What do you think?
Rate this book
Arthur Vandenberg: The Man in the Middle of the American Century
The idea that a Senator—Republican or Democrat—would put the greater good of the country ahead of party seems nearly impossible to imagine in our current climate of gridlock and divisiveness. But this hasn’t always been the case. Arthur H. Vandenberg (1884–1951), Republican from Grand Rapids, Michigan, was the model of a consensus builder, and the coalitions he spearheaded continue to form the foundation of American foreign and domestic policy today. Edward R. Murrow called him “the central pivot of the entire era,” yet, despite his significance, Vandenberg has never received the full public attention he is due—until now. With this authoritative biography, Hendrik Meijer reveals how Vandenberg built and nurtured the bipartisan consensus that created the American Century.
Originally the editor and publisher of the Grand Rapids Herald, Vandenberg was appointed and later elected to the Senate in 1928, where he became an outspoken opponent of the New Deal and a leader among the isolationists who resisted FDR’s efforts to aid European allies at the onset of World War II. But Vandenberg soon recognized the need for unity at the dawn of a new world order; and as a Republican leader, he worked closely with Democratic administrations to build the strong bipartisan consensus that established the Marshall Plan, the United Nations, and NATO. Vandenberg, as Meijer reveals, was instrumental in organizing Congressional support for these monumental twentieth-century foreign policy decisions.
Vandenberg’s life and career offer powerful lessons for today, and Meijer has given us a story that suggests an antidote to our current democratic challenges. After reading this poignant biography, many will ask: Where is the Vandenberg of today?
Originally the editor and publisher of the Grand Rapids Herald, Vandenberg was appointed and later elected to the Senate in 1928, where he became an outspoken opponent of the New Deal and a leader among the isolationists who resisted FDR’s efforts to aid European allies at the onset of World War II. But Vandenberg soon recognized the need for unity at the dawn of a new world order; and as a Republican leader, he worked closely with Democratic administrations to build the strong bipartisan consensus that established the Marshall Plan, the United Nations, and NATO. Vandenberg, as Meijer reveals, was instrumental in organizing Congressional support for these monumental twentieth-century foreign policy decisions.
Vandenberg’s life and career offer powerful lessons for today, and Meijer has given us a story that suggests an antidote to our current democratic challenges. After reading this poignant biography, many will ask: Where is the Vandenberg of today?
448 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2017
17 people are currently reading
164 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
February 3, 2022
Author Hendrik Meijer probably sees a bit of himself in Senator Arthur Vandenberg. Both men hail from Grand Rapids, Michigan. Both attended the University of Michigan and worked as journalists. I suspect that Meijer, like Vandenberg, is a Republican, as Wikipedia notes that his son is a Republican congressman and that Meijer himself was a close friend of Gerald Ford and “vice-chairman and a trustee of the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Foundation” ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hank_Me... ).
Certainly, Meijer seems to admire Vandenberg. While I don’t know Meijer personally, I have heard him speak on Vandenberg to Michigan historical organizations, and that admiration was easily perceived. Likewise, his coverage here is largely positive. To be fair, Vandenberg possessed admirable traits. He began his Senate career in 1928 as a partisan Republican isolationist. During the Roosevelt administration - much of which saw Democratic dominance in Congress as well as the Presidency - he fought what he saw as executive overreach and a threat to Congressional authority. Then, during World War II, he re-examined his isolationist views and did an about face: becoming a prominent internationalist, and helping form both the United Nations and NATO. His willingness to change and adapt - and to put party over country - is certainly laudable.
This book likely seems even more relevant today than when Meijer wrote it. Partisanship has been especially strident lately, and I imagine that traditional Republicans in particular might long for a man like Vandenberg, who worked for bipartisanship and put his country first. That said, Meijer also shows how Vandenberg felt burned (so to speak) after the 1948 election, when Truman won re-election and the Democrats again took control of Congress. In Vandenberg’s view, his own policy and actions toward bipartisanship were not then reciprocated. Politics can be a tricky game.
