book for the citizen who wants to understand how our nation’s political conversation reached its extremely vitriolic state. Professor Dionne leads the reader through a political labyrinth of interpretation, where both the meaning and intent of the textual U.S. Constitution and in many cases history itself are often massaged and revised in order to validate poltical movements and change administrative governing policy. The author distills the primary opposing American political philosophies from the initial Federalist/States Rights debate, to the current struggle between individualism vs. commutarianism.
In the 20th century the idea that private initiative and public enterprise worked hand and hand to build what was to be the great American century through what the author describes as the “Long Consensus.” He further consolidates his thesis through the various actions of past presidents and political leaders; Hamilton, Jefferson, Adams Jackson, TR, FDR as well as more recent eras of JFK, Reagan and Bush I and II. They all worked with their political opponents to achieve the essential political consensus needed to effectively govern. And how real progress was only possible through compromise. Professor Dionne argues that the currently unsustainable dysfunctional American government is a product of very distinct recent events and quasi-populist movements.
The author highlights the very important and highly controversial U.S. Supreme Court decisions of Bush v Gore, where right wing jurists in theory selected a right leaning president. And more recently the Citizens United decision which initiated a torrent of unlimited corporate monies to influence elections (and subsequently their pro-corporate outcomes) This coupled with the rise of quasi-populism in the form of the anti-government Tea Party, vs. anti corporate Occupy Wall Street movements have acted as catalysts for undermining federal credibility and polarizing attitudes along the lines of either extreme individualism or commutarianism.
In conclusion, author Dionne asserts that the re-election of President Barrack Obama may have signaled a sea change in American politics. By maintaining a steady hand on the pursuit of a working consensus, Obama has made in roads in the echo chamber of extremist individualist sentiment, where all government is bad and only unbridled private individual effort will revive America.
For those of us who self describe as “political junkies”, this book is a clear look into how we’ve arrived at the current national political status quo. For those without a penchant to explore the underlying depths of the core origins of our political conflicts, this book will be as rewarding as it is eye opening. Just stay close to the Google.
October 2, 2017
I loved the author's perspective that we all need to be able to communicate across the political spectrum. Both in being able to see the positives and negatives on the side we agree with and the other side as well. Some great ideas.
September 4, 2012
This book contains valuable (and copious) information on the political history of the United States. I also appreciated (and more or less agreed with) the author's main points--it's astute to make individualism/communitarianism the crucial axis of the current and ongoing debate to define what this country has been in the past and what it hopes to be in the future. The only reason this book received a mediocre rating was that it was repetitive, and its brute force approach to proving a point through information overload was suffocating for large chunks of the text. It seemed to me, initially, that the book was intended for a lay audience, but I quickly realized that it is actually better suited for an academic conversation; how many -isms can an average person take?? I see it as a relatively concise book of references indexed by key debates in U.S. political science.
Still, I found the book useful in elucidating several historical events. The author was at his best when explaining the ideology and origin of the Tea Party movement, especially with respect to the right's dissatisfaction with Bush 43's "compassionate conservatism." I also was convinced by the connection drawn between Bush 43's philosophy and Clinton's communitarianism. It was less interesting when the author delved into the gritty details of 1800s politics. Further, I wish he had problematized the term "community" a bit more--it's romantic to say that the Founders were duly invested in community, but one has to acknowledge that most of the population was excluded from the "community." That might explain why Tea Partiers can be individualistic AND communitarian. People might feel that they are their brother's keepers, but the altruism of that sentiment depends on how they define "brother."
Overall, the author's thesis is that history matters, and that it matters that we get the facts right. However, unless voters hold their representatives accountable to those facts, why would politicians bother with a truthful account of U.S. history?
Still, I found the book useful in elucidating several historical events. The author was at his best when explaining the ideology and origin of the Tea Party movement, especially with respect to the right's dissatisfaction with Bush 43's "compassionate conservatism." I also was convinced by the connection drawn between Bush 43's philosophy and Clinton's communitarianism. It was less interesting when the author delved into the gritty details of 1800s politics. Further, I wish he had problematized the term "community" a bit more--it's romantic to say that the Founders were duly invested in community, but one has to acknowledge that most of the population was excluded from the "community." That might explain why Tea Partiers can be individualistic AND communitarian. People might feel that they are their brother's keepers, but the altruism of that sentiment depends on how they define "brother."
Overall, the author's thesis is that history matters, and that it matters that we get the facts right. However, unless voters hold their representatives accountable to those facts, why would politicians bother with a truthful account of U.S. history?
January 21, 2015
Left vs. right, Libtards, Repukeians, right winger, far left, Tea Party, Occupy Wall Streeters, 1%, the other 99%, the party of NO, on and on every day we hear and see our citizens fighting with, yelling at and insulting each other.
