What do you think?
Rate this book
The American Political Tradition and the Men Who Made it
A revised edition of the clasic study of American politics from the Founding Fathers to FDR.
From the Trade Paperback edition.
From the Trade Paperback edition.
507 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1948
150 people are currently reading
3333 people want to read
About the author
Richard Hofstadter
79 books294 followersRichard Hofstadter was an American public intellectual, historian and DeWitt Clinton Professor of American History at Columbia University. In the course of his career, Hofstadter became the “iconic historian of postwar liberal consensus” whom twenty-first century scholars continue consulting, because his intellectually engaging books and essays continue to illuminate contemporary history.
His most important works are Social Darwinism in American Thought, 1860–1915 (1944); The American Political Tradition (1948); The Age of Reform (1955); Anti-intellectualism in American Life (1963), and the essays collected in The Paranoid Style in American Politics (1964). He was twice awarded the Pulitzer Prize: in 1956 for The Age of Reform, an unsentimental analysis of the populism movement in the 1890s and the progressive movement of the early 20th century; and in 1964 for the cultural history, Anti-intellectualism in American Life.
Richard Hofstadter was born in Buffalo, New York, in 1916 to a German American Lutheran mother and a Polish Jewish father, who died when he was ten. He attended the City Honors School, then studied philosophy and history at the State University of New York at Buffalo in 1933, under the diplomatic historian Julius Pratt. As he matured, he culturally identified himself primarily as a Jew, rather than as a Protestant Christian, a stance that eventually may have cost him professorships at Johns Hopkins University and the University of California, Berkeley, because of the institutional antisemitism of the 1940s.
As a man of his time, Richard Hofstadter was a Communist, and a member of the Young Communist League at university, and later progressed to Communist Party membership. In 1936, he entered the doctoral program in history at Columbia University, where Merle Curti was demonstrating how to synthesize intellectual, social, and political history based upon secondary sources rather than primary-source archival research. In 1938, he joined the Communist Party of the USA, yet realistically qualified his action: “I join without enthusiasm, but with a sense of obligation.... My fundamental reason for joining is that I don’t like capitalism and want to get rid of it. I am tired of talking.... The party is making a very profound contribution to the radicalization of the American people.... I prefer to go along with it now.” In late 1939, he ended the Communist stage of his life, because of the Soviet–Nazi alliance. He remained anti-capitalist: “I hate capitalism and everything that goes with it.”
In 1942, he earned his doctorate in history and in 1944 published his dissertation Social Darwinism in American Thought, 1860–1915, a pithy and commercially successful (200,000 copies) critique of late 19th century American capitalism and those who espoused its ruthless “dog-eat-dog” economic competition and justified themselves by invoking the doctrine of as Social Darwinism, identified with William Graham Sumner. Conservative critics, such as Irwin G. Wylie and Robert C. Bannister, however, disagree with this interpretation.
His most important works are Social Darwinism in American Thought, 1860–1915 (1944); The American Political Tradition (1948); The Age of Reform (1955); Anti-intellectualism in American Life (1963), and the essays collected in The Paranoid Style in American Politics (1964). He was twice awarded the Pulitzer Prize: in 1956 for The Age of Reform, an unsentimental analysis of the populism movement in the 1890s and the progressive movement of the early 20th century; and in 1964 for the cultural history, Anti-intellectualism in American Life.
Richard Hofstadter was born in Buffalo, New York, in 1916 to a German American Lutheran mother and a Polish Jewish father, who died when he was ten. He attended the City Honors School, then studied philosophy and history at the State University of New York at Buffalo in 1933, under the diplomatic historian Julius Pratt. As he matured, he culturally identified himself primarily as a Jew, rather than as a Protestant Christian, a stance that eventually may have cost him professorships at Johns Hopkins University and the University of California, Berkeley, because of the institutional antisemitism of the 1940s.
As a man of his time, Richard Hofstadter was a Communist, and a member of the Young Communist League at university, and later progressed to Communist Party membership. In 1936, he entered the doctoral program in history at Columbia University, where Merle Curti was demonstrating how to synthesize intellectual, social, and political history based upon secondary sources rather than primary-source archival research. In 1938, he joined the Communist Party of the USA, yet realistically qualified his action: “I join without enthusiasm, but with a sense of obligation.... My fundamental reason for joining is that I don’t like capitalism and want to get rid of it. I am tired of talking.... The party is making a very profound contribution to the radicalization of the American people.... I prefer to go along with it now.” In late 1939, he ended the Communist stage of his life, because of the Soviet–Nazi alliance. He remained anti-capitalist: “I hate capitalism and everything that goes with it.”
In 1942, he earned his doctorate in history and in 1944 published his dissertation Social Darwinism in American Thought, 1860–1915, a pithy and commercially successful (200,000 copies) critique of late 19th century American capitalism and those who espoused its ruthless “dog-eat-dog” economic competition and justified themselves by invoking the doctrine of as Social Darwinism, identified with William Graham Sumner. Conservative critics, such as Irwin G. Wylie and Robert C. Bannister, however, disagree with this interpretation.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 109 reviews
April 8, 2011
The title of this book is a touch misleading - what Hofstadter actually put together was twelve essays on American politicians - all but one of whom held office - who were present during various instrumental periods in American history, and endeavored to leap astride the coursers of public and political momentum and seek to direct the unruly and unpredictable beasts back towards the beaten path. Completed in 1947 when the author was but thirty - it's a young man's book he acknowledges in the preface - the essays were penned in reaction to Hofstadter's frustration with the Progressive historians of the preceding generations, and their combined tendency to both transpose current partisan ideologies into their interpretations of former American leaders and to view all previous problems and shifts through the prism of class warfare. Hofstadter himself had come to the conclusion that the dominant theme in American federal politics - from Washington to FDR and no matter the party in power - was a cautious and steadying process of ensuring the primacy of private property through compromises centred around the United States's unique incarnation of Lockean-tinged republican capitalism. (That Hofstadter's analysis was the correct one is borne out by the actions of the Obama administration: despite the shrill cries of Socialist! and Communist! that peal forth from the throbbing cynosure of demagoguery, the Democratic Chief Executive has strayed little from that consistently straight path of propping up, and solidifying, the structures of wealth that dominate the country.) So powerfully, astutely, and brilliantly did Hofstadter make his case that within years his analyses became the Consensus of his generation of historians, though before a decade had passed from the publication of The American Political Tradition the author himself was questioning his comfort with some of this Consensus erected upon his mid-century views.
Hofstadter would be one of my favorite American historians if only by virtue of his wonderful literary ability: combine such graceful writing with his astute, witty, probing, and occasionally caustic elucidations, and he definitely occupies the uppermost tier. As a Canadian, I consider myself reasonably well-read in the history of my beloved-but-enigmatic cousins to the south; yet Hofstadter's ofttimes counterintuitive takes on great personalities and events always opens me to a new appreciation, even of familiar tropes. In especial, he presents superb essays upon some of the littler known political figures from both the nineteenth century - John C. Calhoun, Wendell Phillips, James G. Blaine, and William Jennings Bryan - and the twentieth in Herbert Hoover. Surrounding these lesser lights are excellent insights into their more famous brethren - Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Wilson, and the Two Roosevelts. Aware of their subject's faults, alert to their apocryphal burnishing, and yet commiserative to the immense difficulties and contradictions they were forced to attend to - from foundational struggles to the Second World War - each essay moves swiftly and sagely through personal histories and the political winds that buffeted each man from their own unique genesis in popular thought.
On Calhoun:
The great human, emotional, moral complexities of the world escaped him because he had no private training for them, had not even the talent for friendship, in which he might have been schooled. It was easier for him to imagine, for example, that the South had produced upon its slave base a better culture than the North because he had no culture himself, only a quick and muscular mode of thought. It may stand as a token of Calhoun's place in the South's history that when he did find culture there, at Charleston, he wished a plague on it.