If, like me, you enjoy this kind of political football, then you should enjoy this biography. I loved its examination of differences within the political parties as well as between them, and of the motivations of various politicians. You could easily argue, for example - and Meijer does touch on this - that Vandenberg’s adoption of internationalism was at least partly motivated by his wanting to keep the Republican party a viable force in future elections (Meijer explains, for example, how Republican Presidential nominee Wendell Wilkie had already gone in that direction during the 1940 election.). By pushing the party toward internationalism - and by himself gaining expertise in diplomacy through his roles on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - Vandenberg also gained considerable influence, both in his party and in Washington, D.C. as a whole. Similarly, while bipartisanship may be good for the country, working with Democratic Presidential administrations also proved good for Vandenberg’s political clout.
Vandenberg unquestionably picked an interesting time to engage in foreign affairs, and Meijer covers the end of World War II and beginnings of the Cold War in some depth. Many issues prove relevant today. Meijer notes, for example, that Roosevelt often preferred to bypass Congress when he could and could be secretive about diplomatic discussions (such as the one at Yalta between the war’s “Big Three.”) . To what extent should a President be given freedom to act alone in military and diplomatic matters and when must Congress be consulted? Meijer notes how Roosevelt’s secrecy often annoyed Vandenberg.
Early Cold War diplomacy provides some of the book’s most enthralling reading - particularly as concerns the constant give and take with the Soviet Union. In the days immediately following World War II, diplomats were naturally very conscious of not being appeasers. Yet, concessions needed to be made. Were they always the right concessions? Did Western anti-communist sentiment sometimes get out of hand? Such grey areas make history fascinating to study and debate.
Meijer does seem to assume some historic familiarity from his readers, and those less schooled in the era might find the book challenging. There were a few moments when I felt that Meijer could have provided some clarifying information. He mentions Secretary of State Cordell Hull several times, for example, and then later, casually references “Secretary of State Edward Stettinius.” He does not explain how or why Stettinius replaced Hull. Does this matter? Maybe not (especially in an age when readers can easily consult Google), but I wondered how many readers thought that they had missed a page.
One could also debate whether Meijer could - or should - have been more critical of Vandenberg. As noted, his tone seems admiring, but he does also acknowledge some of Vandenberg’s faults. Vandenberg’s ego certainly comes through, for example, and there are instances where Meijer points out hypocrisy in Vandenberg’s reasoning. Meijer also doesn’t shy away from Vandenberg’s extramarital affair with Mitzi Sims, who may well have been a British agent assigned to romance Vandenberg (At that time - the late 1930s - the British hoped for American support and would have loved to influence a prominent American isolationist.). While noting that “there is no suggestion” that Sims caused Vandenberg to change his position on foreign matters, the affair is still a large indiscretion on Vandenberg’s part, and Meijer provides evidence of it causing some anguish to Vandenberg’s wife. While he may have possessed a number of virtues, then, the Vandenberg of this book is clearly not a saint.
Historians have lavished attention on many American Presidents, but other political figures - no matter how important they may have been - can fall through the cracks of scholarship. Arthur Vandenberg’s life and career merits study, and Hendrik Meijer has clearly done his research and given his topic considerable thought. I’m glad that he wrote this book, and I’m equally glad to have read it.
Certainly, Meijer seems to admire Vandenberg. While I don’t know Meijer personally, I have heard him speak on Vandenberg to Michigan historical organizations, and that admiration was easily perceived. Likewise, his coverage here is largely positive. To be fair, Vandenberg possessed admirable traits. He began his Senate career in 1928 as a partisan Republican isolationist. During the Roosevelt administration - much of which saw Democratic dominance in Congress as well as the Presidency - he fought what he saw as executive overreach and a threat to Congressional authority. Then, during World War II, he re-examined his isolationist views and did an about face: becoming a prominent internationalist, and helping form both the United Nations and NATO. His willingness to change and adapt - and to put party over country - is certainly laudable.