Dionne discusses it all in this book along with the need to recognize we need individualism within community. Government needs to provide the means for individuals to flourish in society. It can safeguard our rights to assemble, speak, worship and vote as each individual pleases.
Our founding fathers were apparently not the cohesive unit we view them as but also argued bitterly at times, the difference being they eventually saw a need for both sides to coexist. We need individual freedoms but we also have a responsibility to our community not only local but national. He covers American history from the Founding Fathers to Clay and Lincoln, Populism, Teddy and FDR, the Progressives, New Dealers and relates it to how our present day government can both ensure individual liberty and property rights while also aiding community by supplying what is needed to thrive such as economic stability, transportation, health, safety, a military and whatever individuals can't do on their own or with small local groups.
While the book is not heavy on offering solutions about how to end the bitterness and get the two sides to function as one unit, it's probably a matter of will, tolerance and compromise with the last being anathema to many of today's politicians. Good read, I also recommend One Electorate under God?: A Dialogue on Religion and American Politics which I probably enjoyed more.
Dionne discusses it all in this book along with the need to recognize we need individualism within community. Government needs to provide the means for individuals to flourish in society. It can safeguard our rights to assemble, speak, worship and vote as each individual pleases.
Our founding fathers were apparently not the cohesive unit we view them as but also argued bitterly at times, the difference being they eventually saw a need for both sides to coexist. We need individual freedoms but we also have a responsibility to our community not only local but national. He covers American history from the Founding Fathers to Clay and Lincoln, Populism, Teddy and FDR, the Progressives, New Dealers and relates it to how our present day government can both ensure individual liberty and property rights while also aiding community by supplying what is needed to thrive such as economic stability, transportation, health, safety, a military and whatever individuals can't do on their own or with small local groups.
While the book is not heavy on offering solutions about how to end the bitterness and get the two sides to function as one unit, it's probably a matter of will, tolerance and compromise with the last being anathema to many of today's politicians. Good read, I also recommend One Electorate under God?: A Dialogue on Religion and American Politics which I probably enjoyed more.
August 2, 2012
I only understood about 60% of this book. It was super hard with long, complex sentences and lots of history I didn't really learn. Books by professors... Anyway it does explain that the root of our dilemma partially rests with Glen Beck and his incorrect portrayal of American history -- easy to read and sensational. Dionne also points a finger at the Tea Party's inaccurate understanding of the philosophy of our founding fathers and the framers of the Constitution. The Tea Party's philosophy of a hands off government hearkens back to the Gilded Age, and not to the ideals of the framers of the Constitution who were looking to create a strong central government. Dionne talks about a baffling current form of populism that defends the elite. He also says that conservatives currently support radical individualism (as was popular during the Gilded Age) and not individualism balanced by communitarianism as our founding fathers did. Dionne points out that some periods of radical individualism were followed by financial instability and then a turning to communitarianism as the economy strengthened.
August 28, 2012
I picked this up expecting a liberal polemic. An intelligent one to be sure, coming from E.J. Dionne, but I was very pleasantly surprised to find so much more than a polemic. Mr. Dionne argues that we Americans must reclaim our very history. And he does so with great scholarship, surveying the work of some of our greatest historians, all the way from the Revolution to the present day. Dionne's main point is that the two aspects of our national character, individualism and communitarianism, are out of balance, and that this is the source of our current political impasse. That balance has been pulled too far towards individualism by the political right. Dionne explains how the right has strayed from its historical commitment to community, and argues cogently that they must rediscover it if we are to break the impasse.
Very readable, stimulating, thought-provoking, and passionate. Well done, E.J.
Very readable, stimulating, thought-provoking, and passionate. Well done, E.J.
January 10, 2013
EJ Dionne pulls off the toughest trick of writing an intellectual history; he manages to succinctly summarize the arguments and ideas of others while never losing his own generous, distinctive voice. He argues convincingly that America is a country of both individualistic and communitarian beliefs, and that “at a moment of so much…angry political polarization...restoring balance between our two sides may be the most radical option to offer”. He fleshes out this argument with compelling looks at both Democratic populism and small r republicanism, calling convincingly for a revival of both. He also spends a solid amount of time discounting the radical individualism of the Tea Party. His takedown of constitutional originalism is classic Dionne, rhetorically polite yet logically ruthless. He falters only in the final chapters, when he attempts to translate his philosophy into pragmatic action, and offers only a few paltry, oversimplified proposals.
September 9, 2012
EJ is terrific.