On Blaine:
Yet he left behind him not a single constructive achievement, hardly even a constructive suggestion; his chief contribution to American politics was to lower its tone. Roscoe Conkling, when asked to campaign (for Blaine) in 1884 snarled, out of his morbid hatred: "No thank you, I don't engage in criminal practice".
On Bryan:
Bryan in power was like Bryan out of power: he made the same well-meant gestures, showed the same willingness under stress or confusion to drop ideas he had once been committed to, the same inability to see things through...He had great hope for the treaties (he was promoting), they would help materially to dissipate the danger of war. "I believe there will be no war while I am Secretary of State," he declared fervently in 1913, "and I believe there will be no war so long as I live."
Comparing Wilson with Theodore Roosevelt:
The difference between them, in their conservative and progressive phases alike, is the difference between fervor and hysteria. Wilson's early conservatism was based upon a deliberate and reasoned philosophy of politics and social change. By comparison Roosevelt's brand of politics, with its shrill impatience and its suppressed tendency toward violence, seems like a nervous tic. The early Wilson made room in his philosophy for change, for reform, as an organic principle, and his ultimate conversion is no more drastic than a change in emphasis. Roosevelt, despite his oft-expressed desire for political purification, had no principle of change rooted in his philosophy, and his switch to progressivism seems not so much a change of views as a violent change in language prompted by the call of ambition. In Roosevelt there appears to be no real movement of the mind because the mind has hardly ever come into focus.
And this smoky elegance for the magnificent Lincoln:
As the months passed, a deathly weariness settled over him. Once, when Noah Brooks suggested that he rest, he replied "I suppose it is good for the body. But the tired part of me is inside and out of reach." There had always been a part of him, inside and out of reach, that had looked upon his ambition with detachment and wondered if the game was worth the candle. Now he could see the truth of what he had long dimly known and perhaps hopefully suppressed - that for a man of sensitivity and compassion to exercise great powers in a time of crisis is a grim and agonizing thing. Instead of glory, he once said, he had found only "ashes and blood." This was, for him, the end product of that success myth by which he had lived and for which he had been so persuasive a spokesman. He had had his ambitions and fulfilled them, and met heartache in his triumph.
The book is informative and a delight to read - like everything I have come across so far by Hofstadter, it is enthusiastically recommended.
Hofstadter would be one of my favorite American historians if only by virtue of his wonderful literary ability: combine such graceful writing with his astute, witty, probing, and occasionally caustic elucidations, and he definitely occupies the uppermost tier. As a Canadian, I consider myself reasonably well-read in the history of my beloved-but-enigmatic cousins to the south; yet Hofstadter's ofttimes counterintuitive takes on great personalities and events always opens me to a new appreciation, even of familiar tropes. In especial, he presents superb essays upon some of the littler known political figures from both the nineteenth century - John C. Calhoun, Wendell Phillips, James G. Blaine, and William Jennings Bryan - and the twentieth in Herbert Hoover. Surrounding these lesser lights are excellent insights into their more famous brethren - Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Wilson, and the Two Roosevelts. Aware of their subject's faults, alert to their apocryphal burnishing, and yet commiserative to the immense difficulties and contradictions they were forced to attend to - from foundational struggles to the Second World War - each essay moves swiftly and sagely through personal histories and the political winds that buffeted each man from their own unique genesis in popular thought.
On Calhoun:
The great human, emotional, moral complexities of the world escaped him because he had no private training for them, had not even the talent for friendship, in which he might have been schooled. It was easier for him to imagine, for example, that the South had produced upon its slave base a better culture than the North because he had no culture himself, only a quick and muscular mode of thought. It may stand as a token of Calhoun's place in the South's history that when he did find culture there, at Charleston, he wished a plague on it.
On Blaine:
Yet he left behind him not a single constructive achievement, hardly even a constructive suggestion; his chief contribution to American politics was to lower its tone. Roscoe Conkling, when asked to campaign (for Blaine) in 1884 snarled, out of his morbid hatred: "No thank you, I don't engage in criminal practice".
On Bryan:
Bryan in power was like Bryan out of power: he made the same well-meant gestures, showed the same willingness under stress or confusion to drop ideas he had once been committed to, the same inability to see things through...He had great hope for the treaties (he was promoting), they would help materially to dissipate the danger of war. "I believe there will be no war while I am Secretary of State," he declared fervently in 1913, "and I believe there will be no war so long as I live."
Comparing Wilson with Theodore Roosevelt:
The difference between them, in their conservative and progressive phases alike, is the difference between fervor and hysteria. Wilson's early conservatism was based upon a deliberate and reasoned philosophy of politics and social change. By comparison Roosevelt's brand of politics, with its shrill impatience and its suppressed tendency toward violence, seems like a nervous tic. The early Wilson made room in his philosophy for change, for reform, as an organic principle, and his ultimate conversion is no more drastic than a change in emphasis. Roosevelt, despite his oft-expressed desire for political purification, had no principle of change rooted in his philosophy, and his switch to progressivism seems not so much a change of views as a violent change in language prompted by the call of ambition. In Roosevelt there appears to be no real movement of the mind because the mind has hardly ever come into focus.
And this smoky elegance for the magnificent Lincoln:
As the months passed, a deathly weariness settled over him. Once, when Noah Brooks suggested that he rest, he replied "I suppose it is good for the body. But the tired part of me is inside and out of reach." There had always been a part of him, inside and out of reach, that had looked upon his ambition with detachment and wondered if the game was worth the candle. Now he could see the truth of what he had long dimly known and perhaps hopefully suppressed - that for a man of sensitivity and compassion to exercise great powers in a time of crisis is a grim and agonizing thing. Instead of glory, he once said, he had found only "ashes and blood." This was, for him, the end product of that success myth by which he had lived and for which he had been so persuasive a spokesman. He had had his ambitions and fulfilled them, and met heartache in his triumph.
The book is informative and a delight to read - like everything I have come across so far by Hofstadter, it is enthusiastically recommended.
June 24, 2010
Strangely, Hofstadter wasn't particularly proud of this book; he considered it a young man's work, not the work of a serious scholar. But because of this fact, it is his most accessible work to the educated, non-specialist public. It is probably his most-read book, and it repays reading with wit, humor, and not a small amount of trenchant criticism and original thought.
Hofstadter was writing during the era of consensus history—when the modern consensus on American history had coalesced around a moderate liberal tradition into a picture that most serious scholars agreed on. Hofstadter himself was a focal point of this tradition. What he did was to analyze the ideologies—implicit or not—of a series of American leaders. What he found was that although they took very different stances on many issues, all considered free-market democracy as the key to American politics. Whatever Americans might disagree on, they agree on this as the best way of achieving human fulfillment for the most of us.
Hofstadter, however, was not a free-marketer in the mold of Milton Friedman or Robert Nozick. For one thing, he was openly sarcastic about the monied interests, which have frequently subverted the American system in the past (and might be right now; only time will tell). He also clearly does not mind a certain amount of government intervention in the economy, etc. In short, he is not doctrinaire.
Later in his career, Hofstadter was to repent somewhat of his early views. His critique of social darwinism and the paranoid voice in American politics was at odds with the conclusions the consensus school later drew, in part from The American Political Tradition. Although The American Political Tradition is an important book for the educated adult American to have read, for its historical information and analysis, much of which remains current or at least constitutes foundational background for current academic and political conversation in the United States. However, it is not sufficient for the person trying to get a complete picture of the historian Richard Hofstadter.
Hofstadter was writing during the era of consensus history—when the modern consensus on American history had coalesced around a moderate liberal tradition into a picture that most serious scholars agreed on. Hofstadter himself was a focal point of this tradition. What he did was to analyze the ideologies—implicit or not—of a series of American leaders. What he found was that although they took very different stances on many issues, all considered free-market democracy as the key to American politics. Whatever Americans might disagree on, they agree on this as the best way of achieving human fulfillment for the most of us.
Hofstadter, however, was not a free-marketer in the mold of Milton Friedman or Robert Nozick. For one thing, he was openly sarcastic about the monied interests, which have frequently subverted the American system in the past (and might be right now; only time will tell). He also clearly does not mind a certain amount of government intervention in the economy, etc. In short, he is not doctrinaire.
Later in his career, Hofstadter was to repent somewhat of his early views. His critique of social darwinism and the paranoid voice in American politics was at odds with the conclusions the consensus school later drew, in part from The American Political Tradition. Although The American Political Tradition is an important book for the educated adult American to have read, for its historical information and analysis, much of which remains current or at least constitutes foundational background for current academic and political conversation in the United States. However, it is not sufficient for the person trying to get a complete picture of the historian Richard Hofstadter.
July 16, 2012
Hofstadter writes very well and makes big claims, which is a pleasant change from a lot of contemporary history. The book's general thesis - that the American Political Tradition is by and large an ongoing defense of the property rights of the well-off - seems correct. The book itself lags a bit. It's odd but understandable that the worst chapters are about people who are just transparently evil and or idiots; he's at his best as a debunker (i.e., Andrew Jackson was no champion of the oppressed) and obviously doesn't much care to take yet another swipe at the Grant presidency.
The most entertaining part of this book, though, is hearing from my historian friend that Hofstadter is regarded as an arch-conservative. I know he changed some later on in his career, but this book would be considered an unpublishable incitement to class war these days. Meanwhile the self-professed radical professors and graduate students are writing about the Disabled Phillipino-American Bisexual Communities of Northern Montana from 1863-1864. Sometimes you just have to throw yourselves on the gears of power, right?
The most entertaining part of this book, though, is hearing from my historian friend that Hofstadter is regarded as an arch-conservative. I know he changed some later on in his career, but this book would be considered an unpublishable incitement to class war these days. Meanwhile the self-professed radical professors and graduate students are writing about the Disabled Phillipino-American Bisexual Communities of Northern Montana from 1863-1864. Sometimes you just have to throw yourselves on the gears of power, right?
February 4, 2022
This progressive contrarian take on major American political figures is both serious and fun. Published in 1948, Richard Hofstadter himself called it “a young man’s book”. I think that this is because he took many of the historical myths of the left in that era and turned them upside down. He is an excellent writer and, on some occasions, offers succinct summaries of events and people that are far superior to what I’ve read in books dedicated to those subjects. There are conclusions with which I disagree, but his analysis is serious, educated, and sincere.
The forward, preface, and introduction, to the book are as interesting as anything in the book itself. There is a great description of how Charles Beard and the progressive historians elevated class economics as the focus of historical analysis. This was the first book he published, but Hofstadter himself eventually would inspire what would be known as “consensus history” which shifted analytical focus away from conflict and towards consensus. I’m not doing justice to the excellent little primer on early 20th century historiography, but it has inspired me to learn more about trends among professional historians.
Each chapter addresses a certain person or group in part biographically and in part by their contribution to American political thought.
1. The Founding Fathers – Hofstadter argues convincingly that, rather than being starry-eyed progressive idealists, the Founding Fathers as a group were conservative realists that were very cynical about human nature. He also points out that they didn’t view democracy and liberty as reinforcing one another but were often in conflict. According to Hofstadter, their conception of liberty was essentially property (which I think he oversimplifies for sake of argument) and “[d]emocracy, unchecked rule by the masses, is sure to bring arbitrary redistribution of property, destroying the very essence of liberty”.
2. Thomas Jefferson – Written in a time when almost every political group still claimed to be the true intellectual successors of Thomas Jefferson, this chapter persuasively challenges the legend of Jefferson as an ideologically pure, if occasionally impractical, statesman. The modern take on Jefferson seems to be that he was a well-intentioned hypocrite who was also impractical. I think Hofstadter has an excellent point that although Jefferson did have very profound philosophical convictions, it was pragmatism and not hypocrisy that permitted him to act in contradiction to those beliefs.
3. Andrew Jackson – Although this chapter deals much with Jackson, I think its major arguments are more about the Jacksonian movement broadly than just the man himself. For example, Hofstadter correctly points out that Jackson’s sweeping electoral victory in 1828 was more the result of than a catalyst for the rise of popular democracy. For Hofstadter, the major theme of the Jacksonian movement was a leveling of economic and political privileges to men of all classes.
4. John C. Calhoun – This is one of the most interesting and well-argued chapters in the book. In it, Hofstadter shows how John C. Calhoun, in defending slavery, adopted essentially an upside-down Marxist position. Calhoun equated slavery in the South with laborers in the North, and like Marx, believed that subjugation of some laboring class by the elite was a universal condition. His arguments likening the two were actually used by some Northern labor leaders to inspire support for reforms. However, rather than encouraging the laboring class to rise against the elite, Calhoun is using this argument to solicit a partnership with Northern elites to help keep both laboring classes subjugated. If there is ever a comedy show for complete history nerds, this would be the perfect candidate for a sketch. Interestingly, in this chapter is also a very sympathetic but still critical biographical examination about Calhoun and how his mind worked.
5. Abraham Lincoln – This chapter has some of the most succinct explanations about Lincoln’s strategy prior to and during the Civil War that I’ve read anywhere. Hofstadter here is doing a lot of myth-busting about Lincoln but makes some very fascinating observations about American political thought generally. For example, he points out the contraction between America’s aversion to men with political ambitions and its veneration of “self-made men”, as if the latter could possibly succeed without a great deal of ambition.
6. Wendel Phillips – When I began this chapter, I barely remembered who Wendel Phillips was, but to me it is easily the most thought-provoking in the book. Phillips was a political gadfly in the mid to late 19th century and Hofstadter uses this chapter to rehabilitate not only the historical judgement on Phillips, but on political agitators in general. “The work of an agitator . . . consists chiefly in talk; his function is not to make laws or determine policy, but to influence the public mind in the interest of some large social transformation.” Hofstadter observes that their myths and exaggerations are treated differently by historians than the myths and exaggerations of politicians running for election. The latter is seen as a necessity for a higher objective, but the former is disregarded as having any utility at all. Agitators, even though they are often full of it, do serve a useful purpose in motivating voters on issues that otherwise might not directly affect them. Case in point: slavery. Hofstadter doesn’t assign abolitionist agitators more credit than they are due, but he persuasively argues that they, and agitators generally, are due more credit than they are given. It’s a very counter-intuitive argument to read in 2022.
7. The Spoilsmen – In this chapter, Hofstadter’s contrarianism continues to run wild as he moderates the progressive demonization of the late 19th century spoilsmen by treating them with sobriety and sympathy. It is the kind of exercise I wish people would regularly perform on their political ideology. For example, as a member of the political party that advocates the originalist school of judicial interpretation, I need to read about the state ratifying conventions and explore whether there really was consensus over the original meaning of the Constitution (if you already know, don’t spoil it for me).
8. William Jennings Bryan – I get the impression that Bryan was revered by the Left in Hofstadter’s age because he gently thrashes him in this chapter.
9. Theodore Roosevelt – Same as above, but less gentle.
10. Woodrow Wilson – Hofstadter clearly has the most sympathy for Wilson of all his subjects, which is interesting to me because I personally loathe Woodrow Wilson above almost all other presidents. The impression I get is that Hofstadter is someone who values clear and deliberate political thinking, and Wilson was a massive academic egghead who wrote articulate and rational statements of political philosophy that were almost completely useless in the real world. Nevertheless, it was educational and its always beneficial to challenge one’s prejudices. I still loathe Woodrow Wilson though. He’s a turd’s turd.
11. Herbert Hoover – Hofstadter continues to show grace and sympathy to those it was popular and easy to demonize at the time the book was written. Actually, it’s still popular to crap on poor Herbert Hoover. In this chapter, Hofstadter makes the argument that Hoover’s biggest weakness was an inability to challenge his assumptions about the world and how it worked. Hoover was a true self-made man, elevating himself from miner to millionaire while earning a reputation as one of the most capable administrators in the world. He was so successful at everything he had ever done that it became impossible for him to doubt his underlying assumptions when suddenly they no longer worked. This is an important lesson for leaders, and it’s why I am now glad that my career has been so replete with failures.
12. Franklin Delano Roosevelt – This book was written in the shadow of FDR and was published only a few years after his death, so the amount of objectivity and historical insight that Hofstadter manages is truly astonishing. Hofstadter rejects the myth of FDR as a progressive and paints him instead as primarily just a flexible experimenter in novel applications of government power. FDR wasn’t trying to revolutionize the United States, he was simply willing to try new things to get the economy back on track. Hofstadter’s criticism of the New Deal seems far more accurate and serious than most of what is written about it currently.
The forward, preface, and introduction, to the book are as interesting as anything in the book itself. There is a great description of how Charles Beard and the progressive historians elevated class economics as the focus of historical analysis. This was the first book he published, but Hofstadter himself eventually would inspire what would be known as “consensus history” which shifted analytical focus away from conflict and towards consensus. I’m not doing justice to the excellent little primer on early 20th century historiography, but it has inspired me to learn more about trends among professional historians.
Each chapter addresses a certain person or group in part biographically and in part by their contribution to American political thought.
1. The Founding Fathers – Hofstadter argues convincingly that, rather than being starry-eyed progressive idealists, the Founding Fathers as a group were conservative realists that were very cynical about human nature. He also points out that they didn’t view democracy and liberty as reinforcing one another but were often in conflict. According to Hofstadter, their conception of liberty was essentially property (which I think he oversimplifies for sake of argument) and “[d]emocracy, unchecked rule by the masses, is sure to bring arbitrary redistribution of property, destroying the very essence of liberty”.
2. Thomas Jefferson – Written in a time when almost every political group still claimed to be the true intellectual successors of Thomas Jefferson, this chapter persuasively challenges the legend of Jefferson as an ideologically pure, if occasionally impractical, statesman. The modern take on Jefferson seems to be that he was a well-intentioned hypocrite who was also impractical. I think Hofstadter has an excellent point that although Jefferson did have very profound philosophical convictions, it was pragmatism and not hypocrisy that permitted him to act in contradiction to those beliefs.
3. Andrew Jackson – Although this chapter deals much with Jackson, I think its major arguments are more about the Jacksonian movement broadly than just the man himself. For example, Hofstadter correctly points out that Jackson’s sweeping electoral victory in 1828 was more the result of than a catalyst for the rise of popular democracy. For Hofstadter, the major theme of the Jacksonian movement was a leveling of economic and political privileges to men of all classes.
4. John C. Calhoun – This is one of the most interesting and well-argued chapters in the book. In it, Hofstadter shows how John C. Calhoun, in defending slavery, adopted essentially an upside-down Marxist position. Calhoun equated slavery in the South with laborers in the North, and like Marx, believed that subjugation of some laboring class by the elite was a universal condition. His arguments likening the two were actually used by some Northern labor leaders to inspire support for reforms. However, rather than encouraging the laboring class to rise against the elite, Calhoun is using this argument to solicit a partnership with Northern elites to help keep both laboring classes subjugated. If there is ever a comedy show for complete history nerds, this would be the perfect candidate for a sketch. Interestingly, in this chapter is also a very sympathetic but still critical biographical examination about Calhoun and how his mind worked.
5. Abraham Lincoln – This chapter has some of the most succinct explanations about Lincoln’s strategy prior to and during the Civil War that I’ve read anywhere. Hofstadter here is doing a lot of myth-busting about Lincoln but makes some very fascinating observations about American political thought generally. For example, he points out the contraction between America’s aversion to men with political ambitions and its veneration of “self-made men”, as if the latter could possibly succeed without a great deal of ambition.
6. Wendel Phillips – When I began this chapter, I barely remembered who Wendel Phillips was, but to me it is easily the most thought-provoking in the book. Phillips was a political gadfly in the mid to late 19th century and Hofstadter uses this chapter to rehabilitate not only the historical judgement on Phillips, but on political agitators in general. “The work of an agitator . . . consists chiefly in talk; his function is not to make laws or determine policy, but to influence the public mind in the interest of some large social transformation.” Hofstadter observes that their myths and exaggerations are treated differently by historians than the myths and exaggerations of politicians running for election. The latter is seen as a necessity for a higher objective, but the former is disregarded as having any utility at all. Agitators, even though they are often full of it, do serve a useful purpose in motivating voters on issues that otherwise might not directly affect them. Case in point: slavery. Hofstadter doesn’t assign abolitionist agitators more credit than they are due, but he persuasively argues that they, and agitators generally, are due more credit than they are given. It’s a very counter-intuitive argument to read in 2022.
7. The Spoilsmen – In this chapter, Hofstadter’s contrarianism continues to run wild as he moderates the progressive demonization of the late 19th century spoilsmen by treating them with sobriety and sympathy. It is the kind of exercise I wish people would regularly perform on their political ideology. For example, as a member of the political party that advocates the originalist school of judicial interpretation, I need to read about the state ratifying conventions and explore whether there really was consensus over the original meaning of the Constitution (if you already know, don’t spoil it for me).
8. William Jennings Bryan – I get the impression that Bryan was revered by the Left in Hofstadter’s age because he gently thrashes him in this chapter.
9. Theodore Roosevelt – Same as above, but less gentle.
10. Woodrow Wilson – Hofstadter clearly has the most sympathy for Wilson of all his subjects, which is interesting to me because I personally loathe Woodrow Wilson above almost all other presidents. The impression I get is that Hofstadter is someone who values clear and deliberate political thinking, and Wilson was a massive academic egghead who wrote articulate and rational statements of political philosophy that were almost completely useless in the real world. Nevertheless, it was educational and its always beneficial to challenge one’s prejudices. I still loathe Woodrow Wilson though. He’s a turd’s turd.
11. Herbert Hoover – Hofstadter continues to show grace and sympathy to those it was popular and easy to demonize at the time the book was written. Actually, it’s still popular to crap on poor Herbert Hoover. In this chapter, Hofstadter makes the argument that Hoover’s biggest weakness was an inability to challenge his assumptions about the world and how it worked. Hoover was a true self-made man, elevating himself from miner to millionaire while earning a reputation as one of the most capable administrators in the world. He was so successful at everything he had ever done that it became impossible for him to doubt his underlying assumptions when suddenly they no longer worked. This is an important lesson for leaders, and it’s why I am now glad that my career has been so replete with failures.
12. Franklin Delano Roosevelt – This book was written in the shadow of FDR and was published only a few years after his death, so the amount of objectivity and historical insight that Hofstadter manages is truly astonishing. Hofstadter rejects the myth of FDR as a progressive and paints him instead as primarily just a flexible experimenter in novel applications of government power. FDR wasn’t trying to revolutionize the United States, he was simply willing to try new things to get the economy back on track. Hofstadter’s criticism of the New Deal seems far more accurate and serious than most of what is written about it currently.
May 12, 2010
Richard Hofstadter was an eminent historian, who wrote well on significant issues. My favorite works of his focus on American political thought and the history of American politics.
Some of the chapters reveal the nature of his effort. "The Founding Fathers: An Age of Realism"; "Thomas Jefferson: The Aristocrat as Democrat"; "John C. Calhoun: The Marx of the Master Class"; "Wendell Phillips: The Patrician as Agitator"; "Woodrow Wilson: The Conservative as Liberal"; "Franklin D. Roosevelt: The Patrician as Opportunist."
Hofstadter writes well and is insightful. This book is a nice collection of his essays.
Some of the chapters reveal the nature of his effort. "The Founding Fathers: An Age of Realism"; "Thomas Jefferson: The Aristocrat as Democrat"; "John C. Calhoun: The Marx of the Master Class"; "Wendell Phillips: The Patrician as Agitator"; "Woodrow Wilson: The Conservative as Liberal"; "Franklin D. Roosevelt: The Patrician as Opportunist."
Hofstadter writes well and is insightful. This book is a nice collection of his essays.
December 14, 2023
I really enjoyed reading this book for my course, American Political Thought. I thought the author’s commentary was extremely insightful and ahead of his time. My favorite chapters were definitely Lincoln’s and FDR’s. Highly recommend if you want to learn more “inside” information of why our government is the way it is and about politicians as people.
August 12, 2024
A century and a half of history is shown in this book, all threaded together with similar ideals and ambitions. Hofstadter distills the figures in this work with great talent. By the end of each section, you have at least a good foundation of each man's background, philosophy, and career. I honestly think this is an essential work for someone trying to get into American history. The threads between the Jeffersonians, Jacksonians (though the reformers and FDR), or between Jefferson's ideals (on just what did he mean by all men) through Abe Lincoln and Wendell Phillips. It's just a really consistent work that shows the continuities and changes through America.
It's structured as every chapter is focused on singular men (chapters 1 and 7 excluded) who either made or attempted to make the country's political ancestry. There are the obvious heavy hitters, being presidents who all reshaped their parties and politics in their image. Those being Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Hoover, and FDR. All of these chapters, I think, are done very well, focusing on each man's background and how their political outlook developed through their lives and impacted the nation. Along with the other four chapters, include two which are kind of an ensemble, being on the founding fathers and the spoilsmen. Both cover the wide array of differing opinions skillfully and help bridge a lot of these men together.
The other two chapters focus on two men neglected more in the popular imagination of our history, those being the chapters on John C. Calhoun and Wendell Phillips. Neither one of them ever reached the presidency, and it's a little ironic that I group Calhoun, the intellectual leader of the slave-holding South pre-Civil War, and Phillips, one of the most ardent abolitionists in the country. Both of their chapters are my favorites in the whole work and by far the most interesting. For no other reason, reading this book—reading the extremely articulate justifications for slavery by Calhoun—was fascinating, seeing how he analyzes through a materialist lens, as Hofstadter himself states, much like Marx himself. And then, on the other side, we have Phillips' journey from a garrison goon to his own conception of how to accomplish abolition. Phillips, just as Calhoun does, ultimately through a materialist eye, describes the exact remedy for how best to accomplish abolition and then to ensure the former slaves actually become equal members of this country. Just very interesting chapters on both of them, but the rest of the work is still very good and worth reading. Overall, the verdict is pretty great. 👍
It's structured as every chapter is focused on singular men (chapters 1 and 7 excluded) who either made or attempted to make the country's political ancestry. There are the obvious heavy hitters, being presidents who all reshaped their parties and politics in their image. Those being Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Hoover, and FDR. All of these chapters, I think, are done very well, focusing on each man's background and how their political outlook developed through their lives and impacted the nation. Along with the other four chapters, include two which are kind of an ensemble, being on the founding fathers and the spoilsmen. Both cover the wide array of differing opinions skillfully and help bridge a lot of these men together.
The other two chapters focus on two men neglected more in the popular imagination of our history, those being the chapters on John C. Calhoun and Wendell Phillips. Neither one of them ever reached the presidency, and it's a little ironic that I group Calhoun, the intellectual leader of the slave-holding South pre-Civil War, and Phillips, one of the most ardent abolitionists in the country. Both of their chapters are my favorites in the whole work and by far the most interesting. For no other reason, reading this book—reading the extremely articulate justifications for slavery by Calhoun—was fascinating, seeing how he analyzes through a materialist lens, as Hofstadter himself states, much like Marx himself. And then, on the other side, we have Phillips' journey from a garrison goon to his own conception of how to accomplish abolition. Phillips, just as Calhoun does, ultimately through a materialist eye, describes the exact remedy for how best to accomplish abolition and then to ensure the former slaves actually become equal members of this country. Just very interesting chapters on both of them, but the rest of the work is still very good and worth reading. Overall, the verdict is pretty great. 👍
February 13, 2008
This helped me get aquainted with some of the historical trends and personalities of America. Hofstadter is a little bit more defaming in it than he might otherwise be expected to be. He even makes the point in the afterword that if he had the chance, looking back years later, that he'd want to change something on every page.
Call that scholar's remorse.
But what this book does do is start to dig in to the personalities and poltical stature of some of the bigger and lesser known people out there. I mean, I didn't know a goddamn thing about John C Calhoun until I read it, and now that little sideline is much more familiar to me.
The best thing about it, is that it creates a sense of literacy in a topic that is often shaded over or overplayed.
It's a little bit too dogmatically left, but the insights you get from it outweigh his intended desire to sort of dis everybody he wants to tackle. I think he got quite a bit out of demystifying Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, for example.
Definitely a great way to begin looking at history from a leftist, highly educated, ironic perspective.
April 3, 2013
brilliant historical synthesis and commentary. the title of the book is a bit misleading (as hofstadter himself admits; it was not his original choice); rather than a full synopsis of "the american political tradition", the book is really a series of fascinating, well written, and insightful political biographies of some of the most important americans in history. each chapter could stand alone as an essay, and as a collection they make for one of the better non-fiction books i've read.
December 6, 2024
apush vibes ... miss u waterhouse
January 27, 2019
The American Political Tradition and the Men Who Made It is a chronological compilation of political profiles ranging from the Founders through FDR. Hofstadter examines the larger concepts and contributions that these men offered while describing their political relevance to American institutions. This book is typically presented as an example of the Consensus school of historiography, but I think that the lessons hold up to modern discourse. If anything, it is worth reading to tap into the idea that appealing to different groups and ideologies while often seeking a middle ground is a worthwhile trait of a politician.
February 24, 2024
A classic - both for its linked pen portraits of major political figures and for exemplifying mid 20th century American historiography. (The book and Hofstadter ‘s career are expertly summarized by Christopher Lasch’s introduction; Lasch, btw, was my college advisor at Rochester.) Despite being 75 years old, there’s still a lot of value in Hofstadter s confident appraisal of American politics. Also, the chapter on the gilded age is genuinely funny. 4.75 stars because I think RH is just a little unfair to Lincoln and T Roosevelt, simplifying them with a touch of academic disdain for the complexity of practical politics.
March 17, 2017
This isn't so much a comprehensive summary of the political history of the United States, so much as it is a series of biographical sketches which sets out to demonstrate that despite party differences and sometimes intense personal animosity, all leading political figures in the history of the United States fall within the same 'Political Tradition.' Specifically: the belief that the function of Government should be as the protector of free enterprise, the protector of equality of opportunity, and that this is best achieved through a policy of substantial laissez-faire.
Hofstadter, we quickly surmise, does not share in this belief and therefore The American Political Tradition reads as a breezily sacrilegious broadside against some of the more entrenched platitudes of American history.
The whole book is worthwhile but I particularly enjoyed Hofstadter's dissection of John C. Calhoun - 'The Marx of the Master Class' - and his analysis of the failures of the Wilson presidency is rich with pathos.
Since the book is over a half-century old, it is in every way dated. Still, Hofstadter's writing ripens with age and his ability to interweave dismissive witticisms with lucid insight is a skill only the most talented writers of nonfiction ever perfect. Doubtless, there are more modern books that fulfill the same role as this one, but equally doubtless, they are far less sagacious.
Hofstadter, we quickly surmise, does not share in this belief and therefore The American Political Tradition reads as a breezily sacrilegious broadside against some of the more entrenched platitudes of American history.
The whole book is worthwhile but I particularly enjoyed Hofstadter's dissection of John C. Calhoun - 'The Marx of the Master Class' - and his analysis of the failures of the Wilson presidency is rich with pathos.
Since the book is over a half-century old, it is in every way dated. Still, Hofstadter's writing ripens with age and his ability to interweave dismissive witticisms with lucid insight is a skill only the most talented writers of nonfiction ever perfect. Doubtless, there are more modern books that fulfill the same role as this one, but equally doubtless, they are far less sagacious.
Read
March 24, 2021i did not read like half of this damn book for it to not count on my reading challenge, this book is so dense it reads like the ramblings of an old man from the fourties, because it is. if you like reading about.. i still don't even know what this book is about, history?? men?? men in history?? this is the book for you!! --- oh and the dates in my logs are wildly incorrect but 🤷♀️
February 22, 2025
Written in the late 1940s, this book explores the big ideas and strains of political thought in American history. Hofstadter focuses each chapter on a man who transformed the ideas (or rode the wave of public sentiment) of the nation. Well argued and well-written, it’s also an interesting time capsule of the historiography of post-war American scholarship.
August 27, 2020
Eldist furðuvel. Skemmtilega gagnrýnin á „góðu gæjana“.
May 4, 2025
every chapter follows a basic structure:
(1) X politician is commonly seen in this way
(2) actually, X politician has been misrepresented
(3) X politician was really part of a consensus among American statesmen, who admired Protestant virtues and saw the basis of civil society in the business community
(4) X politician appealed to the public by selectively addressing some of the ills of capitalism while trying to save the whole of it
the best part is the writing. and also that this view was somewhat transformative for its time
(1) X politician is commonly seen in this way
(2) actually, X politician has been misrepresented
(3) X politician was really part of a consensus among American statesmen, who admired Protestant virtues and saw the basis of civil society in the business community
(4) X politician appealed to the public by selectively addressing some of the ills of capitalism while trying to save the whole of it
the best part is the writing. and also that this view was somewhat transformative for its time
December 21, 2024
A great overview of influential presidents. Hofstadter does a good job of highlighting achievements and not minimizing or skimming over the shameful bits of our nation's history. He can also be a bit sassy and I appreciate that in my historians.
November 21, 2021
I read this back in graduate school and decided to pick it up again. Its certainly worth checking out. Hofstadter takes about 12 major players from US History and shows that, rather than being heroes or villains, they were all pragmatic politicians who held close to the assumption that protecting private property and individualism was of prime importance. From their, they did what they needed to do to stop chaos and keep the country functional. In illustrating this, he hopes to show that American political history is more about the things American leaders have in common than what divides them.
What is never quite clear is how Hofstadter feels about this. Is this emphasis on property and individuality ultimately good for the country because it prevents chaos and makes thing predictable, or is it a failure of liberalism to really put the needs of the people first?
What is never quite clear is how Hofstadter feels about this. Is this emphasis on property and individuality ultimately good for the country because it prevents chaos and makes thing predictable, or is it a failure of liberalism to really put the needs of the people first?
February 8, 2022
The American Political Tradition is a thought-provoking book exploring the ideologies and philosophical ideals central to the American state and political conscious. His main premise holds that the American ruling class through a culture of capitalism, individuality, and greed have dictated the development of the United States. Often casting actions and figures through a progressive lens, Hofstadter challenges conventional nostalgia typical in American history books and presents a new way to interpret both history and current political events. Although not quite as eye-opening, I would place Hofstadter's writing up there with Howard Zinn's "A Peoples History of the United States" for anyone who values such accounts of American history.
January 27, 2017
I started this one before the election, expecting a kind of salute to the "Good" American consensus that a Clinton presidency would have continued. When Trump won, I almost immediately cast it aside... I didn't wanna read any bromides about the fundamental decency of the American people or the evolution of the American idea or the creativity of American leadership or any of that shit. I picked it up again once my mind settled down to discover an ironical, cutting, provocative work of intellectual history... A work all about politicians failing to achieve their desired ends. A more accurate title for it might be "The Limits of the American Political Tradition." Though the subjects of the book seem very different, Hofstadter sees in all of them similar flaws, chief of which is an obsession with the idea of being "American." For Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Wilson, Hoover and the rest, "Americanism" almost always mean "individualism," and "individualism" almost always precludes political and economics solutions that encourage equality, increase human freedom, fight against corruption, and reduce corporate control. We see this faith in both reactionary wackos like Calhoun (who Hofstadter dubs "The Marx of the Master Class") and supposed reformers like Theodore Roosevelt (who probably gets the most stinging chapter of all); in both well-known figures like FDR (who is depicted as an immensely charming politician with a layman's grasp of economic policy) and forgotten types like William Jennings Bryan (whose provincial populism Hofstadter is especially harsh on). The founders are not idealistic revolutionaries here-- their goals are, truthfully, pretty conservative, with the project of keeping their wealth intact first and foremost. Even Lincoln's legacy as the "Great Emancipator" is challenged; though Hofstadter clearly admires the man, he paints a portrait not of a benevolent, selfless, progressive pioneer, but of an ambitious, cunning politician who was very much a product of his time.
Despite all these critiques, the book is hardly bitter or unfair. Hofstadter's spirit is contrarian, but his style is calm and collected. Even though his assessment of American political history is "realistic," his aim is clearly more idealistic. He wants us to see in his book not a failed country... Just one often given to failure. It's telling that his most salutary chapter is on Wendell Phillips, an abolitionist agitator no one talks about now. He ends it beautifully:
"Conventional history has been less charitable than Phillips's contemporaries, finding him always preposterous and never delightful. But the agitator who had given no quarter expected none, and perhaps sensed that the scholarship of the future would treat him in the same spirit as had the scholarship of his time. He returned from Cambridge to Boston, exhilarated and grimly satisfied, we may imagine, at the thought that as long as anyone in the old town could remember, he had been a thorn in the side of complacency."
Despite all these critiques, the book is hardly bitter or unfair. Hofstadter's spirit is contrarian, but his style is calm and collected. Even though his assessment of American political history is "realistic," his aim is clearly more idealistic. He wants us to see in his book not a failed country... Just one often given to failure. It's telling that his most salutary chapter is on Wendell Phillips, an abolitionist agitator no one talks about now. He ends it beautifully:
"Conventional history has been less charitable than Phillips's contemporaries, finding him always preposterous and never delightful. But the agitator who had given no quarter expected none, and perhaps sensed that the scholarship of the future would treat him in the same spirit as had the scholarship of his time. He returned from Cambridge to Boston, exhilarated and grimly satisfied, we may imagine, at the thought that as long as anyone in the old town could remember, he had been a thorn in the side of complacency."
May 10, 2015
An excellent book on the the political history of our country from the days of the founders to the presidency of FDR, Hofstadter truly has written a history of our country that every American should read and be proud of and every historian probably wishes he had written. His prose is brief, well formulated, and easily readable, a problem in Sean WIlentz's "The Rise of American Democracy." Also, he analyzes each of the major figures of American political history in a way that can only be described as illuminating. He is the first historian who has, in my mind, made sense of Andrew Jackson and Woodrow Wilson's legacies and one of the best analyses of FDR's growth from reluctant progressive to figure-head of modern American Liberalism. My only gripe is that I feel that he completely missed the mark in his analysis of Theodore Roosevelt's progressivism, which he characterizes as overcompensation for self-percieved deficiencies and political necessity. Most historians I have heard or read said that his was a genuine belief in the progressive agenda rather than a reluctant necessity. Otherwise, this is an excellent book that should be read and cherished by all Americans.
July 4, 2021
Granted, some of the language (and racial mentions) are quite dated - but I found this tome surprisingly engaging. I learned more about the historical figures in American democracy than I thought I would. The author does a good job deconstructing some "popular" notions and myths (perhaps too much at time - his "deconstruction" of Lincoln on slavery is a bit silly, IMHO. Everyone knows Lincoln evolved on what he would do to combat slavery, but there's no denying what he actually did as president). There were some figures he tackled that either I hadn't heard of or surprised he covered (not a lot of folks go in-depth on Herbert Hoover). I'm sure there are more contemporary texts to choose from, but any interested students of American government will walk away from this book with something to think about.
March 8, 2008
Sort of in the vein of history-is-people, Hofstadter takes America's most interesting presidents and makes them people. He explains these incredible men as what they really were, how they acted, and what made them act that way. You get put right in with these guys, and learn more about them than most history classes will teach you. It was written in the 40's, my mom had it as a textbook, and now I'm reading it for my AP History course. It's really endured, and with good reason.
September 13, 2009
A beautifully written book that is heavy on analysis and opinion and light on historical research. Histories of this sort are fun to read, but I doubt there was ever any reason to write them (other than to pass the time, which is an excellent reason to do anything). You'll walk away from TAPT with a lot of talking points about important American politicians that subsequent historians have qualified into irrelevance in the fifty years since its publication.
May 27, 2011
Excellent, eye-opening, thought-provoking.
February 13, 2016
The American Political Tradition Book Review
Richard Hofstadter (1916-1970) received his PhD in History from Columbia University in 1942. Soon after, he decided to pursue a writing career and study the history of politics. In his seventh published book, Hofstadter wrote his most acclaimed piece, The American Political Tradition (1948). In it, he gave his own analysis of America’s most prominent political figures. This work recalls events through American history that have changed how people think and feel about politics. One of Hofstadter’s most read books is also one of his most criticized. To this day, whether The American Political Tradition is regarded in infamy or praise, it is undoubtedly the most talked about of Hofstadter’s works.
In the Preface of The American Political Tradition Richard Hofstadter made it clear that the audience of his book was students of many different ages. The concepts and ideas presented are understandable, allowing for a younger audience to follow along. However, the language is challenging, but worth the challenge. This book should be read by any student taking an American History course. It provides a base understanding of American politics; how it originated and morphed into what it is today. One might recommend this to any AP level high school class.
To legitimize his work, Hofstadter wrote a bibliographical essay in the back of his book. On account of the books that he cited there, one can assume that Hofstadter was well read. His book has stood the test of time (1948-present) and is still considered an accurate account of ten American political figures.
Richard Hofstadter wrote a big book which included twelve long chapters. He also gave credit to all the authors who supplied him with the information which helped to fill his pages. By reading from these secondary sources, Hofstadter became an authority on American history and wrote this best selling book. Though he is an expert, many critics have attempted to delegitimize his work by asserting that he was biased. He most certainly was but not necessarily to a political party. His bias was towards ruining “the memory of the great men of American history in much the same way pigeons alter public monuments.” This bias, however, does not take away from the historical value of this book.
This book, as stated previously, was written for a younger audience. However, it takes awhile to get used to Hofstadter’s writing style. Once one gets familiar with his prose, s/he starts to appreciate the subtle humoristic tone that the author employs. Aside from having a mildly interesting style, Hofstadter’s book is also very informative and insightful into American political history. It provides a thorough understanding of the country’s past and reveals a sinister side to America’s revered heroes. This is not a child’s history book and it shows in its stark criticisms of past American idols. For example, Abraham Lincoln has been generally viewed by the American public as a national hero, “the greatest character since Christ,” as Hofstadter quoted John Hay. Hofstadter, however, portrayed Lincoln as ambitious but not as moral as the public perceived him. Lincoln believed, as stated by the author, that all men were created equal. But, he also wrote that Lincoln was “opposed to citizenship” for African Americans . The American Political Tradition has been both venerated and criticized by the public for this sincerity. Many appreciate Hofstadter’s work for its blatancy, and others try to neglect his book for the exact same reasons. They feel he is out to give “great men” bad names. This argument is very intriguing and it gives one more to think about while reading.
Though it is still young, the United States of America has a rich history. Hofstadter attempted to uncover the origins of its political system, how it changed over generations, and why the system changed. His work provides extensive knowledge to the reader not only on politics but also on the American past. For instance, in his chapter The Spoilsmen: An Age of Cynicism, Hofstadter discusses some politics and more Americana. This period is associated with being uneventful in political affairs (“years from Appomattox to the end of the nineteenth century” ), but Hofstadter does not only speak politics. He emphasizes the clash between the businessman and the politician during this time. He talks about America becoming one of the richest nations in the world. He even touches on the railroad boom through the 1860s. This chapter gives one a break from the author’s political rambling and tells of American economics through the 1800s. That being said, Hofstadter’s book is a 456-page elephant which should have and could have easily been condensed into a 230-page lion. His writing can be dry at times and extremely insipid at others as he draws out his individual essays to a superfluous length. While the information given from the book is tolerable, the form in which it is presented is far from involving.
The American Political Tradition relates the lives of American political men in multiple essays. Hofstadter attempts to provide a brief history on these political figures while also analyzing their rise to power: “I was less interested in the art of the exercise of power than I was in the art of acquiring it.” Furthermore, it was his intention to provide his readers (mainly students) not only an education on American politics and how it has changed over the centuries, but also a darker side to politics. Whether one feels the same about his interpretation of the American past depends on the person.
“[The American Political Tradition and the Men Who Made It] influenced an entire generation of historians and thinkers.” Saying that about any book makes it deserving of historical significance. It has also provided its readers a new understanding of the American past. Whether for better or worse, it affected all of those who turned its pages. Since its publication in 1948, controversy has surrounded it. Some say “[it delegitimizes] the historic American by portraying all of the nation's history as a mere argument on the margins of what was actually a broad conservative consensus” while others argue “it is at once deeply researched and elegantly written, with a keen eye for the ironic, incongruous, and revealing.” As long as Hofstadter’s book is read, people will argue the value of his work.
Richard Hofstadter was a political authority who wrote one of the most controversial narratives relative to American history; controversial because of its stark criticisms of heroes which angers some people while pleasing others. The American Political Tradition provides readers with an education on the country’s political origins as well as the men who crafted them. There is a lot of helpful information, but at times it can be presented in lengthy, inept passages. This book emphasizes the flaws of past figures and presents a different version of the American past to students. It is both an informative and memorable read.
Richard Hofstadter (1916-1970) received his PhD in History from Columbia University in 1942. Soon after, he decided to pursue a writing career and study the history of politics. In his seventh published book, Hofstadter wrote his most acclaimed piece, The American Political Tradition (1948). In it, he gave his own analysis of America’s most prominent political figures. This work recalls events through American history that have changed how people think and feel about politics. One of Hofstadter’s most read books is also one of his most criticized. To this day, whether The American Political Tradition is regarded in infamy or praise, it is undoubtedly the most talked about of Hofstadter’s works.
In the Preface of The American Political Tradition Richard Hofstadter made it clear that the audience of his book was students of many different ages. The concepts and ideas presented are understandable, allowing for a younger audience to follow along. However, the language is challenging, but worth the challenge. This book should be read by any student taking an American History course. It provides a base understanding of American politics; how it originated and morphed into what it is today. One might recommend this to any AP level high school class.
To legitimize his work, Hofstadter wrote a bibliographical essay in the back of his book. On account of the books that he cited there, one can assume that Hofstadter was well read. His book has stood the test of time (1948-present) and is still considered an accurate account of ten American political figures.
Richard Hofstadter wrote a big book which included twelve long chapters. He also gave credit to all the authors who supplied him with the information which helped to fill his pages. By reading from these secondary sources, Hofstadter became an authority on American history and wrote this best selling book. Though he is an expert, many critics have attempted to delegitimize his work by asserting that he was biased. He most certainly was but not necessarily to a political party. His bias was towards ruining “the memory of the great men of American history in much the same way pigeons alter public monuments.” This bias, however, does not take away from the historical value of this book.
This book, as stated previously, was written for a younger audience. However, it takes awhile to get used to Hofstadter’s writing style. Once one gets familiar with his prose, s/he starts to appreciate the subtle humoristic tone that the author employs. Aside from having a mildly interesting style, Hofstadter’s book is also very informative and insightful into American political history. It provides a thorough understanding of the country’s past and reveals a sinister side to America’s revered heroes. This is not a child’s history book and it shows in its stark criticisms of past American idols. For example, Abraham Lincoln has been generally viewed by the American public as a national hero, “the greatest character since Christ,” as Hofstadter quoted John Hay. Hofstadter, however, portrayed Lincoln as ambitious but not as moral as the public perceived him. Lincoln believed, as stated by the author, that all men were created equal. But, he also wrote that Lincoln was “opposed to citizenship” for African Americans . The American Political Tradition has been both venerated and criticized by the public for this sincerity. Many appreciate Hofstadter’s work for its blatancy, and others try to neglect his book for the exact same reasons. They feel he is out to give “great men” bad names. This argument is very intriguing and it gives one more to think about while reading.
Though it is still young, the United States of America has a rich history. Hofstadter attempted to uncover the origins of its political system, how it changed over generations, and why the system changed. His work provides extensive knowledge to the reader not only on politics but also on the American past. For instance, in his chapter The Spoilsmen: An Age of Cynicism, Hofstadter discusses some politics and more Americana. This period is associated with being uneventful in political affairs (“years from Appomattox to the end of the nineteenth century” ), but Hofstadter does not only speak politics. He emphasizes the clash between the businessman and the politician during this time. He talks about America becoming one of the richest nations in the world. He even touches on the railroad boom through the 1860s. This chapter gives one a break from the author’s political rambling and tells of American economics through the 1800s. That being said, Hofstadter’s book is a 456-page elephant which should have and could have easily been condensed into a 230-page lion. His writing can be dry at times and extremely insipid at others as he draws out his individual essays to a superfluous length. While the information given from the book is tolerable, the form in which it is presented is far from involving.
The American Political Tradition relates the lives of American political men in multiple essays. Hofstadter attempts to provide a brief history on these political figures while also analyzing their rise to power: “I was less interested in the art of the exercise of power than I was in the art of acquiring it.” Furthermore, it was his intention to provide his readers (mainly students) not only an education on American politics and how it has changed over the centuries, but also a darker side to politics. Whether one feels the same about his interpretation of the American past depends on the person.
“[The American Political Tradition and the Men Who Made It] influenced an entire generation of historians and thinkers.” Saying that about any book makes it deserving of historical significance. It has also provided its readers a new understanding of the American past. Whether for better or worse, it affected all of those who turned its pages. Since its publication in 1948, controversy has surrounded it. Some say “[it delegitimizes] the historic American by portraying all of the nation's history as a mere argument on the margins of what was actually a broad conservative consensus” while others argue “it is at once deeply researched and elegantly written, with a keen eye for the ironic, incongruous, and revealing.” As long as Hofstadter’s book is read, people will argue the value of his work.
Richard Hofstadter was a political authority who wrote one of the most controversial narratives relative to American history; controversial because of its stark criticisms of heroes which angers some people while pleasing others. The American Political Tradition provides readers with an education on the country’s political origins as well as the men who crafted them. There is a lot of helpful information, but at times it can be presented in lengthy, inept passages. This book emphasizes the flaws of past figures and presents a different version of the American past to students. It is both an informative and memorable read.
April 1, 2023
In this masterful book, Richard Hofstadter gives the reader a look at the personalities of important figures in American history without, as he says in the introduction, engaging in hero worship.
The subtitles of chapters are worth reproducing:
Thomas Jefferson: The Aristocrat as Democrat
Andrew Jackson and the Rise of Liberal Capitalism
John C. Calhoun: The Marx of the Master Class
Abraham Lincoln and the Self-Made Myth
Wendell Phillips: The Patrician as Agitator
William Jennings Bryan: The Democrat as Revivalist
Theodore Roosevelt: The Conservative as Progressive
Woodrow Wilson: The Conservative as Liberal
Herbert Hoover and the Crisis of American Individualism
FDR: The Patrician as Opportunist
Hofstadter intends to show the complexity of personality that makes these men so interesting, the contrast between image and action, what they said and what they did. Insight that will cause the reader to pause and reflect are found throughout the book. Two passages are representative, the first about a type of man uncommon in any age and the second regarding a type that is found throughout American history and is certainly present in the 21st century.
"Lincoln was chastened and not intoxicated by power. It was almost apologetically that he remarked in response to a White House serenade after his re-election that 'So long as I have been here, I have not willingly planted a thorn in any man's bosom.' "
Of the titans of the industrialization of America in a chapter he titles The Spoilsmen Hofstadter writes,
"For the most part they were parvenues, and they behaved with becoming vulgarity; but they were also men of heroic audacity and magnificent exploitative talents - shrewd, energetic, aggressive, rapacious, domineering, insatiable."
Free of the great quantity of minutia found in full biographies, this book gives strikingly intimate looks behind the personas by which the American people know our historical figures.
The subtitles of chapters are worth reproducing:
Thomas Jefferson: The Aristocrat as Democrat
Andrew Jackson and the Rise of Liberal Capitalism
John C. Calhoun: The Marx of the Master Class
Abraham Lincoln and the Self-Made Myth
Wendell Phillips: The Patrician as Agitator
William Jennings Bryan: The Democrat as Revivalist
Theodore Roosevelt: The Conservative as Progressive
Woodrow Wilson: The Conservative as Liberal
Herbert Hoover and the Crisis of American Individualism
FDR: The Patrician as Opportunist
Hofstadter intends to show the complexity of personality that makes these men so interesting, the contrast between image and action, what they said and what they did. Insight that will cause the reader to pause and reflect are found throughout the book. Two passages are representative, the first about a type of man uncommon in any age and the second regarding a type that is found throughout American history and is certainly present in the 21st century.
"Lincoln was chastened and not intoxicated by power. It was almost apologetically that he remarked in response to a White House serenade after his re-election that 'So long as I have been here, I have not willingly planted a thorn in any man's bosom.' "
Of the titans of the industrialization of America in a chapter he titles The Spoilsmen Hofstadter writes,
"For the most part they were parvenues, and they behaved with becoming vulgarity; but they were also men of heroic audacity and magnificent exploitative talents - shrewd, energetic, aggressive, rapacious, domineering, insatiable."
Free of the great quantity of minutia found in full biographies, this book gives strikingly intimate looks behind the personas by which the American people know our historical figures.
August 10, 2024
Every historian, whether professional or amateur, should do themselves a favor and read Richard Hofstadter. No historian is able to produce a perfect reflection of the complexity and breadth of historical periods, persons, or events. No historian is able to extricate themselves from their biases and worldview. But some historians, acknowledging their limitations, are able to provide meaningful insights, analysis, and perspective that help fellow students of history gain a fuller understanding. Richard Hofstadter is, in my opinion, one of those historians.
The American Political Tradition and the Men Who Made It is a popular history, and Hofstadter's most popular work, that provides real historical insight into the American Political Tradition in a writing style that is readable and full of wit, especially when pointing out ironies. Hofstadter, shedding the conflict lens of the Progressive Historians before him, uses a consensus lens to show the continuity and general conservatism of the American Political Tradition. He does this by choosing a diverse collection of American political leaders (and one political agitator) to show that, despite real differences and membership in different political parties, American political leaders have followed the same general line of political thought and action. But, Hofstadter's consensus lens is not the celebratory one of Boorstin or Hartz. His consensus lens is a critical one that acknowledges the strength of the American Political Tradition where he believes it is deserved while also pointing out its weaknesses and hypocrisies where necessary.
The truth be told Hofstadter is one of my favorite historians and The American Political Tradition is a good place to start for those who seek to acquaint themselves with his historiography.
The American Political Tradition and the Men Who Made It is a popular history, and Hofstadter's most popular work, that provides real historical insight into the American Political Tradition in a writing style that is readable and full of wit, especially when pointing out ironies. Hofstadter, shedding the conflict lens of the Progressive Historians before him, uses a consensus lens to show the continuity and general conservatism of the American Political Tradition. He does this by choosing a diverse collection of American political leaders (and one political agitator) to show that, despite real differences and membership in different political parties, American political leaders have followed the same general line of political thought and action. But, Hofstadter's consensus lens is not the celebratory one of Boorstin or Hartz. His consensus lens is a critical one that acknowledges the strength of the American Political Tradition where he believes it is deserved while also pointing out its weaknesses and hypocrisies where necessary.
The truth be told Hofstadter is one of my favorite historians and The American Political Tradition is a good place to start for those who seek to acquaint themselves with his historiography.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 109 reviews