This book likely seems even more relevant today than when Meijer wrote it. Partisanship has been especially strident lately, and I imagine that traditional Republicans in particular might long for a man like Vandenberg, who worked for bipartisanship and put his country first. That said, Meijer also shows how Vandenberg felt burned (so to speak) after the 1948 election, when Truman won re-election and the Democrats again took control of Congress. In Vandenberg’s view, his own policy and actions toward bipartisanship were not then reciprocated. Politics can be a tricky game.
If, like me, you enjoy this kind of political football, then you should enjoy this biography. I loved its examination of differences within the political parties as well as between them, and of the motivations of various politicians. You could easily argue, for example - and Meijer does touch on this - that Vandenberg’s adoption of internationalism was at least partly motivated by his wanting to keep the Republican party a viable force in future elections (Meijer explains, for example, how Republican Presidential nominee Wendell Wilkie had already gone in that direction during the 1940 election.). By pushing the party toward internationalism - and by himself gaining expertise in diplomacy through his roles on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - Vandenberg also gained considerable influence, both in his party and in Washington, D.C. as a whole. Similarly, while bipartisanship may be good for the country, working with Democratic Presidential administrations also proved good for Vandenberg’s political clout.
Vandenberg unquestionably picked an interesting time to engage in foreign affairs, and Meijer covers the end of World War II and beginnings of the Cold War in some depth. Many issues prove relevant today. Meijer notes, for example, that Roosevelt often preferred to bypass Congress when he could and could be secretive about diplomatic discussions (such as the one at Yalta between the war’s “Big Three.”) . To what extent should a President be given freedom to act alone in military and diplomatic matters and when must Congress be consulted? Meijer notes how Roosevelt’s secrecy often annoyed Vandenberg.
Early Cold War diplomacy provides some of the book’s most enthralling reading - particularly as concerns the constant give and take with the Soviet Union. In the days immediately following World War II, diplomats were naturally very conscious of not being appeasers. Yet, concessions needed to be made. Were they always the right concessions? Did Western anti-communist sentiment sometimes get out of hand? Such grey areas make history fascinating to study and debate.
Meijer does seem to assume some historic familiarity from his readers, and those less schooled in the era might find the book challenging. There were a few moments when I felt that Meijer could have provided some clarifying information. He mentions Secretary of State Cordell Hull several times, for example, and then later, casually references “Secretary of State Edward Stettinius.” He does not explain how or why Stettinius replaced Hull. Does this matter? Maybe not (especially in an age when readers can easily consult Google), but I wondered how many readers thought that they had missed a page.
One could also debate whether Meijer could - or should - have been more critical of Vandenberg. As noted, his tone seems admiring, but he does also acknowledge some of Vandenberg’s faults. Vandenberg’s ego certainly comes through, for example, and there are instances where Meijer points out hypocrisy in Vandenberg’s reasoning. Meijer also doesn’t shy away from Vandenberg’s extramarital affair with Mitzi Sims, who may well have been a British agent assigned to romance Vandenberg (At that time - the late 1930s - the British hoped for American support and would have loved to influence a prominent American isolationist.). While noting that “there is no suggestion” that Sims caused Vandenberg to change his position on foreign matters, the affair is still a large indiscretion on Vandenberg’s part, and Meijer provides evidence of it causing some anguish to Vandenberg’s wife. While he may have possessed a number of virtues, then, the Vandenberg of this book is clearly not a saint.
Historians have lavished attention on many American Presidents, but other political figures - no matter how important they may have been - can fall through the cracks of scholarship. Arthur Vandenberg’s life and career merits study, and Hendrik Meijer has clearly done his research and given his topic considerable thought. I’m glad that he wrote this book, and I’m equally glad to have read it.
