What do you think?
Rate this book
The Age of Roosevelt #1
The Crisis of the Old Order 1919–1933: The Age of Roosevelt, 1919–1933
The Crisis of the Old Order, 1919-1933, volume one of Pulitzer Prize-winning historian and biographer Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.'s Age of Roosevelt series, is the first of three books that interpret the political, economic, social, and intellectual history of the early twentieth century in terms of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the spokesman and symbol of the period. Portraying the United States from the Great War to the Great Depression, The Crisis of the Old Order covers the Jazz Age and the rise and fall of the cult of business. For a season, prosperity seemed permanent, but the illusion came to an end when Wall Street crashed in October 1929. Public trust in the wisdom of business leadership crashed too. With a dramatist's eye for vivid detail and a scholar's respect for accuracy, Schlesinger brings to life the era that gave rise to FDR and his New Deal and changed the public face of the United States forever.
580 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1957
151 people are currently reading
1810 people want to read
About the author
Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr.
670 books219 followersArthur Meier Schlesinger Jr., born Arthur Bancroft Schlesinger, was a Pulitzer Prize recipient and American historian and social critic whose work explored the liberalism of American political leaders including Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and Robert F. Kennedy. He served as special assistant and "court historian" to President Kennedy from 1961 to 1963. He wrote a detailed account of the Kennedy Administration, from the transition period to the president's state funeral, titled A Thousand Days. In 1968, he actively supported the presidential campaign of Senator Robert F. Kennedy until Kennedy's assassination in the Ambassador Hotel on June 5, 1968, and wrote the biography Robert Kennedy and His Times several years later.
He popularized the term "imperial presidency" during the Nixon administration by writing the book The Imperial Presidency.
His father was also a well-known historian.
He popularized the term "imperial presidency" during the Nixon administration by writing the book The Imperial Presidency.
His father was also a well-known historian.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 41 reviews
May 26, 2020
Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. won the Pulitzer Prize for his classic book The Age of Jackson, and then won the inaugural Francis Parkman Prize for this book, the first volume of his series, The Age of Roosevelt. The book covers the period from the end of World War I through the inauguration of FDR in March, 1933, and treats the political, economic, social and intellectual currents that flowed through those years.
The idealism that marked the end of the war soon gave way to a period of disillusionment on the part of many liberal intellectuals with the failure of the United States to ratify the Treaty of Versailles and its refusal to join the League of Nations. But, following a brief recession, many Americans revelled in the prosperity of the Roaring Twenties when business leaders were exalted and when some argued that prosperity would last indefinitely. Those left out of the celebration, principally farmers and many workers along with African Americans were simply an afterthought in the minds of those who dominated the economy, the politics and the society of the period.
As everyone knows, of course, the normal laws of economics had not been suspended and the party came to an inglorious end with the stock market crash of 1929, which ushered in the worst depression that the nation has yet experienced. The crash, of course, was not the only or even the major cause of the Great Depression, but it did expose fundamental weaknesses in the economy that made the Depression almost inevitable.
Schlesinger discusses at length the causes of the Depression, the effects that it had on the American people, and the inability of the Hoover administration either to address the problem in any significant way or to restore the faith of the American people in their economy, in their system of government, and in themselves. He also makes plain the fact that there were large numbers of people in the country who were ready to embrace radical change as a means of coping with the economic and political disaster.
Against that backdrop, Schlesinger then switches gears to describe the early life of Franklin D. Roosevelt and his rise to political power, which included election to the governorship of New York and then to the presidency in 1932. During the course of the campaign, Roosevelt had promised the American People a "New Deal," although it was not entirely clear what this New Deal might involve. Throughout this period, especially as the inauguration approached, a number of advisers, some with very different views and agendas, competed for Roosevelt's attention, and out of this intellectual and political whirlwind, Roosevelt would ultimately put together the reform program that would dramatically change the country in the coming years. But that's a subject for the later volumes in this series and this one leaves the reader with Roosevelt's inaugural address at a time when the fate of the nation was still very much in doubt.
This is a very comprehensive and excellent beginning to this series which would ultimately run to three volumes, through 1936. The third volume would be published in 1960, and at that point, Schlesinger joined the Kennedy administration and became heavily involved in politics himself. He would write a number of other books later, but he never returned to this project, leaving Roosevelt's second, third, and brief fourth administrations for others to chronicle. As good and as comprehensive as this book is, one is left wishing that Schlesinger had been able to follow Roosevelt to the end.
The idealism that marked the end of the war soon gave way to a period of disillusionment on the part of many liberal intellectuals with the failure of the United States to ratify the Treaty of Versailles and its refusal to join the League of Nations. But, following a brief recession, many Americans revelled in the prosperity of the Roaring Twenties when business leaders were exalted and when some argued that prosperity would last indefinitely. Those left out of the celebration, principally farmers and many workers along with African Americans were simply an afterthought in the minds of those who dominated the economy, the politics and the society of the period.
As everyone knows, of course, the normal laws of economics had not been suspended and the party came to an inglorious end with the stock market crash of 1929, which ushered in the worst depression that the nation has yet experienced. The crash, of course, was not the only or even the major cause of the Great Depression, but it did expose fundamental weaknesses in the economy that made the Depression almost inevitable.
Schlesinger discusses at length the causes of the Depression, the effects that it had on the American people, and the inability of the Hoover administration either to address the problem in any significant way or to restore the faith of the American people in their economy, in their system of government, and in themselves. He also makes plain the fact that there were large numbers of people in the country who were ready to embrace radical change as a means of coping with the economic and political disaster.
Against that backdrop, Schlesinger then switches gears to describe the early life of Franklin D. Roosevelt and his rise to political power, which included election to the governorship of New York and then to the presidency in 1932. During the course of the campaign, Roosevelt had promised the American People a "New Deal," although it was not entirely clear what this New Deal might involve. Throughout this period, especially as the inauguration approached, a number of advisers, some with very different views and agendas, competed for Roosevelt's attention, and out of this intellectual and political whirlwind, Roosevelt would ultimately put together the reform program that would dramatically change the country in the coming years. But that's a subject for the later volumes in this series and this one leaves the reader with Roosevelt's inaugural address at a time when the fate of the nation was still very much in doubt.
This is a very comprehensive and excellent beginning to this series which would ultimately run to three volumes, through 1936. The third volume would be published in 1960, and at that point, Schlesinger joined the Kennedy administration and became heavily involved in politics himself. He would write a number of other books later, but he never returned to this project, leaving Roosevelt's second, third, and brief fourth administrations for others to chronicle. As good and as comprehensive as this book is, one is left wishing that Schlesinger had been able to follow Roosevelt to the end.
June 23, 2020
The Crisis of the Old Order portrays the USA from the end of World War I to the beginning of the Great Depression.
According to President Calvin Coolidge, the chief business of Americans was business, and – indeed – the “religion” of business pervaded and dominated the society of the 1920s. The 1920s were complacent years for the cult of business, filled with moralizing and illusions. They also ushered in the so-called New Era – a permanent level of prosperity, an indestructible bull market, stocks destined to continue rising forever, and ardent trust in the rationality of business leadership.
However, the market fundamentalism, speculation, and ecstatic self-delusion inevitably led to bursting of the financial bubble. And the only reason for the lack of the crisis of the new order was that the Great Crash and subsequent depression brought on the New Deal.
In 1929, the States had no social security, no unemployment compensation, no safety nets, no minimum wage, and no farm price supports. The New Deal legislation changed the rules of the market place and established public supervision of the economy.