His argument here is that there's always been a tension, or a balancing act, between two competing values in our history. Individual liberty and community. We've always valued allowing people as much freedom as possible, and we've always done things together that we can't do alone. The Tea Party right now, and conservatives over the last 30 years or so, have lost track of the second element. They've focused selectively on the parts of our history that support their view (as we all do to some extent), but the fact is, the two threads have been there and been dancing since the beginning.
His argument here is that there's always been a tension, or a balancing act, between two competing values in our history. Individual liberty and community. We've always valued allowing people as much freedom as possible, and we've always done things together that we can't do alone. The Tea Party right now, and conservatives over the last 30 years or so, have lost track of the second element. They've focused selectively on the parts of our history that support their view (as we all do to some extent), but the fact is, the two threads have been there and been dancing since the beginning.
Read
June 18, 2013'Dionne is correct on two main points: a major element of the Republican Party today is dominated by individualistic tendencies, and government can indeed do good things to assist people, especially against the depredations of global capitalism.
But this book is keenly disappointing as anything more than a campaign handbook. Dionne willfully refuses to extend his analysis to consider more comprehensively the pathologies of American political life, particularly the complicity of his partisan friends.'
Read the full review, "Community or Leviathan," on our website:
http://www.theamericanconservative.co...
But this book is keenly disappointing as anything more than a campaign handbook. Dionne willfully refuses to extend his analysis to consider more comprehensively the pathologies of American political life, particularly the complicity of his partisan friends.'
Read the full review, "Community or Leviathan," on our website:
http://www.theamericanconservative.co...
August 11, 2012
Sad commentary on the political state of affairs we are in and will likely be in for a very long time. Dionne rightly (in my opinion) identifies the culprits responsible for the polarization, but also writes a strong backdrop of how we got here and tries to set right the distortions of the hijackers of our historical memory.
I do not think we will see consensus in our lifetimes. This reinforces that fear.
I do not think we will see consensus in our lifetimes. This reinforces that fear.
August 25, 2012
This is a thoughtful and well-articulated explanation of how the Republican Party has morphed from the party of emancipation to the Tea Party and how that transformation has divided our country's heart. E.J. Dionne exposes the cynicism of the takeover of the Republican party by individualists, evangelicals, and birthers. As well, he shows how Liberals and Democrats were unprepared. An excellent read, especially if you're a history geek like I am.
Want to read
May 15, 2012Interested in this because it is praised as a truly bipartisan look at the deep political divisions in this country and a plea for a return to what the author calls the "Long Concensus," a period that covers most of the 20th Century in which Americans balanced two core values--love of individualism and love of community.
June 7, 2012
I liked the premise of this book and the historical thread that supports it. I tend to agree with most of the author's ideas. However, I found the book difficult to get into. It seemed to slow for me and I am not sure why. It is useful material, but I would have found it to be just as useful if I had skimmed it.
March 2, 2016
Individual v. Community. I do wish he would write a whole book about the Tea Party and how they get history wrong. That was the main thing I took away from this book. I'm an advanced reader and had issues soaking up the words off the page. I plan on tackling this book again here soon and I still recommend it. Dionne has always been a favorite of mine.
July 16, 2014
Dionne exploration of how American's disagree politically is fascinating. He focuses on how different interpretations of history impact the story of America today. He elegantly argues against the Tea Party and deconstructs their created history of the U.S.
A really great read for political and history buffs!
A really great read for political and history buffs!
Want to read
June 17, 2012Powerfull concept. Using the first word in the US Constituion "We" and how today the US political culture has brutally diminished this defining chacteristic of what made the country such a powerful force for freedon, social and economic progress globally. I look forward to reading it.
December 8, 2012
Interesting take on the importance of traditional American individualism vs the need for a stronger sense of sacrifice for the community and society as a whole. Written from the perspective of a progressive.
October 20, 2012
The difference between E.J.Dionne and myself is that when explaining our divided political heart, he is extremely intelligent while I am a basket case. This book went a long way to help me put things in perspective.
October 23, 2012
This is a book about the history of politics in the US. It's a bit detailed but parts of it were really fascinating especially in this election year. It was a slog at times, but I'm glad I read it and besides I really like EJ Dionne.
November 13, 2012
Dionne comes to this book with a wealth of impressive credentials. A really well done look at our political history and it's relevance to our current 'divided political heart'. Based on the recent election, some people must have been reading this. Excellent.
August 14, 2016
A doggedly rigorous critique of our pliant political leanings which meanders through a slew of tepid anecdotes. It struggles to hold the casual reader's interest and blessedly closes with a succinct appeal to embracing the community spirit.
August 26, 2012
I learned a lot from the book, but found some parts hard to get through.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 72 reviews