January 23, 2020
One of the ironies of Arthur Vandenberg's life is that he was a mirror image of that proverbial caricature of American self-regard, George Babbitt. Sinclair Lewis's novel Babbitt depicted a self-improving, boosterish, small-town Midwestern Republican as the ultimate in middle-brow blandness. When the novel came out in 1922, though, Vandenberg wrote an editorial for the Grand Rapids Herald, which he owned and edited, titled "Let Us Save the Best of Babbitt," where he attacked the metropolitan sophisticates who laughed at small town life, and celebrated the importance of such quotidian things as the "noonday luncheon club movement." Babbitt couldn't have put it better himself.
Yet Vandenberg and his wife Hazel later became close friends of Sinclair Lewis and his wife, the journalist Dorothy Thompson, and Vandenberg loved Lewis's later work "It Can't Happen Here," about a fascist takeover of the United States. Most strangely, this near proverbial midwestern Babbitt came to have an important impact on containing international communism and shaping the international world order, when he had once disdained "internationalism" as a contradiction believers in true "nationalism."
The Vandenberg that comes through these pages is haughty and filled with self-regard, even as his prose and speech is inflected with what even the sympathetic author calls "hackneyed and cliched" phrases. His real learning seemed slight. He wrote books like "If Hamilton Were Here Today," where he inserted his own, uninspiring ideas into the mouth of his hero, Alexander Hamilton. Yet Vandenberg was capable of change. After his dad's harness business failed, he worked to support the family at the local newspaper, owned by congressman and later Senator William Alden Smith, and was appointed editor by his 22nd birthday. Although he opposed U.S. entry to the First World War, he celebrated "preparedness" and became one of the most vigorous backers of President Woodrow Wilson when he entered it. He was generally suspicious of government programs, but supported a high inheritance tax, and, after he became senator in 1928, created the FDIC to ensure bank savings. Most famously, he was a prominent voice for isolationism before World War II, but switched to become an advocate for, and drafter of, the United Nations and NATO charters. His speeches against international communism, and his early use of the phrase "iron curtain," earned him praise on this side of it and obloquy on the other.
Although the book occasionally slips into a bog, most of it gives a vivid picture of the man, at once inflated and noble, simple-minded but capable of real insight. Although the book doesn't endear the reader to Vandenberg, it does show someone that can change their mind, and then make a positive difference in the world.
Yet Vandenberg and his wife Hazel later became close friends of Sinclair Lewis and his wife, the journalist Dorothy Thompson, and Vandenberg loved Lewis's later work "It Can't Happen Here," about a fascist takeover of the United States. Most strangely, this near proverbial midwestern Babbitt came to have an important impact on containing international communism and shaping the international world order, when he had once disdained "internationalism" as a contradiction believers in true "nationalism."
The Vandenberg that comes through these pages is haughty and filled with self-regard, even as his prose and speech is inflected with what even the sympathetic author calls "hackneyed and cliched" phrases. His real learning seemed slight. He wrote books like "If Hamilton Were Here Today," where he inserted his own, uninspiring ideas into the mouth of his hero, Alexander Hamilton. Yet Vandenberg was capable of change. After his dad's harness business failed, he worked to support the family at the local newspaper, owned by congressman and later Senator William Alden Smith, and was appointed editor by his 22nd birthday. Although he opposed U.S. entry to the First World War, he celebrated "preparedness" and became one of the most vigorous backers of President Woodrow Wilson when he entered it. He was generally suspicious of government programs, but supported a high inheritance tax, and, after he became senator in 1928, created the FDIC to ensure bank savings. Most famously, he was a prominent voice for isolationism before World War II, but switched to become an advocate for, and drafter of, the United Nations and NATO charters. His speeches against international communism, and his early use of the phrase "iron curtain," earned him praise on this side of it and obloquy on the other.