Business leaders passionately resisted the New Deal measures and policies created to renew the economy and to protect the investor, the worker, and the consumer. Although the economy flourished, the “economic royalists”, as FDR called them, had lost and mourned the prestige of the old order, which did not recover for half a century. FDR’s goal was to save capitalism from the capitalists.
Franklin D. Roosevelt became President in difficult times. He was – like many other presidents – a conflicting figure. He possessed a remarkable skill as a public educator and enormous ability to lift the spirits of the Americans people. Nevertheless, Roosevelt was far from faultless. He made mistakes in policy and politics. Sometimes, he was devious, vain, and cruel. He combined idealism with tough realism, and was – in other words – a human being susceptible to human infirmities and errors.
Yet, as Arthur M. Schlesinger proves in his book, FDR did quite well for the country.
The Crisis of the Old Order is an exceptionally well-written volume, interspersed with interesting details and clever humor. Schlesinger has sketched brilliant portraits of FDR, Herbert Hoover, FDR’s avid critic, and other important figures of the era. Very recommendable historical work. Five stars.
According to President Calvin Coolidge, the chief business of Americans was business, and – indeed – the “religion” of business pervaded and dominated the society of the 1920s. The 1920s were complacent years for the cult of business, filled with moralizing and illusions. They also ushered in the so-called New Era – a permanent level of prosperity, an indestructible bull market, stocks destined to continue rising forever, and ardent trust in the rationality of business leadership.
However, the market fundamentalism, speculation, and ecstatic self-delusion inevitably led to bursting of the financial bubble. And the only reason for the lack of the crisis of the new order was that the Great Crash and subsequent depression brought on the New Deal.
In 1929, the States had no social security, no unemployment compensation, no safety nets, no minimum wage, and no farm price supports. The New Deal legislation changed the rules of the market place and established public supervision of the economy.
Business leaders passionately resisted the New Deal measures and policies created to renew the economy and to protect the investor, the worker, and the consumer. Although the economy flourished, the “economic royalists”, as FDR called them, had lost and mourned the prestige of the old order, which did not recover for half a century. FDR’s goal was to save capitalism from the capitalists.
Franklin D. Roosevelt became President in difficult times. He was – like many other presidents – a conflicting figure. He possessed a remarkable skill as a public educator and enormous ability to lift the spirits of the Americans people. Nevertheless, Roosevelt was far from faultless. He made mistakes in policy and politics. Sometimes, he was devious, vain, and cruel. He combined idealism with tough realism, and was – in other words – a human being susceptible to human infirmities and errors.
Yet, as Arthur M. Schlesinger proves in his book, FDR did quite well for the country.
The Crisis of the Old Order is an exceptionally well-written volume, interspersed with interesting details and clever humor. Schlesinger has sketched brilliant portraits of FDR, Herbert Hoover, FDR’s avid critic, and other important figures of the era. Very recommendable historical work. Five stars.
May 15, 2020
This book represents a shotgun marriage. Just over the first half allows the author to trace liberalism's theoretical basis. At that point, FDR becomes, I suppose, Liberalism Personified, and the author focuses on a biography of him. Both parts are well done, however.
The main lesson from me was the genuine, pent-up anger, maybe even revolution, which FDR's commitment to an activist government faced down, cooled off, and enlisted in a national rather than a destructive effort. Written in 1958, I can see it providing the framework for JFK's New Frontier.
The main lesson from me was the genuine, pent-up anger, maybe even revolution, which FDR's commitment to an activist government faced down, cooled off, and enlisted in a national rather than a destructive effort. Written in 1958, I can see it providing the framework for JFK's New Frontier.
November 19, 2018
Review: The Age of Roosevelt, Volume 1: The Crisis of the Old Order by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.
The minute I finished this one, I went to look for Volume 2. About a quarter of the way through this one I ordered Volumes 2 and 3, knowing I’d want to read them too. I think that was about the time I realized this was not really a biography of Roosevelt. I think that because it’s not it’s been disappointing to some readers. Not me. I’ve read several biographies of Roosevelt as well as many books where FDR was prominent (my last big read was Roosevelt and Hopkins by Robert Sherwood and I’m also currently reading Doris Goodwin’s book on presidential leadership which focuses on Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR and LBJ).
The Crisis of the Old Order begins and ends in 1933 and covers specifically the years from 1919 to Inauguration Day, March 4, 1933 just as Roosevelt stands up to tell the country that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. That line of course I knew. But I really didn’t understand how the country got to 1933, nor did I understand why so many feared that the road ended there. Of course I knew about the depression. My parents lived through it. They had stories, like the one about the night they spent their last 10 cents on ice cream instead of car fare for work the next day. But they both had jobs (my mother as a legal secretary, my father first as a horticultural photographer for the Chicago World’s Fair), were married in 1934 and seemed to look on the rest of the thirties as the “best days of their lives”. They had a roadster and drove West several times. I have a photograph on my bedroom wall of two women in jodhpurs and a man lying down, drinking water from a mountain stream. My father, of course, was the photographer. But now I wish very much they were still here so I could ask what The Thirties was really like. Some years ago, I spent some time with my cousin in Chicago, older than me by 4 or 5 years, he told me about how there was one building where multiple family members moved in when they had to leave foreclosed properties, including my father, probably when he was still in college (he graduated in 1932, couldn’t afford a sheepskin until his mother insisted on giving him the money).
But I wish I could sit down with them now and ask about the Thirties. The speakeasies and dance halls in Chicago and the long drives west where they undoubtedly came to understand some of the tribulations of the countryside. Because it wasn’t all gay and carefree.
I didn’t realize so many feared a Communist revolution, that many thought the American experiment was over, if indeed they had time to think seriously about the future at all when they were worrying about a safe shelter and food. And the government had not be able to fix it even though Herbert Hoover, the president FDR followed, thought he both understood what was wrong and knew how to fix it by manipulating the economy. Quite sincerely, he worked up to the last minute to convince Roosevelt that his way was correct. And Roosevelt resisted, even though he didn’t really have all the answers himself. But he wasn’t afraid to fail, planned to try different plans and abandon what didn’t work and move on.
In any case, my romanticized version of the depression was seriously updated by reading this book and understanding that FDR really was the man for the times. Unflappable, committed to rescuing not the banks or the businesses but the people. Inscrutable and cheerful in 1932, he’d taken on the task of breaking any rules it took to fix the economy, put people back to work, and reinvigorate the economy.
The minute I finished this one, I went to look for Volume 2. About a quarter of the way through this one I ordered Volumes 2 and 3, knowing I’d want to read them too. I think that was about the time I realized this was not really a biography of Roosevelt. I think that because it’s not it’s been disappointing to some readers. Not me. I’ve read several biographies of Roosevelt as well as many books where FDR was prominent (my last big read was Roosevelt and Hopkins by Robert Sherwood and I’m also currently reading Doris Goodwin’s book on presidential leadership which focuses on Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR and LBJ).
The Crisis of the Old Order begins and ends in 1933 and covers specifically the years from 1919 to Inauguration Day, March 4, 1933 just as Roosevelt stands up to tell the country that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. That line of course I knew. But I really didn’t understand how the country got to 1933, nor did I understand why so many feared that the road ended there. Of course I knew about the depression. My parents lived through it. They had stories, like the one about the night they spent their last 10 cents on ice cream instead of car fare for work the next day. But they both had jobs (my mother as a legal secretary, my father first as a horticultural photographer for the Chicago World’s Fair), were married in 1934 and seemed to look on the rest of the thirties as the “best days of their lives”. They had a roadster and drove West several times. I have a photograph on my bedroom wall of two women in jodhpurs and a man lying down, drinking water from a mountain stream. My father, of course, was the photographer. But now I wish very much they were still here so I could ask what The Thirties was really like. Some years ago, I spent some time with my cousin in Chicago, older than me by 4 or 5 years, he told me about how there was one building where multiple family members moved in when they had to leave foreclosed properties, including my father, probably when he was still in college (he graduated in 1932, couldn’t afford a sheepskin until his mother insisted on giving him the money).
But I wish I could sit down with them now and ask about the Thirties. The speakeasies and dance halls in Chicago and the long drives west where they undoubtedly came to understand some of the tribulations of the countryside. Because it wasn’t all gay and carefree.
I didn’t realize so many feared a Communist revolution, that many thought the American experiment was over, if indeed they had time to think seriously about the future at all when they were worrying about a safe shelter and food. And the government had not be able to fix it even though Herbert Hoover, the president FDR followed, thought he both understood what was wrong and knew how to fix it by manipulating the economy. Quite sincerely, he worked up to the last minute to convince Roosevelt that his way was correct. And Roosevelt resisted, even though he didn’t really have all the answers himself. But he wasn’t afraid to fail, planned to try different plans and abandon what didn’t work and move on.
In any case, my romanticized version of the depression was seriously updated by reading this book and understanding that FDR really was the man for the times. Unflappable, committed to rescuing not the banks or the businesses but the people. Inscrutable and cheerful in 1932, he’d taken on the task of breaking any rules it took to fix the economy, put people back to work, and reinvigorate the economy.
August 4, 2020
I am always wishing for someone who can tell me how politics really works, without any ideology or theory or idealism, just the actual facts of it. Unfortunately, "how politics really works" is itself a kind of ideological position, and people who propose to tell you it are almost always disingenous/in bad faith. They are trying to sell you on something, usually the "inherent conservativism of Americans", and not least on themselves, that they are cynical realists who know everything. Historians of course have their biases like anyone, but it is both easier for them to be objective, and easier for me to see their biases as biases, when talking about bygone events. And especially when the book itself is a product of a bygone day, like this one, written before the Civil Rights era, before the Kennedy administration, before so much. Schlesinger, for all his worshipful attitude towards Roosevelt, has no qualms writing about backroom deals for nominations within the Democratic party, because backroom deals were all there were: primaries were rare and in any case only advisory, not binding at all.
This is a book about politics, almost pure and simple; it spends very little time on anything but, although it mercifully dresses the subject in vivid description and anecdote. (I appreciated this the more because the last book I read, an academic history of the Meiji Restoration, took place, as it were, in an absolutely abstract void.) Its first half describes the twists and turns of politics and ideology from the end of the Great War until the Democratic convention of 1932. Then it flashes back through the life of the nominee, briefly sketching FDR's youth, before digging in deeper into his political career, from state senator in New York to Assistant Secretary of the Navy under Wilson to governor. As a biography it is startlingly unsophisticated hagiography, leaving no Portent Of Greatness unrecorded, as uncritical as the Cyropaedia. But as a political history it is deep and detailed and fascinating.
I mention the backroom deals, and Schlesinger's frankness about them (if you can call it frankness -- it would never occur to him to hide these things!) because I am writing in 2020, in the context of a presidential election, when all these things are obscured under a veil of "democracy". Ever since George Washington there has been a sense that political parties shouldn't even exist, and since the reforms of the Progressive Era (anti-patronage laws, direct election of Senators, etc) it has been increasingly possible to act like they don't. After 50 years of primary elections we have totally forgotten, wilfully forgotten, that things ever worked differently, and consider anything else "corrupt". As one political scientist (whose book I found totally unreadable) said, we think of the 2 parties as public utilities. The voters, atomized, pure, disinterested, cast their vote for the candidate that best matches their values, the results are tallied, and the voters' choice is declared the winner. Democracy. "Politics" consists of nothing but talking to the electorate, convincing them to vote for you. The only reason you can lose is you did not convince enough voters (or you are a Democrat and therefore the electoral college is rigged against you.) "Influence"? Never heard of it. "Negotiation"? You must be a conspiracy theorist.
Since this idealized dream agrees with post-Progressive Era liberals (who pursued these anti-machine reforms at least as much to keep the drunken Irishman and voluble Latin out of sober Protestant Anglo-Saxon political life as to curb corruption) it makes sense that they see the world this way, but the strange thing is the Chapo-influenced left believes it just as much, if not more. (As I said about Thackeray, a bitter cynic is just a certain kind of idealist: he is outraged that the world does not conform to his candy-colored deam of what it "should" be, which is always broadly conventional.) They believed Bernie Sanders did not need any support in the Democratic Party -- indeed they did not want him to get any. He needed only appeal to the voters. There is no word the Chapo left loves more than "organize", yet they are as completely sure as the most earnest MSNBC-watching, Warren-voting liberal that organization and corruption are the exact same thing. (Chapo types like to sneer at Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, but if they'd actually watch it, they'd see it captures their entire theory of politics -- the evil politicians' goons beating up children distributing an underground newspaper is a nice touch -- and if they were honest, they would agree that totally ineffective and meaningless filibusters are exactly what they want and expect out of politicians like AOC; any coalition-building means she is Corrupted, at least until her next snarky tweet.) They knew the voters already agreed with them. The numbers were on their side. What they needed to do was knock on doors and text bank, to get the people to come out. "Last time we had a strong progressive candidate hated by the rich and called a socialist," they liked to say, "he was elected by massive majorities four times!"
FDR's career bears no resemblance to this theory of politics. He didn't emerge from nowhere with a direct appeal to the progressive working class, and storm the White House on the strength of popular support. He built his position slowly, methodically, relentlessly. With his right-hand man Louis Howe, a newspaperman who became his most trusted political advisor, he plotted a path to the Presidency that took 20 years, and that only after being accelerated by events (he originally planned to run for Governor in 1932, not 1928.) He was an insider, not an insurgent; he used his positions of power, like being Assistant Secretary of the Navy, and political campaigns that weren't about him, like for Al Smith or when he was the Vice Presidential candidate in the doomed Cox campaign, to build connections and gain allies within the party, around the country, even around the world. During the first half of the book, the general political history, not the biography section, Roosevelt keeps popping up, corresponding with his fellow Democrats about the issues of the day. This is partly Schlesinger's design to show him as always right, but it also emphasizes that he was always connected, always an active member of the party, always building support. What he wrote, as quoted by Schlesinger, was indeed populist/progressive/leftish in content, but it wasn't to The People he was writing, but to his fellow party members. The midpoint of the book, a very detailed description of Howe and fellow Roosevelt operative Jim Farley's various machinations to secure the nomination at the Democratic Convention of 1932, is its climax and emblem, and it has nothing to do with the electorate at all.
I'm sure some people reading this might take me to mean "GO BIDEN!" because Biden, of course, had no campaign whatever beyond securing the support of party insiders. On the contrary, what I am saying is the Democratic Party should be burned to the ground, or at least, completely abandoned by anyone who cares about anything that we now call progressive -- justice of any kind, economic justice, racial justice, gender justice, climate justice. I think Bernie should have given up all thought of the Democratic nomination when Obama placed Tom Perez in the DNC over Keith Ellison: it proved the party, as in the people in charge of it, would never give up the Party, as in the public utility we pretend it is, its infrastructure, its branding, etc. Liberals hold a funny doublethink when it comes to Obama's moves to destroy Bernie on Super Tuesday: they both insist that The Voters (as I have said) were Pure and Disinterested (and Black, therefore you can't disagree!) and just love Biden, and they also will tell you that kind of move is totally normal and "just politics". I basically agree with the latter, although I don't think I can remember such a naked and clumsy "just politics" move in my lifetime. Where I really disagree is with their bizarre conviction that We Must Vote Democrat anyway. So you're saying the voters of the party hate me and my ideology, that the party insiders hate me and will destroy me every chance they get, and yet I need to support them with my vote and my money and my time? No thank you. We need to do something else. Organize something else. Call it a party, call it whatever you want. Imagine if Bernie spent the last four years, not stockpiling poor people's money to blow on a futile campaign, but had left the Democrat Party to the Democrats and built a real movement. Some kind of mutual aid, some kind of union, but something that doesn't wall itself off from politics -- something that, like Roosevelt building contacts throughout the West while running the Navy, can accomplish several goals at once.
I am an anarchist, and take a Stirnerite comfort in history: knowing that every single one of the issues which we think are fundamental and desperately important are in fact spooks which posterity will find as baffling and silly as we find the theological disagreements which split the Blues and Greens in Byzantine days. I don't believe in the state or in power over other people. But I like to know my enemy. I want to understand the state, I want to understand power, I want to understand politics. It's so difficult to, because of the layers of obfuscation built by liberal institutions. But I keep trying.
This is a book about politics, almost pure and simple; it spends very little time on anything but, although it mercifully dresses the subject in vivid description and anecdote. (I appreciated this the more because the last book I read, an academic history of the Meiji Restoration, took place, as it were, in an absolutely abstract void.) Its first half describes the twists and turns of politics and ideology from the end of the Great War until the Democratic convention of 1932. Then it flashes back through the life of the nominee, briefly sketching FDR's youth, before digging in deeper into his political career, from state senator in New York to Assistant Secretary of the Navy under Wilson to governor. As a biography it is startlingly unsophisticated hagiography, leaving no Portent Of Greatness unrecorded, as uncritical as the Cyropaedia. But as a political history it is deep and detailed and fascinating.
I mention the backroom deals, and Schlesinger's frankness about them (if you can call it frankness -- it would never occur to him to hide these things!) because I am writing in 2020, in the context of a presidential election, when all these things are obscured under a veil of "democracy". Ever since George Washington there has been a sense that political parties shouldn't even exist, and since the reforms of the Progressive Era (anti-patronage laws, direct election of Senators, etc) it has been increasingly possible to act like they don't. After 50 years of primary elections we have totally forgotten, wilfully forgotten, that things ever worked differently, and consider anything else "corrupt". As one political scientist (whose book I found totally unreadable) said, we think of the 2 parties as public utilities. The voters, atomized, pure, disinterested, cast their vote for the candidate that best matches their values, the results are tallied, and the voters' choice is declared the winner. Democracy. "Politics" consists of nothing but talking to the electorate, convincing them to vote for you. The only reason you can lose is you did not convince enough voters (or you are a Democrat and therefore the electoral college is rigged against you.) "Influence"? Never heard of it. "Negotiation"? You must be a conspiracy theorist.
Since this idealized dream agrees with post-Progressive Era liberals (who pursued these anti-machine reforms at least as much to keep the drunken Irishman and voluble Latin out of sober Protestant Anglo-Saxon political life as to curb corruption) it makes sense that they see the world this way, but the strange thing is the Chapo-influenced left believes it just as much, if not more. (As I said about Thackeray, a bitter cynic is just a certain kind of idealist: he is outraged that the world does not conform to his candy-colored deam of what it "should" be, which is always broadly conventional.) They believed Bernie Sanders did not need any support in the Democratic Party -- indeed they did not want him to get any. He needed only appeal to the voters. There is no word the Chapo left loves more than "organize", yet they are as completely sure as the most earnest MSNBC-watching, Warren-voting liberal that organization and corruption are the exact same thing. (Chapo types like to sneer at Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, but if they'd actually watch it, they'd see it captures their entire theory of politics -- the evil politicians' goons beating up children distributing an underground newspaper is a nice touch -- and if they were honest, they would agree that totally ineffective and meaningless filibusters are exactly what they want and expect out of politicians like AOC; any coalition-building means she is Corrupted, at least until her next snarky tweet.) They knew the voters already agreed with them. The numbers were on their side. What they needed to do was knock on doors and text bank, to get the people to come out. "Last time we had a strong progressive candidate hated by the rich and called a socialist," they liked to say, "he was elected by massive majorities four times!"
FDR's career bears no resemblance to this theory of politics. He didn't emerge from nowhere with a direct appeal to the progressive working class, and storm the White House on the strength of popular support. He built his position slowly, methodically, relentlessly. With his right-hand man Louis Howe, a newspaperman who became his most trusted political advisor, he plotted a path to the Presidency that took 20 years, and that only after being accelerated by events (he originally planned to run for Governor in 1932, not 1928.) He was an insider, not an insurgent; he used his positions of power, like being Assistant Secretary of the Navy, and political campaigns that weren't about him, like for Al Smith or when he was the Vice Presidential candidate in the doomed Cox campaign, to build connections and gain allies within the party, around the country, even around the world. During the first half of the book, the general political history, not the biography section, Roosevelt keeps popping up, corresponding with his fellow Democrats about the issues of the day. This is partly Schlesinger's design to show him as always right, but it also emphasizes that he was always connected, always an active member of the party, always building support. What he wrote, as quoted by Schlesinger, was indeed populist/progressive/leftish in content, but it wasn't to The People he was writing, but to his fellow party members. The midpoint of the book, a very detailed description of Howe and fellow Roosevelt operative Jim Farley's various machinations to secure the nomination at the Democratic Convention of 1932, is its climax and emblem, and it has nothing to do with the electorate at all.
I'm sure some people reading this might take me to mean "GO BIDEN!" because Biden, of course, had no campaign whatever beyond securing the support of party insiders. On the contrary, what I am saying is the Democratic Party should be burned to the ground, or at least, completely abandoned by anyone who cares about anything that we now call progressive -- justice of any kind, economic justice, racial justice, gender justice, climate justice. I think Bernie should have given up all thought of the Democratic nomination when Obama placed Tom Perez in the DNC over Keith Ellison: it proved the party, as in the people in charge of it, would never give up the Party, as in the public utility we pretend it is, its infrastructure, its branding, etc. Liberals hold a funny doublethink when it comes to Obama's moves to destroy Bernie on Super Tuesday: they both insist that The Voters (as I have said) were Pure and Disinterested (and Black, therefore you can't disagree!) and just love Biden, and they also will tell you that kind of move is totally normal and "just politics". I basically agree with the latter, although I don't think I can remember such a naked and clumsy "just politics" move in my lifetime. Where I really disagree is with their bizarre conviction that We Must Vote Democrat anyway. So you're saying the voters of the party hate me and my ideology, that the party insiders hate me and will destroy me every chance they get, and yet I need to support them with my vote and my money and my time? No thank you. We need to do something else. Organize something else. Call it a party, call it whatever you want. Imagine if Bernie spent the last four years, not stockpiling poor people's money to blow on a futile campaign, but had left the Democrat Party to the Democrats and built a real movement. Some kind of mutual aid, some kind of union, but something that doesn't wall itself off from politics -- something that, like Roosevelt building contacts throughout the West while running the Navy, can accomplish several goals at once.
I am an anarchist, and take a Stirnerite comfort in history: knowing that every single one of the issues which we think are fundamental and desperately important are in fact spooks which posterity will find as baffling and silly as we find the theological disagreements which split the Blues and Greens in Byzantine days. I don't believe in the state or in power over other people. But I like to know my enemy. I want to understand the state, I want to understand power, I want to understand politics. It's so difficult to, because of the layers of obfuscation built by liberal institutions. But I keep trying.
May 13, 2016
https://bestpresidentialbios.com/2016...
"The Age of Roosevelt: The Crisis of the Old Order (1919-1933)" is the first in Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.'s three-volume series about FDR. Schlesinger won a Pulitzer Prize in 1946 for “The Age of Jackson” and another in 1966 for his book "A Thousand Days: John F. Kennedy in the White House." Schlesinger was a well-known historian, social critic and prominent Democrat and served as Special Assistant to President Kennedy. He died in 2007 at the age of 89.
Like its literary doppelgänger ("The Age of Jackson"), this first volume in Schlesinger's series on FDR is far less a biography of its subject than a review of the political, social and cultural currents of his times. The first two-thirds of the book is essentially a political science treatise examining American society during the Theodore Roosevelt, Taft, Wilson, Harding, Coolidge and Hoover presidencies.
Not until more than 300 pages have elapsed does the text begin to focus on Roosevelt. And even this first chapter dedicated to FDR himself is brisk, sweeping the reader through the first three decades of his life. Missed (or nearly so) are countless moments in his early life which are instructive to understanding the politician (and spouse, and father) he was to become. The basics of his youth and early political career are covered, but rarely with much depth.
Better- and more thoroughly-described are Roosevelt's years as Assistant Secretary of the Navy during the Wilson administration, his fight with polio at the age of 40 and his service as governor of New York. During these years, the book's pace is slower and more deliberate. And during these pages Schlesinger does an often excellent job introducing interesting ancillary characters such as John Nance Garner (FDR's future running-mate).
As the volume closes, President-elect Roosevelt has arrived in Washington D.C. and is preparing for his inauguration. Readers not paying close attention will miss the brief discussion of his nomination, but even careful readers will miss most of the drama of the Chicago convention (which is simply never reviewed).
Schlesinger's book is consistently excellent at what it does cover. But it leaves so much aside that someone new to FDR will fail to obtain a picture of the whole man. And readers familiar with him will wonder what was gained by taking this seemingly supersonic journey through his pre-presidency. Very few details of his personal life are shared, almost no mention is made of his family and the only insights into FDR the reader absorbs are those provided by the author (there are not enough anecdotes, stories and context to deduce much).
Clearly intended more as a political history of his times and not as a personal history of the man himself, "The Age of Roosevelt: The Crisis of the Old Order" is disappointing as an introduction to FDR. Readers seeking an academic discourse on the political philosophies of the early 20th century, or to understand the context into which FDR assumed the presidency, will find a happy home here. But those hoping to re-live the personal and political journey which swept Franklin Roosevelt into the White House will be sorely disappointed.
Overall rating: 3 stars
"The Age of Roosevelt: The Crisis of the Old Order (1919-1933)" is the first in Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.'s three-volume series about FDR. Schlesinger won a Pulitzer Prize in 1946 for “The Age of Jackson” and another in 1966 for his book "A Thousand Days: John F. Kennedy in the White House." Schlesinger was a well-known historian, social critic and prominent Democrat and served as Special Assistant to President Kennedy. He died in 2007 at the age of 89.
Like its literary doppelgänger ("The Age of Jackson"), this first volume in Schlesinger's series on FDR is far less a biography of its subject than a review of the political, social and cultural currents of his times. The first two-thirds of the book is essentially a political science treatise examining American society during the Theodore Roosevelt, Taft, Wilson, Harding, Coolidge and Hoover presidencies.
Not until more than 300 pages have elapsed does the text begin to focus on Roosevelt. And even this first chapter dedicated to FDR himself is brisk, sweeping the reader through the first three decades of his life. Missed (or nearly so) are countless moments in his early life which are instructive to understanding the politician (and spouse, and father) he was to become. The basics of his youth and early political career are covered, but rarely with much depth.
Better- and more thoroughly-described are Roosevelt's years as Assistant Secretary of the Navy during the Wilson administration, his fight with polio at the age of 40 and his service as governor of New York. During these years, the book's pace is slower and more deliberate. And during these pages Schlesinger does an often excellent job introducing interesting ancillary characters such as John Nance Garner (FDR's future running-mate).
As the volume closes, President-elect Roosevelt has arrived in Washington D.C. and is preparing for his inauguration. Readers not paying close attention will miss the brief discussion of his nomination, but even careful readers will miss most of the drama of the Chicago convention (which is simply never reviewed).
Schlesinger's book is consistently excellent at what it does cover. But it leaves so much aside that someone new to FDR will fail to obtain a picture of the whole man. And readers familiar with him will wonder what was gained by taking this seemingly supersonic journey through his pre-presidency. Very few details of his personal life are shared, almost no mention is made of his family and the only insights into FDR the reader absorbs are those provided by the author (there are not enough anecdotes, stories and context to deduce much).
Clearly intended more as a political history of his times and not as a personal history of the man himself, "The Age of Roosevelt: The Crisis of the Old Order" is disappointing as an introduction to FDR. Readers seeking an academic discourse on the political philosophies of the early 20th century, or to understand the context into which FDR assumed the presidency, will find a happy home here. But those hoping to re-live the personal and political journey which swept Franklin Roosevelt into the White House will be sorely disappointed.
Overall rating: 3 stars
July 25, 2013
An excellent and well-written account of the early life of Roosevelt and the political history of America from the end of World War I to the selection of Roosevelt as the Democratic presidential candidate. I found the organization of the book unusual but well-done. The first half was the general political history and the second was the early life of Roosevelt until his election. Schlesinger uses the first section well to set up the social and political climate in which Roosevelt grew up and began his political career.
August 18, 2014
Exhaustive and definitive look at the factors that led to the Great Depression, the complete deregulation of business and Wall Street that led to speculation and mismanagement run rampant, and the factors that allowed FDR to ascend to the White House. Complete in every detail, this book is for the hardy reader, but rewards the political history buff and economic reader with a through account of the crisis that brought the old order crashing down. Essential reading for this period of history.
April 15, 2008
Schlesinger had a bad case of hero worhship and an East Coast bias.
August 13, 2011
I thought this was a truly excellent book - sharp, detailed, analytical account of American political history from William Jennings Bryan through the 1932 election.
March 29, 2023
The first part of this unfinished series, it seeks to set the stage for FDR - the evolution of the USA from 1890s to 1910s, and the crisis and fragementation in the 1920s which made FDR the last hope for saving, as he says it. Greatly written, it is able to show the sense of fear of revolution and uprisings and how much resistance was growing, especially in the countryside with regularly relying on valuable quotes.
However, it often puts narrative over in-depth facts, which make some chapters a bit sparse and it has a 100 page Roosevelt biography I wasn't really interest in, nor was particularly good in itself. Nonetheless, a very good piece of writing.
However, it often puts narrative over in-depth facts, which make some chapters a bit sparse and it has a 100 page Roosevelt biography I wasn't really interest in, nor was particularly good in itself. Nonetheless, a very good piece of writing.
Read
April 11, 2020The story, all names, characters, and incidents portrayed in this book are historical. No identification with extant persons, places, buildings, and products is intended or should be inferred.
Page 25: opposition to the abolition of child labor, minimum-wage and maximum-hour laws, and social insurance is framed by businessmen as a defense of the “freedom” of workers to make a living however they please.
Page 57: President Coolidge says “The chief business of the American people is business….If the Federal Government should go out of existence, the common run of people would not detect the difference in the affairs of their daily life for a considerable length of time.”
Page 66: “Denied outlet in lower prices because of accumulating rigidities, the gains of technological efficiency were equally denied outlet in higher wages or in higher farm prices because of the bargaining feebleness of the labor movement and of the farm bloc. As a result, these gains were captured increasingly by the businessmen themselves in the form of profits. Through the [1920s], profits rose over 80 per cent as a whole, or twice as much as productivity; the profits of financial institutions rose a fantastic 150 per cent.”
Page 67: “Between 1923 and 1929, output per man-hour in manufacturing rose almost 32 per cent, while hourly wages rose but slightly over 8 per cent.
Page 67: “By the middle twenties, the whole economic process began to focus on a single point—the ticker-tape machine with its endless chatter of stock market quotations….The leaders of the business community, now heedless of caution in their passion for gain, promoted new investment trusts, devised new holding companies and manipulated new pools, always with the aim of floating new securities for the apparently insatiable market….In time it would appear that even the leaders of business could not decipher the intricate financial structures they were erecting.”
Pages 103-104: In a 1925 letter, FDR advises fellow his fellow Democrats that the party must become “by definite policy, the Party of constructive progress, before we can attract a larger following.” Since 1920, he says, “we have been doing nothing—waiting for the other fellow to put his foot in it.” “In the minds of the average voter the Democratic Party has no definite constructive aims.”
Page 114: “The A.F. of L. played little role in initiating [efforts to abolish the yellow-dog contract and limit the labor injunction], preferring rather to place its trust in the foremost industrial statesmen of modern times. Yet, underneath, new currents were stirring. Toward the end of the twenties, a series of strikes, especially in the needle trades and in the textile mills, showed a defiance not yet smothered by the boom.”
Page 150: “Never before in American history had artists and writers felt so impotent in their relation to American society. The business culture wanted nothing from the intellectual, had no use for him, gave him no sustenance.”
Page 165: On March 7, 1930, Hoover says “All the evidences indicate that the worst effects of the crash on unemployment will have been passed in the next sixty days. “[President Hoover’s] fault lay not in taking an optimistic line, but in bending the facts to sustain his optimism, and then in believing his own conclusions.” “Hoover found in pledges an acceptable substitute for actions; assurances given took the place of dollars spent.”
Page 177: In 1930, businessmen predict that “by early spring there should be definite signs of a turn….1930 will stand out as a year of unusual stability….Renewed business expansion may be anticipated during the second half….The last half should be marked by rapid recovery in every direction.”
Page 207: “[Socialist party leader Norman Thomas’s] most successful appeal was not to workers but to middle-class audiences in the colleges and the churches. Between 1928 and 1932, the Socialist party hardly more than doubled its tiny membership—from about 7,000 to 15,000.”
Page 226: Oklahoma Senator Gore, in 1931, says “You might just as well try to prevent the human race from having a disease as to prevent economic grief of this sort.”
Page 244: “[President Hoover’s] attitude in press conferences aroused more serious concern. He played favorites…and complained to publishers of reporters whose stories he did not like. Gradually he began to cancel his press conferences….The conferences themselves consisted increasingly of official handouts. Bumbling attempts by White House secretaries to withhold official news and to control the writing of stories only aggravated the situation. The president’s relations with the press…had reached ‘a stage of unpleasantness without parallel during the present century. They are characterized by mutual dislike, unconcealed suspicion, and downright bitterness.’”
Page 253: “J.P. Morgan, who appealed to workers to give their meager wages for the block-aid campaign (‘we must all do our bit’), paid not one cent of federal income tax himself in 1930, 1931, or 1932; nor, in the latter two years, did any of his partners….According to their tax returns, the Morgan partners, for all their accumulation of town houses and limousines, yachts in Long Island Sound and shooting boxes in Scotland, had virtually no taxable income at all in the depression years.”
Page 268: Pennsylvania Senator David A. Reed says “I do not often envy other countries their governments, but I say that if this country ever needed a Mussolini, it needs one now.”
Page 286: Democratic presidential candidate John Nance Garner’s “motto would be ‘America First’.”
Page 419: Felix Frankfurter favors “rigorous regulation of investment banking and securities exchanges.” Rex Tugwell and others preferred central planning.
Page 25: opposition to the abolition of child labor, minimum-wage and maximum-hour laws, and social insurance is framed by businessmen as a defense of the “freedom” of workers to make a living however they please.
Page 57: President Coolidge says “The chief business of the American people is business….If the Federal Government should go out of existence, the common run of people would not detect the difference in the affairs of their daily life for a considerable length of time.”
Page 66: “Denied outlet in lower prices because of accumulating rigidities, the gains of technological efficiency were equally denied outlet in higher wages or in higher farm prices because of the bargaining feebleness of the labor movement and of the farm bloc. As a result, these gains were captured increasingly by the businessmen themselves in the form of profits. Through the [1920s], profits rose over 80 per cent as a whole, or twice as much as productivity; the profits of financial institutions rose a fantastic 150 per cent.”
Page 67: “Between 1923 and 1929, output per man-hour in manufacturing rose almost 32 per cent, while hourly wages rose but slightly over 8 per cent.
Page 67: “By the middle twenties, the whole economic process began to focus on a single point—the ticker-tape machine with its endless chatter of stock market quotations….The leaders of the business community, now heedless of caution in their passion for gain, promoted new investment trusts, devised new holding companies and manipulated new pools, always with the aim of floating new securities for the apparently insatiable market….In time it would appear that even the leaders of business could not decipher the intricate financial structures they were erecting.”
Pages 103-104: In a 1925 letter, FDR advises fellow his fellow Democrats that the party must become “by definite policy, the Party of constructive progress, before we can attract a larger following.” Since 1920, he says, “we have been doing nothing—waiting for the other fellow to put his foot in it.” “In the minds of the average voter the Democratic Party has no definite constructive aims.”
Page 114: “The A.F. of L. played little role in initiating [efforts to abolish the yellow-dog contract and limit the labor injunction], preferring rather to place its trust in the foremost industrial statesmen of modern times. Yet, underneath, new currents were stirring. Toward the end of the twenties, a series of strikes, especially in the needle trades and in the textile mills, showed a defiance not yet smothered by the boom.”
Page 150: “Never before in American history had artists and writers felt so impotent in their relation to American society. The business culture wanted nothing from the intellectual, had no use for him, gave him no sustenance.”
Page 165: On March 7, 1930, Hoover says “All the evidences indicate that the worst effects of the crash on unemployment will have been passed in the next sixty days. “[President Hoover’s] fault lay not in taking an optimistic line, but in bending the facts to sustain his optimism, and then in believing his own conclusions.” “Hoover found in pledges an acceptable substitute for actions; assurances given took the place of dollars spent.”
Page 177: In 1930, businessmen predict that “by early spring there should be definite signs of a turn….1930 will stand out as a year of unusual stability….Renewed business expansion may be anticipated during the second half….The last half should be marked by rapid recovery in every direction.”
Page 207: “[Socialist party leader Norman Thomas’s] most successful appeal was not to workers but to middle-class audiences in the colleges and the churches. Between 1928 and 1932, the Socialist party hardly more than doubled its tiny membership—from about 7,000 to 15,000.”
Page 226: Oklahoma Senator Gore, in 1931, says “You might just as well try to prevent the human race from having a disease as to prevent economic grief of this sort.”
Page 244: “[President Hoover’s] attitude in press conferences aroused more serious concern. He played favorites…and complained to publishers of reporters whose stories he did not like. Gradually he began to cancel his press conferences….The conferences themselves consisted increasingly of official handouts. Bumbling attempts by White House secretaries to withhold official news and to control the writing of stories only aggravated the situation. The president’s relations with the press…had reached ‘a stage of unpleasantness without parallel during the present century. They are characterized by mutual dislike, unconcealed suspicion, and downright bitterness.’”
Page 253: “J.P. Morgan, who appealed to workers to give their meager wages for the block-aid campaign (‘we must all do our bit’), paid not one cent of federal income tax himself in 1930, 1931, or 1932; nor, in the latter two years, did any of his partners….According to their tax returns, the Morgan partners, for all their accumulation of town houses and limousines, yachts in Long Island Sound and shooting boxes in Scotland, had virtually no taxable income at all in the depression years.”
Page 268: Pennsylvania Senator David A. Reed says “I do not often envy other countries their governments, but I say that if this country ever needed a Mussolini, it needs one now.”
Page 286: Democratic presidential candidate John Nance Garner’s “motto would be ‘America First’.”
Page 419: Felix Frankfurter favors “rigorous regulation of investment banking and securities exchanges.” Rex Tugwell and others preferred central planning.
November 17, 2018
it was ok.
far too much detail of who did what to whom day by day in politics in the late 1920's and early 1930's.
probably more readable when published in 1957 than now.
I'll pass on the other two volumes and look for a more analytic take on this period.
far too much detail of who did what to whom day by day in politics in the late 1920's and early 1930's.
probably more readable when published in 1957 than now.
I'll pass on the other two volumes and look for a more analytic take on this period.
June 4, 2018
wordy
February 9, 2020
The Age of Roosevelt is an appropriate construction for this series, because in many ways it's much more about the political history of this era rather than a pure biography. As the single most dominant political figure in the United States during this era, of course Roosevelt is the focus, but Schlesinger spends significant time on other players, and more importantly allows us to get a much more incomplete picture of FDR himself. (This is not a book that delves deeply into the personal relationships between Franklin & Eleanor, nor does it concern itself with things like FDR's affairs)
It is an excellent analysis of the political and economic forces rippling through the United States, from the end of the Roaring 20's into the Great Depression. This is where Schlesinger is at his best: examining all the different challenges at play, the competing interests, how and why people responded the way they did and what drove them to act or refuse to act. He's absolutely got the pulse on every single major actor in the downfall of the system that drove things to great heights and led to a disastrous, brutal, and total collapse in 1929.
There's also disturbing and obvious parallels to where we are now, again. We are seeing many of the same problems and concerns now with losses in purchasing power, stagnant wages not responding to increases in productivity, and businesses taking advantage of a lack of controls to exploit everything for the benefit of the insiders and privileged few.
The political maneuvering is fascinating, though much less applicable to today. Back then both the republican and democratic parties had progressive and conservative wings and party unity was a more complicated subject. Racial divides (something Schlesinger does little to look at here, disappointingly) were also handled differently. But seeing how FDR made his way to the presidential nomination is a terrific and interesting tale.
Hoover gets deservedly pilloried here for his turgid and ineffectual responses to the depression. The level of arrogance flows off every interaction when he enters the story, and even after he's lost the election, he still expects FDR to bend to his policies and will. The level of certainty in his own rightness is ultimately why he ends up an utter failure as president, despite being a decent, intelligent, and honorable person.
Excellent book for anyone interested in the political history of the time, especially as it pertains to the national level.
It is an excellent analysis of the political and economic forces rippling through the United States, from the end of the Roaring 20's into the Great Depression. This is where Schlesinger is at his best: examining all the different challenges at play, the competing interests, how and why people responded the way they did and what drove them to act or refuse to act. He's absolutely got the pulse on every single major actor in the downfall of the system that drove things to great heights and led to a disastrous, brutal, and total collapse in 1929.
There's also disturbing and obvious parallels to where we are now, again. We are seeing many of the same problems and concerns now with losses in purchasing power, stagnant wages not responding to increases in productivity, and businesses taking advantage of a lack of controls to exploit everything for the benefit of the insiders and privileged few.
The political maneuvering is fascinating, though much less applicable to today. Back then both the republican and democratic parties had progressive and conservative wings and party unity was a more complicated subject. Racial divides (something Schlesinger does little to look at here, disappointingly) were also handled differently. But seeing how FDR made his way to the presidential nomination is a terrific and interesting tale.
Hoover gets deservedly pilloried here for his turgid and ineffectual responses to the depression. The level of arrogance flows off every interaction when he enters the story, and even after he's lost the election, he still expects FDR to bend to his policies and will. The level of certainty in his own rightness is ultimately why he ends up an utter failure as president, despite being a decent, intelligent, and honorable person.
Excellent book for anyone interested in the political history of the time, especially as it pertains to the national level.
August 26, 2024
"The Crisis of the Old Order" is a social, political, economic, and intellectual history of the post-World War One era until 1933, when FDR is sworn in as president. Though the title may make you believe that this is an FDR biography, it is far from it. FDR barely appears until about 60 percent of the way through the book.
But if you want a detailed analysis about what it was like during the Roaring Twenties and the first four years of the Depression, Schlesinger does a great job. He details America's rise from the ashes of World War I, only to have its spirit tested again just a decade later. Schlesinger does a great job balancing the macro-trends of the era (i.e. views about business, perceptions about the role of government in American life, and prohibition) with more individualized stories. The best parts of the book were his chapters on the Bonus Army, the populist uprisings during the depression, and the struggles of farmers and workers during the Depression. The only major flaw of the book is that there is a lot discussion about the intellectual debates at the time, that get too granular and a bit dry to read.
For those who are looking for an FDR biography, there is a good 10-20% of the book dedicated to FDR's life, chronicling FDR's rise from Assistant Secretary of the Navy to President of the United States. But it is not as granular as a typical FDR biography. If you are looking for a biography, I recommend Jean Edward Smith's "FDR" or H.W. Brands' "A Traitor to His Class".
Historians say that leaders are a reflection of what the people are feeling at the time. After reading this book, I understood that FDR's rise was not just a reaction to the Depression. FDR's election was the culmination of trends that started in 1918. I'm very much looking forward to the second book of Schlesinger's trilogy.
But if you want a detailed analysis about what it was like during the Roaring Twenties and the first four years of the Depression, Schlesinger does a great job. He details America's rise from the ashes of World War I, only to have its spirit tested again just a decade later. Schlesinger does a great job balancing the macro-trends of the era (i.e. views about business, perceptions about the role of government in American life, and prohibition) with more individualized stories. The best parts of the book were his chapters on the Bonus Army, the populist uprisings during the depression, and the struggles of farmers and workers during the Depression. The only major flaw of the book is that there is a lot discussion about the intellectual debates at the time, that get too granular and a bit dry to read.
For those who are looking for an FDR biography, there is a good 10-20% of the book dedicated to FDR's life, chronicling FDR's rise from Assistant Secretary of the Navy to President of the United States. But it is not as granular as a typical FDR biography. If you are looking for a biography, I recommend Jean Edward Smith's "FDR" or H.W. Brands' "A Traitor to His Class".
Historians say that leaders are a reflection of what the people are feeling at the time. After reading this book, I understood that FDR's rise was not just a reaction to the Depression. FDR's election was the culmination of trends that started in 1918. I'm very much looking forward to the second book of Schlesinger's trilogy.
March 28, 2020
This book was timely for me. As a student of political history, I found this first installment of the Age Of Roosevelt particularly fascinating, more so due to the time of my reading. I started this book just before the 2020 SC Dem primary and finished it amidst the massive quarantining caused by COVID-19. This current season is full of massive uncertainty and fear, which allowed me to read this book with a different lens.
FDR is a cog in a wheel of this first book. Schlesinger spends the majority of his time setting the scene going into great depths to lay the groundwork of political philosophy present at that time. FDR is much more central in the back 30% of this volume. I’ve read a good bit on FDR, but up until now, I never quite realized how much uncertainty surrounded his transition period between election and inauguration. Those in his orbit seemed to be genuinely unsure of what he would pursue as his priorities. We know how the story ends but undoubtedly terrifying to consider at that point in time.
I would highly recommend for anyone interested in 1920s America, Democratic politics pre-New Deal, and political philosophy. Those readers anxious to explore FDR in more depth, I would recommend patience.
FDR is a cog in a wheel of this first book. Schlesinger spends the majority of his time setting the scene going into great depths to lay the groundwork of political philosophy present at that time. FDR is much more central in the back 30% of this volume. I’ve read a good bit on FDR, but up until now, I never quite realized how much uncertainty surrounded his transition period between election and inauguration. Those in his orbit seemed to be genuinely unsure of what he would pursue as his priorities. We know how the story ends but undoubtedly terrifying to consider at that point in time.
I would highly recommend for anyone interested in 1920s America, Democratic politics pre-New Deal, and political philosophy. Those readers anxious to explore FDR in more depth, I would recommend patience.
July 11, 2019
I'm really glad I read this book, but it took me over two years to do it. I had to break it into sections. It's well-written, but dense and detailed. My eyes tended to glaze over when reading about the whole tableau of progressive politics and their figures. However, the book shines when it focuses on FDR, his relationships and campaign. It also came alive at the end when it delved into Hoover's fear of an FDR win and his unwillingness to let go of the presidency until the bitter end.
Overall though, this book and the series is important to read. I kept at it because it is so relatable to what is happening today. We are not in the midst of economic depression, but we are in the midst of populism and calls for radical change. For anyone who thinks that history does not repeat itself, this is a sobering reminder.
Overall though, this book and the series is important to read. I kept at it because it is so relatable to what is happening today. We are not in the midst of economic depression, but we are in the midst of populism and calls for radical change. For anyone who thinks that history does not repeat itself, this is a sobering reminder.
January 28, 2025
I appreciated this book primarily for its in-depth portrayal and analysis of 1920s USA economic, political, and cultural life.
Historical personalities are well wrought in full color and depth.
Written in the mid-50s, some name-drops are not needed, as contemporary readers will not recognize these people, who by-the-way aren't rendered, mostly, in any color or depth, as the more relevant characters appropriately are. Minor quibble which doesn't detract from this well-written and interesting exploration of USA society in the early post-scarcity age.
Historical personalities are well wrought in full color and depth.
Written in the mid-50s, some name-drops are not needed, as contemporary readers will not recognize these people, who by-the-way aren't rendered, mostly, in any color or depth, as the more relevant characters appropriately are. Minor quibble which doesn't detract from this well-written and interesting exploration of USA society in the early post-scarcity age.
December 8, 2018
Solid history told through a crisp, scholarly perspective.
You will come away with a solid understanding of the ebbs, flows, evolutions, and revolutions of early 20th century US Liberal and Conservative governments.
And you get a neat little engaging FDR biography for about 100 pages.
In his wide, elegant prose, Schlesinger crafts a wonderful narrative of one of the more pivotal eras in US history.
(ps it's mostly only about white people)
You will come away with a solid understanding of the ebbs, flows, evolutions, and revolutions of early 20th century US Liberal and Conservative governments.
And you get a neat little engaging FDR biography for about 100 pages.
In his wide, elegant prose, Schlesinger crafts a wonderful narrative of one of the more pivotal eras in US history.
(ps it's mostly only about white people)
November 17, 2019
An excellent history of the events and the times of the Jazz Age and the Depression. It was a bit tedious in places describing economic and political theories of the time but this was necessary background. The book really gave me pause for thought in how little the basic character of business and banking has changed. I am anticipating reading the second in this three volume The Age of Roosevelt series, The Coming of the New Deal.
A very good read.
A very good read.
April 20, 2020
If Joe Biden wins the Presidency in November 2020, he will face challenges on the magnitude of what faced FDR in January 1933. I wanted to have a better understanding of that stage of American history in order to better understand our times. This is the first in a series of histories covering the age of FDR. This mostly focuses on the time period of 1919-1932 while also doing a deep dive into FDR’s formative years. Very well done and told.
October 1, 2020
One of the best history books ever written and researched. Schlesinger traces of the decline and end of the old political and economic order from 1919 to 1933 and the rise of FDR. The book ends the day before FDR is sworn into office. So it is a history of the end of the old order, dominated by the rich, their corporations, and their Supreme Court for the first half, and then a history of FDR. History books cannot get much better than this.
June 1, 2020
Magnificently illuminating and comprehensive, with a truly stunning array of parallels to today (all of them Depressing). We're re-living almost all of these crises, but without any adults in the room to manage them. I think I need to buy this book.
January 25, 2025
I've not read the book! I can't read a book about one of the ugliest, weakest bullies ever in politics.
A country that got sucked in by a cripple deserved what they got!
I'm sure the book is quite a brilliant piece of writing - as all of AS's works are.
But that dog ain't gonna hunt for me?!
A country that got sucked in by a cripple deserved what they got!
I'm sure the book is quite a brilliant piece of writing - as all of AS's works are.
But that dog ain't gonna hunt for me?!
April 14, 2019
Tendentious. Lots of opinion, little fact. FDR and the Democrats could do no wrong!
February 12, 2024
well written; informative;
March 18, 2024
4.0 / 5.0
Well written. Some of economic theory was garbled, but very detailed and insightful.
Well written. Some of economic theory was garbled, but very detailed and insightful.
July 16, 2025
Zelo dobra izčrpna knjiga, sicer velik del o backgroundu preskocu ker man's got his limits. Težko sledit vsemu name droppanju ampak overall zelo insightful
November 29, 2008
Schlesinger provides an admiring popular history of Roosevelt's rise to power that is full of surprises when read 50 years later by a non historian. The extreme positions that intelligent, responsible people took in the early 30s, ranging from laissez faire complacency at the impoverishment of the country to embrace of Mussolini style fascism to communism, is amazing. Obviously people were at a loss about what to do and started flailing. Viewing from our current economic situation, I wince. In late 1929 people thought everything would bounce right back after a short adjustment just as I do today.
The book itself has lots of good stories, giving just as much space to the observations of the White House servants as it does to those of John Maynard Keynes. Unfortunately, since Keynes' observations were a little more complex than those of the servants, someone not already familiar with his theories might well end up confused.
Historically, I am sure that much more even handed books have been written about the period, but this book is an enjoyable trip through the past as my parents and their generation saw it.
The book itself has lots of good stories, giving just as much space to the observations of the White House servants as it does to those of John Maynard Keynes. Unfortunately, since Keynes' observations were a little more complex than those of the servants, someone not already familiar with his theories might well end up confused.
Historically, I am sure that much more even handed books have been written about the period, but this book is an enjoyable trip through the past as my parents and their generation saw it.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 41 reviews