Although the book occasionally slips into a bog, most of it gives a vivid picture of the man, at once inflated and noble, simple-minded but capable of real insight. Although the book doesn't endear the reader to Vandenberg, it does show someone that can change their mind, and then make a positive difference in the world.
October 30, 2017
A superb biography of a Michigan Senator who is too frequently forgotten in Michigan political conversations and whose particular brand of bipartisanship is too rarely spied in 21st century state and national political life. Putting the well-being of the nation (and world) above partisan victory ... what a concept!
March 11, 2018
Biography of Michigan Senator from 1928-1951. Though at first an isolationist and often a critic of the new Deal, he became one of Congress' most prominent advocates for an international order, and proved to be a defining contributors to the establishment of NATO, the Marshall Plan, and what was then called the "Truman Doctrine", a policy of opposing and countering Soviet expansion.
July 10, 2023
Lessons from the Life of a Senator in Opposition
Arthur Vandenberg, a prominent U.S. Senator from 1928 to 1951, is largely forgotten. Author Hendrik Meijer makes the case that his career, influence, and ability to adjust his opinion have lessons for our politicians today.
If Vandenberg is remembered at all, it is likely as a leading isolationist in the months leading up to World War II as he opposed President Franklin Roosevelt’s policies to prepare the nation for war. This included FDR’s oil and steel sanctions imposed upon Japan. The Senator also argued against the many initiatives that FDR took to support Britain before the U.S. entered the war (Lend Lease, the transfer of 50 aging destroyers to Britain, the occupation of Iceland, and the escort by U.S. Navy ships of British merchant ship convoys).
Vandenberg was a leading opponent of the peacetime draft in 1940 and tried to get the draftees released from their one-year commitments in September, 1941. When less than three months later the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and Germany declared war against the U.S., this manpower addition was critical since America’s standing army was so small.
Pearl Harbor caught Vandenberg flat-footed, but privately he still expressed the view that FDR had forced Japan’s hand through the imposed oil embargo.
After the war, however, Vandenberg changed his view about America’s leadership role in the world and urged internationalism. His isolationism prior to World War II may have contributed to his influence among his fellow senators in the postwar period. He cooperated with the Truman administration to achieve bipartisan support for the United Nations, the Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan, and NATO. He proved himself a strong negotiator with the Soviets and, as Britain was forced by economic circumstances to withdraw from Greece in the postwar period, he steered U.S. support for Greece and Turkey through the Senate. This was quite an about-face.
The background of this “man in the middle” is interesting.
Vandenberg had a modest Middle West upbringing, growing up in Grand Rapids, Michigan, where he became the editor and publisher of the local newspaper and staunch Republican supporter. He seemed to embody the small town provincialism parodied by Sinclair Lewis in “Babbitt” notes the author. But when elected to the Senate he displayed great self confidence and a willingness to tackle big issues. Over the years he was often seen as a potential Republican presidential nominee but refused to actively campaign for the nomination.
Meijer points out that in many ways the Senate in the 1930s was as politically polarized as it is today. Vandenberg found himself in 1933 as one of only 19 Republicans in the Senate and facing a president who had an overwhelming mandate. “The relationship between Vandenberg and FDR passed from uneasy cooperation to fierce antagonism and back again over 12 years,” Meijer observes.
Vandenberg realized that it made sense to bend on legislative issues, especially if he could only blunt but not veto FDR’s domestic agenda. It paid on occasion to be flexible. One consequence was that Vandenberg was re-elected to the Senate in 1934, which was a considerable accomplishment for a Republican.
Interestingly, Vandenberg was able to be a constructive influence as the banking system began to collapse in 1933, four weeks before FDR was to take office. Detroit banks were at the forefront of the crisis — of particular concern to a Senator representing Michigan. Henry Ford and others in the private sector declined to help. Upon taking office, the President called for a “Bank Holiday,” but FDR initially opposed Federal deposit insurance. Vandenberg managed to get deposit protection passed in Congress, which turned out to be crucial to reestablishing trust in the banking system, only to see FDR take credit for the program that he as president had opposed.
On other policies, Vandenberg was firmly in opposition. This included opposition to Roosevelt’s National Industrial Recovery Act that attempted to fix wages and prices, and the President’s attempt to pack the Supreme Court. Looking back, many today would say that Vandenberg was right.
While Vandenberg may best be remembered for a willingness to change his mind, if not to openly admit he was wrong in his pre-war isolationism. He is also a study in how to pick one’s battles, to focus on policies that matter, and to muster reasoned argument. Since his career spanned only four years with a Republican in the White House, and some 19 years in which a Democrat was president, he had significant experience in influencing legislation and national policy.
Hendrik Meijer has written a thoughtful profile of a politician whose career offers lessons in how to be partisan in a responsible way, how to focus on matters of substance, and how to advance policy when in the political minority.
Arthur Vandenberg, a prominent U.S. Senator from 1928 to 1951, is largely forgotten. Author Hendrik Meijer makes the case that his career, influence, and ability to adjust his opinion have lessons for our politicians today.
If Vandenberg is remembered at all, it is likely as a leading isolationist in the months leading up to World War II as he opposed President Franklin Roosevelt’s policies to prepare the nation for war. This included FDR’s oil and steel sanctions imposed upon Japan. The Senator also argued against the many initiatives that FDR took to support Britain before the U.S. entered the war (Lend Lease, the transfer of 50 aging destroyers to Britain, the occupation of Iceland, and the escort by U.S. Navy ships of British merchant ship convoys).
Vandenberg was a leading opponent of the peacetime draft in 1940 and tried to get the draftees released from their one-year commitments in September, 1941. When less than three months later the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and Germany declared war against the U.S., this manpower addition was critical since America’s standing army was so small.
Pearl Harbor caught Vandenberg flat-footed, but privately he still expressed the view that FDR had forced Japan’s hand through the imposed oil embargo.
After the war, however, Vandenberg changed his view about America’s leadership role in the world and urged internationalism. His isolationism prior to World War II may have contributed to his influence among his fellow senators in the postwar period. He cooperated with the Truman administration to achieve bipartisan support for the United Nations, the Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan, and NATO. He proved himself a strong negotiator with the Soviets and, as Britain was forced by economic circumstances to withdraw from Greece in the postwar period, he steered U.S. support for Greece and Turkey through the Senate. This was quite an about-face.
The background of this “man in the middle” is interesting.
Vandenberg had a modest Middle West upbringing, growing up in Grand Rapids, Michigan, where he became the editor and publisher of the local newspaper and staunch Republican supporter. He seemed to embody the small town provincialism parodied by Sinclair Lewis in “Babbitt” notes the author. But when elected to the Senate he displayed great self confidence and a willingness to tackle big issues. Over the years he was often seen as a potential Republican presidential nominee but refused to actively campaign for the nomination.
Meijer points out that in many ways the Senate in the 1930s was as politically polarized as it is today. Vandenberg found himself in 1933 as one of only 19 Republicans in the Senate and facing a president who had an overwhelming mandate. “The relationship between Vandenberg and FDR passed from uneasy cooperation to fierce antagonism and back again over 12 years,” Meijer observes.
Vandenberg realized that it made sense to bend on legislative issues, especially if he could only blunt but not veto FDR’s domestic agenda. It paid on occasion to be flexible. One consequence was that Vandenberg was re-elected to the Senate in 1934, which was a considerable accomplishment for a Republican.
Interestingly, Vandenberg was able to be a constructive influence as the banking system began to collapse in 1933, four weeks before FDR was to take office. Detroit banks were at the forefront of the crisis — of particular concern to a Senator representing Michigan. Henry Ford and others in the private sector declined to help. Upon taking office, the President called for a “Bank Holiday,” but FDR initially opposed Federal deposit insurance. Vandenberg managed to get deposit protection passed in Congress, which turned out to be crucial to reestablishing trust in the banking system, only to see FDR take credit for the program that he as president had opposed.
On other policies, Vandenberg was firmly in opposition. This included opposition to Roosevelt’s National Industrial Recovery Act that attempted to fix wages and prices, and the President’s attempt to pack the Supreme Court. Looking back, many today would say that Vandenberg was right.
While Vandenberg may best be remembered for a willingness to change his mind, if not to openly admit he was wrong in his pre-war isolationism. He is also a study in how to pick one’s battles, to focus on policies that matter, and to muster reasoned argument. Since his career spanned only four years with a Republican in the White House, and some 19 years in which a Democrat was president, he had significant experience in influencing legislation and national policy.
Hendrik Meijer has written a thoughtful profile of a politician whose career offers lessons in how to be partisan in a responsible way, how to focus on matters of substance, and how to advance policy when in the political minority.
October 13, 2018
Finally a most significant Senator from the last century gets his biography. Arthur Vandenberg of
Michigan made a historic conversion from isolationist to internationalist during World War II. A
great deal of his colleagues went down to defeat because of their pre-war isolationism. Vandenberg
did in fact save himself when he was up for re-election in 1946 in his last campaign. As both
chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee when the GOP controlled Congress and later ranking minority
member he was involved in supporting two radical changes in our foreign policy, support for the
new United Nations and support for the treaty that created the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
military alliance. He led a faction of newly internationally minded Republicans in Congress who
coalesced around the presidential candidacy of Dwight D. Eisenhower. Vandenberg died before Ike
became president but he died secure in the knowledge that Ike would be succeeding Harry Truman.
Vandenberg was a bright young kid from Grand Rapids, Michigan who had the good fortune to be
spotted like in a Horatio Alger story by another US Senator from Michigan William Alden Smith who
had several enterprises going. One was the Grand Rapids Herald and he chose a bright 20 something Vandenberg to takeover the management when Smith went to the Senate in 1907. There
he stayed and it was that power base in Michigan where he became a figure of influence in the
Michigan and got an appointment to the US Senate in 1928 on the death of one Woodbridge Ferris
who was his predecessor.
It was more than foreign policy that concerned Vandeberg. He was a prime sponsor of the creation
of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, an idea he could not sell his own party's president
Herbert Hoover, but did become part of the New Deal.
Vandenberg had a mixed record of supporting New Deal measures of Franklin Roosevelt. He supported most of the recovery initiatives. Some reforms left him cold. He was a bitter opponent
of the Wagner Act which was pro-labor. Not surprising since the paternalistic Ford Motor Company supported him. He was against FDR's Supreme Court packing plan. And of course he
was against American involvement in World War II, opposing things like Lend Lease until the
attack on Pearl Harbor.
So few politicians are able to admit they were wrong. Even fewer get the opportunity to rectify said
wrong in office. Vandenberg did and made the most of it. After the NATO treaty was ratified Vandenberg came down with cancer and spent 1949-1951 with sporadic attendance in the Senate.
A Republican Senator that could probably not get elected today, he deserves to be remembered and
this biography hopefully will help.
Michigan made a historic conversion from isolationist to internationalist during World War II. A
great deal of his colleagues went down to defeat because of their pre-war isolationism. Vandenberg
did in fact save himself when he was up for re-election in 1946 in his last campaign. As both
chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee when the GOP controlled Congress and later ranking minority
member he was involved in supporting two radical changes in our foreign policy, support for the
new United Nations and support for the treaty that created the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
military alliance. He led a faction of newly internationally minded Republicans in Congress who
coalesced around the presidential candidacy of Dwight D. Eisenhower. Vandenberg died before Ike
became president but he died secure in the knowledge that Ike would be succeeding Harry Truman.
Vandenberg was a bright young kid from Grand Rapids, Michigan who had the good fortune to be
spotted like in a Horatio Alger story by another US Senator from Michigan William Alden Smith who
had several enterprises going. One was the Grand Rapids Herald and he chose a bright 20 something Vandenberg to takeover the management when Smith went to the Senate in 1907. There
he stayed and it was that power base in Michigan where he became a figure of influence in the
Michigan and got an appointment to the US Senate in 1928 on the death of one Woodbridge Ferris
who was his predecessor.
It was more than foreign policy that concerned Vandeberg. He was a prime sponsor of the creation
of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, an idea he could not sell his own party's president
Herbert Hoover, but did become part of the New Deal.
Vandenberg had a mixed record of supporting New Deal measures of Franklin Roosevelt. He supported most of the recovery initiatives. Some reforms left him cold. He was a bitter opponent
of the Wagner Act which was pro-labor. Not surprising since the paternalistic Ford Motor Company supported him. He was against FDR's Supreme Court packing plan. And of course he
was against American involvement in World War II, opposing things like Lend Lease until the
attack on Pearl Harbor.
So few politicians are able to admit they were wrong. Even fewer get the opportunity to rectify said
wrong in office. Vandenberg did and made the most of it. After the NATO treaty was ratified Vandenberg came down with cancer and spent 1949-1951 with sporadic attendance in the Senate.
A Republican Senator that could probably not get elected today, he deserves to be remembered and
this biography hopefully will help.
November 27, 2020
I finished Arthur Vandenberg: The Man in The Middle of the American Century by Hendrik Meijer. Not a great biography but very good.
Not the typical cradle to grave biography i lean to and while it covers his early years the real meat of the biography is his Senate years especially those in the inter-war years through the creation of NATO and the re-election of Harry Truman.
The book goes into detail on Vandenberg's transition from a nationalist and isolationist to a moderate conservative and interventionist.
A man who believed in leading through consensus building and was not afraid to cross the aisle political to achieve his goals.
An ardent Republican who could work with the various wings of his party and work with the Democrats to achieve his goals.
A book worth you time to unearth a man who was both principled and pragmatist. Who lead more often than not by leading and working with others.
Not the typical cradle to grave biography i lean to and while it covers his early years the real meat of the biography is his Senate years especially those in the inter-war years through the creation of NATO and the re-election of Harry Truman.
The book goes into detail on Vandenberg's transition from a nationalist and isolationist to a moderate conservative and interventionist.
A man who believed in leading through consensus building and was not afraid to cross the aisle political to achieve his goals.
An ardent Republican who could work with the various wings of his party and work with the Democrats to achieve his goals.
A book worth you time to unearth a man who was both principled and pragmatist. Who lead more often than not by leading and working with others.
April 14, 2018
This is a very interesting biography of one of the central architects of the post-war world. It is also interesting because though he is well known for his work on the UN and on NATO it is less well known that prior to the War he was a staunch isolationist. This makes him a rare thing, a man in Congress who was able to change his mind as the facts merited and also work both to bring along his own party and both to advise and restrain the other without losing his ability to affect events. It is a truly great story. One hopes it may serve as a roadmap for those in Congress today or who aspire to it.
November 11, 2018
The author goes into great depth about Vandenberg, however he frequently let's his own worldview cloud his interpretation of the historical events surrounding Vandenberg and generally doesn't provide evidence to back up his historical claims. A great read for understanding the man, however the ideological claims made in the book are often sweeping and unsupported.
January 2, 2018
Very well written and great fun to read about a local man who had such a powerful national and international influence.
July 17, 2018
A fascinating book about one of the influential people at the development of the Marshal Plan, the United Nations, and NATO.
I can’t help but wonder what he would think of Trump,
I can’t help but wonder what he would think of Trump,
October 27, 2018
Great book about a local man who has always intrigued me. I’m grateful to Hendrik Meijer for writing this biography.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews