What do you think?
Rate this book
The Age of Reagan: A History, 1974-2008 – The Conservative Movement's Surge to Power: An Illuminating Chronicle
The past thirty-five years have marked an era of conservatism. Although briefly interrupted in the late 1970s and temporarily reversed in the 1990s, a powerful surge from the right dominated American politics and government from 1974 to 2008. In The Age of Reagan , Sean Wilentz, one of our nation's leading historians, accounts for how a conservative movement once deemed marginal managed to seize power and hold it, and describes the momentous consequences that followed. Vivid, authoritative, and illuminating from start to finish, The Age of Reagan is a groundbreaking chronicle of America's political history since the fall of Nixon.
608 pages, Paperback
First published May 1, 2008
24 people are currently reading
724 people want to read
About the author
Sean Wilentz
72 books83 followersSean Wilentz is the George Henry Davis 1886 Professor of American History at Princeton University. His many books include The Politicians and the Egalitarians: The Hidden History of American Politics (2016); Bob Dylan in America (2010); and The Age of Reagan: A History, 1974–2008 (2008). The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln (2005) was awarded the Bancroft Prize, and he has received two Grammy nominations for his writings on music.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 73 reviews
July 10, 2008
i have this theory that whoever is president in your formative years, whoever is president when you are at a certain age, remains, to some degree, the standard of what a statesman should look like. (sucks for kids now, huh?)
i remember, as a child, laying in my den and reagan's grandfatherly, comforting presence spilled all over the room night after night. (little did i know that that confused and endearing succession of "i can't remember" was in reference to something pretty sinister!) -- years later, i discovered that the guy was quite reviled. and i read as much as i could on reagan... and, yeah, he could be a fucker.
all the complaints that every reagan hater (and having lived much of my life in NYC and L.A., there's been no shortage) seems to make are more-or-less true: he hardly acknowledged AIDS, he slashed the shit out of some important programs, supply-side economics is bullshit, iran-contra pissed on the congress and constitution, not to mention enabling some seriously bad motherfuckers in south america, etc.
(although, one can only imagine the deafening roar heard from these people who remain silent when given a similar list regarding bill clinton if... well, can you imagine if reagan had, say, entirely ignored a genocide in Rwanda - one that minimal intervention could have stopped; ignored a genocide in (former) yugoslavia for years and then when he did involve us, scared to lose american lives (and thus the support of the voter) he launched a no-boots-on-the-ground bombing policy which wiped out untold civilians; had the hubris to bypass congress and appoint his wife (who, of course, wasn't elected to office and was held accountable to no one at all) to overhaul health care; worked with a republican congress to cut welfare; supported the shit out of NAFTA; etc etc -- also worth pointing out that while clinton's reaction to middle east violence was to pound the bad guys with scud missiles, reagan knew better. when we got hit in beirut, what'd he do? he got us the fuck outta there.)
wilentz is a lifelong liberal democrat. he admits that he wasn't too fond of reagan through the 80s, but as time has passed and passions have cooled, he's allowed himself more of an objective look. he's managed to get past the left-wing jackasses who compare reagan to satan, and the right-wing boneheads who mythologize the man.
the most interesting part of this book (and the subject of the perennial reagan debate) is wilentz's take on the end of the cold war. he dusts aside the ridiculous claim that reagan single-handedly ended the cold war... but he does point out that when reagan took office, the mindset was strictly realist/kissingerian: detente works, the soviet union will be around for a long time, deal with it, and maintain global stability. not only did reagan reject this mindset, but when he saw an opening (read: Gorbachev), he grabbed it. put simply, there hadn't been a president who had pushed diplomacy to the forefront of his cold war foreign policy as reagan. and, in conjunction with Gorby (and with a big fuck you to much of the mainstream republican establishment), he worked to give that diseased and rotting bear the final push into the 'ash heap of history'.
i limit my rating to three stars only in that - as ginnie pointed out - despite wilentz's often illuminating interpretation, the book becomes something of a survey course. it's just much too short to cover nixon through clinton (with an epilogue on W). i understand that he wanted to chart the rise of modern conservatism and its legacy... but too much of the book covers the period before and after reagan.
well, i'll close with a quote from the book:
"Finally, though, dissolving the Reagan myth by pointing out his presidency's many failures, regressive policies, and dangerous legacies should not obscure his essential importance... If greatness in a president is measured in terms of affecting the temper of the times, whether you like it or not, Reagan stands second to none among the presidents of the second half of the twentieth century... Add in Reagan's remarkable turnabout in helping to end the cold war, as well as his success, albeit easily exaggerated, in uplifting the country after the disaster in Vietnam and the Carter years, and his achievement actually looks more substantial than the claims invented by the Reaganite mythmakers."
i remember, as a child, laying in my den and reagan's grandfatherly, comforting presence spilled all over the room night after night. (little did i know that that confused and endearing succession of "i can't remember" was in reference to something pretty sinister!) -- years later, i discovered that the guy was quite reviled. and i read as much as i could on reagan... and, yeah, he could be a fucker.
all the complaints that every reagan hater (and having lived much of my life in NYC and L.A., there's been no shortage) seems to make are more-or-less true: he hardly acknowledged AIDS, he slashed the shit out of some important programs, supply-side economics is bullshit, iran-contra pissed on the congress and constitution, not to mention enabling some seriously bad motherfuckers in south america, etc.
(although, one can only imagine the deafening roar heard from these people who remain silent when given a similar list regarding bill clinton if... well, can you imagine if reagan had, say, entirely ignored a genocide in Rwanda - one that minimal intervention could have stopped; ignored a genocide in (former) yugoslavia for years and then when he did involve us, scared to lose american lives (and thus the support of the voter) he launched a no-boots-on-the-ground bombing policy which wiped out untold civilians; had the hubris to bypass congress and appoint his wife (who, of course, wasn't elected to office and was held accountable to no one at all) to overhaul health care; worked with a republican congress to cut welfare; supported the shit out of NAFTA; etc etc -- also worth pointing out that while clinton's reaction to middle east violence was to pound the bad guys with scud missiles, reagan knew better. when we got hit in beirut, what'd he do? he got us the fuck outta there.)
wilentz is a lifelong liberal democrat. he admits that he wasn't too fond of reagan through the 80s, but as time has passed and passions have cooled, he's allowed himself more of an objective look. he's managed to get past the left-wing jackasses who compare reagan to satan, and the right-wing boneheads who mythologize the man.
the most interesting part of this book (and the subject of the perennial reagan debate) is wilentz's take on the end of the cold war. he dusts aside the ridiculous claim that reagan single-handedly ended the cold war... but he does point out that when reagan took office, the mindset was strictly realist/kissingerian: detente works, the soviet union will be around for a long time, deal with it, and maintain global stability. not only did reagan reject this mindset, but when he saw an opening (read: Gorbachev), he grabbed it. put simply, there hadn't been a president who had pushed diplomacy to the forefront of his cold war foreign policy as reagan. and, in conjunction with Gorby (and with a big fuck you to much of the mainstream republican establishment), he worked to give that diseased and rotting bear the final push into the 'ash heap of history'.
i limit my rating to three stars only in that - as ginnie pointed out - despite wilentz's often illuminating interpretation, the book becomes something of a survey course. it's just much too short to cover nixon through clinton (with an epilogue on W). i understand that he wanted to chart the rise of modern conservatism and its legacy... but too much of the book covers the period before and after reagan.
well, i'll close with a quote from the book:
"Finally, though, dissolving the Reagan myth by pointing out his presidency's many failures, regressive policies, and dangerous legacies should not obscure his essential importance... If greatness in a president is measured in terms of affecting the temper of the times, whether you like it or not, Reagan stands second to none among the presidents of the second half of the twentieth century... Add in Reagan's remarkable turnabout in helping to end the cold war, as well as his success, albeit easily exaggerated, in uplifting the country after the disaster in Vietnam and the Carter years, and his achievement actually looks more substantial than the claims invented by the Reaganite mythmakers."
August 13, 2014
An excellent chronicle of events that's marred, not by Wilentz's take on Reagan, which is as positive as any objective viewer could wish, but by his defense of Clinton, whose various actual misdeeds are buried in the narrative of Republican lunacy that focused on his penis instead of his politics. Another goodreads reviewer has suggested, disapprovingly, that "this book is intended for students of political history, but clearly not for republicans." Well, yes.
It's usually a good sign when a book about recent American politics is attacked from both sides, and that's the case here. Wilentz debunks the Reagan mythologies (i.e., Reagan did not swoop down like Superman to end World Communism; nor was he an idiot who just bumbled his way through the presidency with notes on the back of napkins), and puts in their place a reasonable argument: that Reagan's real achievement was resisting the realists in his administration, which made Gorbachev's actions in the USSR possible. Wilentz goes so far as to suggest that this is one of the greatest accomplishments of any US president, ever. Republicans, apparently, don't like to hear that kind of thing.
On the other hand, what could have been an excellent short study in the business of the press after Watergate--the muckraking mentality, Wilentz suggests, made politics less doable through the eighties and nineties--turns instead into a defense of Clinton. His actual, important policy decisions, his 'third way' of politics (according to which the polls rule, rather than reason), and his genuine foreign policy mistakes are all given little play; instead, Wilentz suggests that the real story is how Clinton was almost brought down by a smaller but still considerable right wing conspiracy that was only possible because of the prurience and incompetence of the press. Very disappointing.
But not as disappointing as subtitling a book "A History, 1974-2008" and then including only an epilogue on the last 8 years of that period. Perhaps he felt he just couldn't deal objectively with Bush II, but in that case, what's wrong with 'A History, 1974-2000'?
In any case, all the big scandals and stories are here, and Wilentz writes quite well, so it's a pleasure to read (and not, thankfully, in the way that journalistic accounts are a pleasure to read. Wilentz doesn't need to use the present tense to make his account seem important).
It's usually a good sign when a book about recent American politics is attacked from both sides, and that's the case here. Wilentz debunks the Reagan mythologies (i.e., Reagan did not swoop down like Superman to end World Communism; nor was he an idiot who just bumbled his way through the presidency with notes on the back of napkins), and puts in their place a reasonable argument: that Reagan's real achievement was resisting the realists in his administration, which made Gorbachev's actions in the USSR possible. Wilentz goes so far as to suggest that this is one of the greatest accomplishments of any US president, ever. Republicans, apparently, don't like to hear that kind of thing.
On the other hand, what could have been an excellent short study in the business of the press after Watergate--the muckraking mentality, Wilentz suggests, made politics less doable through the eighties and nineties--turns instead into a defense of Clinton. His actual, important policy decisions, his 'third way' of politics (according to which the polls rule, rather than reason), and his genuine foreign policy mistakes are all given little play; instead, Wilentz suggests that the real story is how Clinton was almost brought down by a smaller but still considerable right wing conspiracy that was only possible because of the prurience and incompetence of the press. Very disappointing.
But not as disappointing as subtitling a book "A History, 1974-2008" and then including only an epilogue on the last 8 years of that period. Perhaps he felt he just couldn't deal objectively with Bush II, but in that case, what's wrong with 'A History, 1974-2000'?
In any case, all the big scandals and stories are here, and Wilentz writes quite well, so it's a pleasure to read (and not, thankfully, in the way that journalistic accounts are a pleasure to read. Wilentz doesn't need to use the present tense to make his account seem important).
September 7, 2011
Sean Wilentz chronicles the political history of the United States from 1974 through the election of 2000, with an epilogue that carries the story through 2008, summarizing the principal consequences of the administration of George W. Bush. He argues that Ronald Reagan was the dominant political figure of the era, bringing into its own a conservative revolution that had its origins in the 1964 presidential campaign of Barry Goldwater.
Wilentz suggests that the Reagan administration was a significant departure even from the more moderate (by contemporary Republican standards)Nixon administration, and that the Carter and Clinton administrations were only temporary setbacks in the conservative effort to roll back the reforms of FDR's New Deal, Truman's Fair Deal, Kennedy's New Frontier and Johnson's Great Society.
The author suggests, without saying as much specifically, that Bill Clinton may have squandered the chance to turn back the conservative tide by handing his enemies on the Far Right a golden opportunity to demonize him and, by extension, the Democratic party as a result of his personal conduct.
Wilentz does document the exhaustive efforts by some conservatives to destroy Clinton and his administration by any means, fair or foul, and he describes how energized Republicans outmanuevered the Democrats to hand Florida's electoral votes and thus the election of 2000 to George W. Bush. The author argues that the Reagan revolution reached fruition in the GWB administration, having accomplished its main objectives of cutting taxes for the wealthy, significantly curtailing government regulation of the economy, and concentrating even more power in the executive branch at the expense of Congress. It remains to be seen, of course, what the larger consequences of this revolution will be for the people of the United States going forward into the 21st century. Anyone interested in the contemporary history of the United States will find this a balanced and interesting account of the period.
Wilentz suggests that the Reagan administration was a significant departure even from the more moderate (by contemporary Republican standards)Nixon administration, and that the Carter and Clinton administrations were only temporary setbacks in the conservative effort to roll back the reforms of FDR's New Deal, Truman's Fair Deal, Kennedy's New Frontier and Johnson's Great Society.
The author suggests, without saying as much specifically, that Bill Clinton may have squandered the chance to turn back the conservative tide by handing his enemies on the Far Right a golden opportunity to demonize him and, by extension, the Democratic party as a result of his personal conduct.
Wilentz does document the exhaustive efforts by some conservatives to destroy Clinton and his administration by any means, fair or foul, and he describes how energized Republicans outmanuevered the Democrats to hand Florida's electoral votes and thus the election of 2000 to George W. Bush. The author argues that the Reagan revolution reached fruition in the GWB administration, having accomplished its main objectives of cutting taxes for the wealthy, significantly curtailing government regulation of the economy, and concentrating even more power in the executive branch at the expense of Congress. It remains to be seen, of course, what the larger consequences of this revolution will be for the people of the United States going forward into the 21st century. Anyone interested in the contemporary history of the United States will find this a balanced and interesting account of the period.
September 26, 2021
I picked this Reagan biography somewhat arbitrarily. (The blogger bestpresidentialbios.com reviews several here, but not Wilentz's.) It actually isn't a biography: Wilentz skims Reagan's early years and instead writes the history of the "Reagan era", a period he defines by a prelude (beginning with Johnson's Great Society and Watergate) and postlude extending until 2008, when the book was published.
Wilentz, a history professor at Princeton, is aware that writing about recent events can be dangerous. In addition
The arc of the Age of Reagan begins with the malaise of the Carter years. Economic (the growing national debt, gas prices, stagflation) as well as social (crime, urban blight) problems were growing, and a succession of presidents had seemed defeated by circumstances: LBJ had declined to run again, Nixon was brought down by Watergate, Ford struggled to gain the nation's faith after pardoning Nixon (Wilentz is sympathetic, seeing it as a no-win situation: letting Nixon's trial run on would have prolonged the saga and eclipsed his presidency, while the pardon seemed like blatant cronyism), and Carter struggled to find a consistent direction.
Enter Reagan. A former leftist and union leader converted to diehard conservatism, he combined personal charisma with unflagging optimism. To what extent he understood complex policy issues is debated (his authorised biography calls him an "apparent airhead"), but he had superb political instincts and was able to unite conflicting political tribes: military hawks and supply-side liberals, Christian social conservatives and anti-regulation libertarians. Sure, the conservative movement had fought from the edges of the Republican Party at least since the Eisenhower era - and had succeeded in nominating Barry Goldwater in 1964 - but Reagan was able to win elections, and in style. (He took 98% of the Electoral College against Walter Mondale, a feat matched in the modern era only by FDR.)
Early success came in 1981 with the PATCO strike. Although it was illegal for air traffic controllers to strike, the union called one, relying on its endorsement of Reagan and assuming that he would not have the gall to fire critical workers. Reagan decided to; most were never hired back. During the 1970s one gets the sense of a lingering sense of anarchy, with domestic terrorist groups hijacking aeroplanes and setting off explosives with gusto. (The Weather Underground even bombed the US Capitol in 1971). Although Nixon had run on a platform of "law and order", his subsequent scandal only reinforced the sense that there were no "responsible adults" around. Reagan's strike-breaking - along with his survival of John Hinkley's assassination attempt and the immediate effects of his 1981 tax cut - transformed him from an unloved leader into (in Wilentz's words) a "popular hero".
On the economic front, Reagan's legacy was also largely positive. Tax cuts succeeded in juicing the economy, but along with a jump in military spending caused severe budgetary shortfalls. (Some critics called his policy "military Keynesianism".) A later "tax cut" in 1986 was revenue-neutral, dropping the top tax rate from 50% to 28% but exempting millions of poor people entirely, and proved universally popular. Reagan's focus on deregulation led to some good things, such as the break-up of "Ma Bell", but also the savings and loans crisis.
Wilentz repeatedly highlights instances of government corruption (the Wedtech scandal, the Pentagon procurement irregularities, abuses at HUD), as well as a tendency towards foreign policy adventurism from Grenada to Lebanon. The two dovetailed in the bizarre Iran-Contra affair, in which administration members sold weapons to a shady Iranian claiming to represent Iran (he didn't) in the (failed) hope of trading weapons for hostages - a policy they publicly disclaimed - and diverted the funds to the Nicaraguan Contras, something Congress had explicitly prohibited. (The original idea was suggested by the Israeli Foreign Ministry!) Wilentz puts most of the blame on Oliver North, but thinks there is strong evidence that Reagan knew what was happening and lied to the public, and his opinion polls dropped precipitously.
Other issues negatively affecting Reagan by the end of his second term were the politically charged, failed nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court (after Republican losses in the midterms, Strom Thurmond was replaced as head of the Senate Judiciary Committee by a young Joe Biden) and the 1987 stock market crash. But Reagan regained his mojo because of Mikhail Gorbachev. After a series of summits, culminating in one in Washington, "Gorbie" became something of a celebrity, prompting Reagan to quip, "I don't resent his popularity or anything else. Good Lord, I once co-starred with Errol Flynn." Reagan's warming up to the Soviets infuriated conservatives (many of whom were purged from his inner circle after Iran-Contra), but it was a sign of his flexibility and opportunism and, according to Wilentz, his essential decency. In moments that would make aides roll their eyes, Reagan would talk about how if faced with an alien invasion, humans would down their weapons and unite. (This was the plot of the 1951 film The Day the Earth Stood Still, which had a great impact on him.)
In summarising Reagan's presidency, Wilentz quotes the chairman of the Cato Institute: "There was no Reagan revolution". The government bureaucracy grew faster than it had during Carter's tenure, welfare spending grew (though not in relative terms), and little changed in the "culture wars". However, union membership declined sharply, and the country experienced record growth in employment and GDP. How much of the credit for this belongs to the tough interest rate regime of Paul Volcker (a Carter nominee), and the spike in defence expenditure will probably never be settled. In any case, the major shift from New Deal-style big government to privatisation and "neoliberalism" has proven long-lasting, crossing the aisle to become the consensus politics of Third Way.
Another perennial question is to what extent Reagan deserves credit for the collapse of the USSR. A common narrative is that Reagan realised the Soviets were overextended economically and that by ramping up arms production (most particularly with the obviously unworkable but hideously expensive SDI missile defence program) they could be driven to bankruptcy. In Thatcher's words, Reagan won the war "without firing a shot". Wilentz is sceptical of this claim, firstly because internal Soviet dynamics (the disastrous invasion of Afghanistan, growing economic troubles, loss of faith in the gerontocracy) appeared to be leading to the same outcome; and secondly because there is evidence that the SDI was a sincere attempt, not a feint, and also that the Soviets realised that it was hare-brained (the dissident physicist Andrei Sakharov called it a "Maginot Line in space"). Most of the administration's attempts to "roll back" Communism around the world, most notably in Panama, proved bootless and often actively harmful.
The book continues far beyond Reagan's presidency with declining returns, the increasing scope providing brief and partisan recaps of three more presidencies. Bush I, Reagan's deputy, continued Reagan's policies but without his charisma or authenticity. A helpful anecdote:
Continuing through the 90s, Wilentz discusses the increased polarisation and rancour of the period, which he blames mostly on Newt Gingrich, as well as new, partisan television networks. (When Bob Dole, who Gingrich called "the tax collector for the welfare state", went to Arizona to get Barry Goldwater's endorsement, Goldwater said that Gingrich had "nearly ruined our party".) There are abundant details about the Starr Commission, Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky, and perfunctory summaries of each party's primaries which add little insight or savour. The book covers the contested 2000 election and skims the presidency of George W. Bush, at which point the author feels that the "Age of Reagan" ended.
In his recent work Public Citizens, the historian Paul Sabin has traced how grassroots public opposition to both governmental and corporate environmental abuses emerged from critics and consumer advocates such as Rachel Carson, Jane Jacobs and Ralph Nader, leading leftist activists to be increasingly wary of government power. This is neatly illustrated by two bills signed by Jimmy Carter on one of the last days of his term: a "Superfund" law to pay for hazardous waste cleanup, and a Paperwork Reduction Act. Reagan may in some sense have ridden the waves - privatisation, monetary discipline, Soviet decline - skillfully, but without being their cause. Yet he had the special magic of great politicians: able to capitalise on the good ideas of his advisers while quickly dropping the bad ones; ideological firmness matched with methodological openness; and above all, the ability to convince the public that everything was going well, with humour, charm and incorrigible self-assurance. This is not the best book on Reagan: it is too caught up by still-unhealed political wounds, and its over-long periodisation drags it down. At the same time, it is probably still too early to gauge his true legacy. But it is a good study in the practice of modern politics, and how it has coarsened and soured in recent decades.
Wilentz, a history professor at Princeton, is aware that writing about recent events can be dangerous. In addition
How, in particular, can I write as a historian about events in which I played a public, albeit minor, role, including testifying as an expert witness before the House Judiciary Committee during Clinton's impeachment and supporting Al Gore's candidacy in the election of 2000?His answer is more or less "well, I'll do my best", but this book clearly represents its author's views, most stridently when discussing Clinton's impeachment and the 2000 presidential election. Still, Wilentz claims that his conclusions will not satisfy partisans on either side, and are different from those he expected.
The arc of the Age of Reagan begins with the malaise of the Carter years. Economic (the growing national debt, gas prices, stagflation) as well as social (crime, urban blight) problems were growing, and a succession of presidents had seemed defeated by circumstances: LBJ had declined to run again, Nixon was brought down by Watergate, Ford struggled to gain the nation's faith after pardoning Nixon (Wilentz is sympathetic, seeing it as a no-win situation: letting Nixon's trial run on would have prolonged the saga and eclipsed his presidency, while the pardon seemed like blatant cronyism), and Carter struggled to find a consistent direction.
Enter Reagan. A former leftist and union leader converted to diehard conservatism, he combined personal charisma with unflagging optimism. To what extent he understood complex policy issues is debated (his authorised biography calls him an "apparent airhead"), but he had superb political instincts and was able to unite conflicting political tribes: military hawks and supply-side liberals, Christian social conservatives and anti-regulation libertarians. Sure, the conservative movement had fought from the edges of the Republican Party at least since the Eisenhower era - and had succeeded in nominating Barry Goldwater in 1964 - but Reagan was able to win elections, and in style. (He took 98% of the Electoral College against Walter Mondale, a feat matched in the modern era only by FDR.)
Early success came in 1981 with the PATCO strike. Although it was illegal for air traffic controllers to strike, the union called one, relying on its endorsement of Reagan and assuming that he would not have the gall to fire critical workers. Reagan decided to; most were never hired back. During the 1970s one gets the sense of a lingering sense of anarchy, with domestic terrorist groups hijacking aeroplanes and setting off explosives with gusto. (The Weather Underground even bombed the US Capitol in 1971). Although Nixon had run on a platform of "law and order", his subsequent scandal only reinforced the sense that there were no "responsible adults" around. Reagan's strike-breaking - along with his survival of John Hinkley's assassination attempt and the immediate effects of his 1981 tax cut - transformed him from an unloved leader into (in Wilentz's words) a "popular hero".
On the economic front, Reagan's legacy was also largely positive. Tax cuts succeeded in juicing the economy, but along with a jump in military spending caused severe budgetary shortfalls. (Some critics called his policy "military Keynesianism".) A later "tax cut" in 1986 was revenue-neutral, dropping the top tax rate from 50% to 28% but exempting millions of poor people entirely, and proved universally popular. Reagan's focus on deregulation led to some good things, such as the break-up of "Ma Bell", but also the savings and loans crisis.
Wilentz repeatedly highlights instances of government corruption (the Wedtech scandal, the Pentagon procurement irregularities, abuses at HUD), as well as a tendency towards foreign policy adventurism from Grenada to Lebanon. The two dovetailed in the bizarre Iran-Contra affair, in which administration members sold weapons to a shady Iranian claiming to represent Iran (he didn't) in the (failed) hope of trading weapons for hostages - a policy they publicly disclaimed - and diverted the funds to the Nicaraguan Contras, something Congress had explicitly prohibited. (The original idea was suggested by the Israeli Foreign Ministry!) Wilentz puts most of the blame on Oliver North, but thinks there is strong evidence that Reagan knew what was happening and lied to the public, and his opinion polls dropped precipitously.
Other issues negatively affecting Reagan by the end of his second term were the politically charged, failed nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court (after Republican losses in the midterms, Strom Thurmond was replaced as head of the Senate Judiciary Committee by a young Joe Biden) and the 1987 stock market crash. But Reagan regained his mojo because of Mikhail Gorbachev. After a series of summits, culminating in one in Washington, "Gorbie" became something of a celebrity, prompting Reagan to quip, "I don't resent his popularity or anything else. Good Lord, I once co-starred with Errol Flynn." Reagan's warming up to the Soviets infuriated conservatives (many of whom were purged from his inner circle after Iran-Contra), but it was a sign of his flexibility and opportunism and, according to Wilentz, his essential decency. In moments that would make aides roll their eyes, Reagan would talk about how if faced with an alien invasion, humans would down their weapons and unite. (This was the plot of the 1951 film The Day the Earth Stood Still, which had a great impact on him.)
In summarising Reagan's presidency, Wilentz quotes the chairman of the Cato Institute: "There was no Reagan revolution". The government bureaucracy grew faster than it had during Carter's tenure, welfare spending grew (though not in relative terms), and little changed in the "culture wars". However, union membership declined sharply, and the country experienced record growth in employment and GDP. How much of the credit for this belongs to the tough interest rate regime of Paul Volcker (a Carter nominee), and the spike in defence expenditure will probably never be settled. In any case, the major shift from New Deal-style big government to privatisation and "neoliberalism" has proven long-lasting, crossing the aisle to become the consensus politics of Third Way.
Another perennial question is to what extent Reagan deserves credit for the collapse of the USSR. A common narrative is that Reagan realised the Soviets were overextended economically and that by ramping up arms production (most particularly with the obviously unworkable but hideously expensive SDI missile defence program) they could be driven to bankruptcy. In Thatcher's words, Reagan won the war "without firing a shot". Wilentz is sceptical of this claim, firstly because internal Soviet dynamics (the disastrous invasion of Afghanistan, growing economic troubles, loss of faith in the gerontocracy) appeared to be leading to the same outcome; and secondly because there is evidence that the SDI was a sincere attempt, not a feint, and also that the Soviets realised that it was hare-brained (the dissident physicist Andrei Sakharov called it a "Maginot Line in space"). Most of the administration's attempts to "roll back" Communism around the world, most notably in Panama, proved bootless and often actively harmful.
The book continues far beyond Reagan's presidency with declining returns, the increasing scope providing brief and partisan recaps of three more presidencies. Bush I, Reagan's deputy, continued Reagan's policies but without his charisma or authenticity. A helpful anecdote:
During the Republican primaries of 1980, Reagan scored points by scorning Bush's membership in the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission - viewed by hard-right ideologues as two East Coast, internationalist bogeys. Bush, by now an expert hint-taker, swiftly resigned from both groups, for which he had always had the highest respect. Reagan gibed, "He just melts under pressure," before acquiescing in the political necessity of uniting the Republican Party and naming Bush to the ticket.He took the fall for the recession which was probably Reagan's fault, while his predecessor absorbed the credit for the USSR's demise.
Continuing through the 90s, Wilentz discusses the increased polarisation and rancour of the period, which he blames mostly on Newt Gingrich, as well as new, partisan television networks. (When Bob Dole, who Gingrich called "the tax collector for the welfare state", went to Arizona to get Barry Goldwater's endorsement, Goldwater said that Gingrich had "nearly ruined our party".) There are abundant details about the Starr Commission, Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky, and perfunctory summaries of each party's primaries which add little insight or savour. The book covers the contested 2000 election and skims the presidency of George W. Bush, at which point the author feels that the "Age of Reagan" ended.
In his recent work Public Citizens, the historian Paul Sabin has traced how grassroots public opposition to both governmental and corporate environmental abuses emerged from critics and consumer advocates such as Rachel Carson, Jane Jacobs and Ralph Nader, leading leftist activists to be increasingly wary of government power. This is neatly illustrated by two bills signed by Jimmy Carter on one of the last days of his term: a "Superfund" law to pay for hazardous waste cleanup, and a Paperwork Reduction Act. Reagan may in some sense have ridden the waves - privatisation, monetary discipline, Soviet decline - skillfully, but without being their cause. Yet he had the special magic of great politicians: able to capitalise on the good ideas of his advisers while quickly dropping the bad ones; ideological firmness matched with methodological openness; and above all, the ability to convince the public that everything was going well, with humour, charm and incorrigible self-assurance. This is not the best book on Reagan: it is too caught up by still-unhealed political wounds, and its over-long periodisation drags it down. At the same time, it is probably still too early to gauge his true legacy. But it is a good study in the practice of modern politics, and how it has coarsened and soured in recent decades.
August 28, 2017
Everyone knows that Donald Trump is a cruel, pathetic human who is well on the way to being the worst president in United States history. Living in America during his fucked-up shitshow of a presidency is an endeavor, and it's the custom of most sensible people during these troubled times to think about the olden days when the most powerful person in the world was someone capable of reading a book. But just how much of a deviation is Trump from the shitty conservative standard pioneered by Nixon, brought to its popular peak by Reagan, and pushed to a Christian nutjob extreme during the tenure of George W. Bush? Reading "The Age of Reagan," you learn... well... Not really. The Republican party hasn't tried to help people for half a century, and it's M.O. since the Civil Rights movement has been taking hard-won rights/privileges/money away from black people, gay people, women, immigrants, and the poor and giving power to wealthy white oligarchs. Wilentz's book is a clear, well-written account of a confusing, cloying, bullshit era in American history. All the crazy dumb flowers of hate that have bloomed or the last year or two are seeded here. We watch as the Republicans lean on the politics of identity and race, stoking white anxieties about desegregated schools and welfare, to make permanent political inroads into the South and Midwest. We gasp as the Reagan administration totally reinvents the idea of a judiciary, putting aside the idea of "qualifications" to focus on political purity and ideological litmus tests. We put the book down and punch it repeatedly as America makes illicit, secret deals with Iranian arms dealers in order to fund right-wing maniacs trying to overthrow a democratically elected Nicaraguan government. Racial resentment, toxic partisanship, untrammeled executive power... Couple these things with a general disdain for the common good, and an enthusiastic worship of wealthy individualism as embodied by celebrity douchebags... And you got all the makings of the Pussy Grabber in Chief.
And where are the Democrats during all this? It's hard to say! Wilentz takes a different tack from many liberal historians/pundits on this era. For him, the problem with the Dems during the Age of Reagan was not an unwillingness to embrace leftist thought. Indeed, he's a pretty obvious (if frequently critical) admirer of Bill Clinton, and sees the strategy of "triangulation" as necessary during a time of tremendous right-wing insanity (Clinton was able to steal the Republican thunder by re-purposing Republican language and style for progressive ends, Wilentz argues). What doomed the Dems-- and so the country-- in the last forty years or so was a refusal to play the political game. Out of the frustrations of Vietnam, Watergate, et al, the GOP was able to create a new vision for the country... The Democrats tinkered with semantics.
Anyway, one comforting thing about today is, fragmented as the Democratic party still may be, there is at least a very large, very vocal anti-Trump movement in America. You don't need to look far to find someone who's disgusted with our current president. A gifted, smiley, quippy Reaganesque politician, Donald Trump is not. American progressives need to seize this opportunity and remake this country in our beautiful image... So that Wilentz's next book can be something like "The Age of Somebody Not Completely Enamored with Jellybeans."
And where are the Democrats during all this? It's hard to say! Wilentz takes a different tack from many liberal historians/pundits on this era. For him, the problem with the Dems during the Age of Reagan was not an unwillingness to embrace leftist thought. Indeed, he's a pretty obvious (if frequently critical) admirer of Bill Clinton, and sees the strategy of "triangulation" as necessary during a time of tremendous right-wing insanity (Clinton was able to steal the Republican thunder by re-purposing Republican language and style for progressive ends, Wilentz argues). What doomed the Dems-- and so the country-- in the last forty years or so was a refusal to play the political game. Out of the frustrations of Vietnam, Watergate, et al, the GOP was able to create a new vision for the country... The Democrats tinkered with semantics.
Anyway, one comforting thing about today is, fragmented as the Democratic party still may be, there is at least a very large, very vocal anti-Trump movement in America. You don't need to look far to find someone who's disgusted with our current president. A gifted, smiley, quippy Reaganesque politician, Donald Trump is not. American progressives need to seize this opportunity and remake this country in our beautiful image... So that Wilentz's next book can be something like "The Age of Somebody Not Completely Enamored with Jellybeans."
December 25, 2018
This is the worst kind of presidential history--not detailed enough to learn anything new, but also not thesis-oriented enough to offer a new narrative. It was trying to do the latter, but he fails to keep his objectivity in the Clinton era. He depicts Clinton way too generously and fails to notice that Clinton is just as much of a product of the Reagan era as is Bush or any of the other subsequent presidents. He does admit his bias early on (he testified on behalf of Clinton during his impeachment), but his bias was so apparent that it was just basically a useless section
June 27, 2024
Wilentz does a great job of writing a political history of the final quarter of the 20th century. I particularly enjoyed his detailed coverage of Iran-Contra and the Clinton-Lewinsky scandals. I also appreciated how he wrote with bipartisan balance while still calling out partisan or illiberal behavior that cross moral or legal lines. The book was written before the Obama and Trump presidencies, so it's condemnation of partisanship and far-right politics during the Bush Jr. years comes across as dated, perhaps even quaint, but it's a reminder that recent politics are not normal. It's a political history, as intended, so its coverage of social events etc. is limited. I highly recommend for those teaching recent American history courses or those who want a recap of recent politics before the Obama years.
Read
July 15, 2024Overall, a good general history of the Reagan and Reagan adjacent presidencies.
The challenge here is a challenge I have with a lot of books about recent history: the closer Wilentz gets to the present, the more the events and topics are too recent to understand fully. Specifically, the George W. Bush, War on Terror, and Barrack Obama elements are too recent for this book, published in 2008, to comprehend fully. I'm a little surprised this book hasn't been given a new edition.
The challenge here is a challenge I have with a lot of books about recent history: the closer Wilentz gets to the present, the more the events and topics are too recent to understand fully. Specifically, the George W. Bush, War on Terror, and Barrack Obama elements are too recent for this book, published in 2008, to comprehend fully. I'm a little surprised this book hasn't been given a new edition.
November 6, 2021
Ronald Reagan was a U.S. president between 1980 and 1988. He is still hailed as the “gold standard” of conservatism, in sharp contrast with Donald Trump’s populism dominating today’s Republican Party. “The Age of Reagan” retraces the history between the late Nixon years to the end of George W Bush’s presidency. By putting the Reagan presidency in the context, the book claims to provide a holistic picture of the conservative movement, from its emergence to demise. In my view, the book does not fulfill the promise.
The author, Sean Wilentz, is a Princeton chair professor of history. He is known as a central-left academician and a staunch and active supporter of Bill Clinton. He claims in the introduction that he strives to be free from the influence of his personal political view and to present a professional historical record in the book. Again, in my view, such independence was not achieved.
I have seen two diametrically opposite reviews, which makes me doubt the reviewers have read the same book (https://web.archive.org/web/200901081..., https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/bo...). I am not a historian, but I have lived the covered period (since 1983) in the U.S. and can only compare the book’s accounts to my personal experiences. Therefore, I will comment less on the factual accuracy and more on the writing style. My primary criticism of the book is its omission of many important facts. However, I should disclose that I went over the book (its audio version) only once. I possibly failed to capture some of the recounts in the book. Therefore, when I say the book “did not mention” something, the book may have mentioned it but without making an impression on me.
I feel that the book does not strive to be an impartial collection of historical facts but a narrative aimed at shaping the reader’s emotional response. Throughout the book, especially in the latter part, the author used emotionally charged vocabulary and let his own emotion show through narrative choices. For example, one can compare the descriptions of Reagan’s Iran-Contra affair and Clinton’s Lewinsky affair. According to the author, the former reflects Reagan’s modus operandi of corrupting the democratic process and abusing presidential power. At the same time, the latter is a tempest in the teapot cooked up by the right-wing members of Congress. The author is certainly entitled to his opinion. However, instead of explicitly stating and supporting his position, the author conveys his views through material and rhetoric instrument choices without acknowledging other arguments and evidence not fitting for the story. Living through the years, I personally know that those events are far more complex and two-sided than the book portraits.
The big-picture descriptions are also suspect. According to the book, Reagan and George W. Bush, and to a less extent his father, are all disrupters of our democratic system. They bring a marginal force (neo-conservatism) to power by sinister operations. They steal elections (especially the Supreme Court intervention in 2000), install officials with personal loyalty but no qualification, expand executive power over Congress, and commit scandals (Reagan’s Iran-Contra affair and G. W. Bush’s ill-justified Iraq war). If this narrative captured the natures of these presidencies, Donald Trump would not have been such a shock to the nation.
Important historical facts were presented selectively. For example, the book painted the Republican administrations as a series of corruptive governments. They help their puppeteers (corporative America) with aggressive and reckless deregulation. However, the book completely skipped over Clinton’s deregulation actions, including the investment banking deregulation (the Glass-Steagall Act), widely regarded as an essential contributing factor for the 2008 financial crisis.
Selectivity is also applied to the interpretation of facts. The book described Reagan’s economic agenda as a failure. Immediately after the Reagan tax cut, the national economic situation got worse, providing a verdict for Reagan’s failure, according to the book. However, later in Reagan’s tenure, the nation experienced a historic economic expansion. It should not be credited to Reagan’s economic policies, according to the book. Yet, the book failed to provide a convincing alternative explanation. Later in the book, the reverse of Clinton’s budget surplus in the early years of the G. W. Bush administration was due to Bush’s “tax cut for the rich.” This attribution was nonchalant without any evidential support. While this is a widespread view, a serious historian should consider other factors. The deficit increase in the early 2000s could be due to the dot-com bubble burst in 2000 (curiously, the book hardly mentioned it at all), the 9/11 terrorist attack and the ensuing wars, and the long-term rise of the cost of the entitlement programs. In fact, the Federal deficit was on the decline in 2006 and 2007 before the financial crisis hit. Data also show that Federal income tax revenue continued to rise after the Bush tax cut. The uptick of the Federal deficit happened before the tax cut went into effect. The rich contribute more proportionally to Federal tax after the tax cut than before. These data apparently escaped the author’s field of view.
The book repeatedly accuses the media of bias towards the right. Particularly, in the Clinton years, the press was hostile to the President and fanned sensation about the allegations against Clinton, according to the book. I agree that the mainstream media then were not as brazenly progressive as after 2010. However, they were not one-sided against Clinton. As I recall, the press was very critical to George H. Bush during the campaign of 1992. For example, news about economic recovery was moved out of the front pages near the November election. Clinton’s victory in 1992 is widely credited to his charisma, which cannot be effective without the media’s propagation.
In the introduction, the author stated that “I especially hope to account for how a conservative movement once deemed marginal managed to seize power and hold it, and what the consequences have been.” In my view, this task failed. The author limited the book’s scope to the presidencies. While a substantial part of the book was devoted to presidential details, national political, cultural, and economic developments were treated as mere background. The book seldomly touched racial tension, income inequality, demographic changes, and population aging, although these trends significantly influenced American politics at the time scale of decades. The book also ignored equally, if not more important, economic developments such as international competition, the rise of high tech, the Internet, and globalization. Even the ideal and tradition of conservatism and its competitors did not receive adequate treatment. The merit of conservatism, or its lack, does not consume any of the more than 400 pages of the book. In that sense, the book is more of a chronological record of the past decades and a selective one. It does not provide appropriate analyses to answer the question that the author puts forward above.
To a layman like me, the book provides an interesting framework by looking at the Reagan legacy over a time window of more than thirty years. By reviewing the sequences of events in the White House, we understand the footsteps of America over these tumultuous times. However, the book is superficial in analyses, selective in narrating, and sensational in presentation. One should treat it as an opinion essay instead of a faithful historical recording.
The author, Sean Wilentz, is a Princeton chair professor of history. He is known as a central-left academician and a staunch and active supporter of Bill Clinton. He claims in the introduction that he strives to be free from the influence of his personal political view and to present a professional historical record in the book. Again, in my view, such independence was not achieved.
I have seen two diametrically opposite reviews, which makes me doubt the reviewers have read the same book (https://web.archive.org/web/200901081..., https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/bo...). I am not a historian, but I have lived the covered period (since 1983) in the U.S. and can only compare the book’s accounts to my personal experiences. Therefore, I will comment less on the factual accuracy and more on the writing style. My primary criticism of the book is its omission of many important facts. However, I should disclose that I went over the book (its audio version) only once. I possibly failed to capture some of the recounts in the book. Therefore, when I say the book “did not mention” something, the book may have mentioned it but without making an impression on me.
I feel that the book does not strive to be an impartial collection of historical facts but a narrative aimed at shaping the reader’s emotional response. Throughout the book, especially in the latter part, the author used emotionally charged vocabulary and let his own emotion show through narrative choices. For example, one can compare the descriptions of Reagan’s Iran-Contra affair and Clinton’s Lewinsky affair. According to the author, the former reflects Reagan’s modus operandi of corrupting the democratic process and abusing presidential power. At the same time, the latter is a tempest in the teapot cooked up by the right-wing members of Congress. The author is certainly entitled to his opinion. However, instead of explicitly stating and supporting his position, the author conveys his views through material and rhetoric instrument choices without acknowledging other arguments and evidence not fitting for the story. Living through the years, I personally know that those events are far more complex and two-sided than the book portraits.
The big-picture descriptions are also suspect. According to the book, Reagan and George W. Bush, and to a less extent his father, are all disrupters of our democratic system. They bring a marginal force (neo-conservatism) to power by sinister operations. They steal elections (especially the Supreme Court intervention in 2000), install officials with personal loyalty but no qualification, expand executive power over Congress, and commit scandals (Reagan’s Iran-Contra affair and G. W. Bush’s ill-justified Iraq war). If this narrative captured the natures of these presidencies, Donald Trump would not have been such a shock to the nation.
Important historical facts were presented selectively. For example, the book painted the Republican administrations as a series of corruptive governments. They help their puppeteers (corporative America) with aggressive and reckless deregulation. However, the book completely skipped over Clinton’s deregulation actions, including the investment banking deregulation (the Glass-Steagall Act), widely regarded as an essential contributing factor for the 2008 financial crisis.
Selectivity is also applied to the interpretation of facts. The book described Reagan’s economic agenda as a failure. Immediately after the Reagan tax cut, the national economic situation got worse, providing a verdict for Reagan’s failure, according to the book. However, later in Reagan’s tenure, the nation experienced a historic economic expansion. It should not be credited to Reagan’s economic policies, according to the book. Yet, the book failed to provide a convincing alternative explanation. Later in the book, the reverse of Clinton’s budget surplus in the early years of the G. W. Bush administration was due to Bush’s “tax cut for the rich.” This attribution was nonchalant without any evidential support. While this is a widespread view, a serious historian should consider other factors. The deficit increase in the early 2000s could be due to the dot-com bubble burst in 2000 (curiously, the book hardly mentioned it at all), the 9/11 terrorist attack and the ensuing wars, and the long-term rise of the cost of the entitlement programs. In fact, the Federal deficit was on the decline in 2006 and 2007 before the financial crisis hit. Data also show that Federal income tax revenue continued to rise after the Bush tax cut. The uptick of the Federal deficit happened before the tax cut went into effect. The rich contribute more proportionally to Federal tax after the tax cut than before. These data apparently escaped the author’s field of view.
The book repeatedly accuses the media of bias towards the right. Particularly, in the Clinton years, the press was hostile to the President and fanned sensation about the allegations against Clinton, according to the book. I agree that the mainstream media then were not as brazenly progressive as after 2010. However, they were not one-sided against Clinton. As I recall, the press was very critical to George H. Bush during the campaign of 1992. For example, news about economic recovery was moved out of the front pages near the November election. Clinton’s victory in 1992 is widely credited to his charisma, which cannot be effective without the media’s propagation.
In the introduction, the author stated that “I especially hope to account for how a conservative movement once deemed marginal managed to seize power and hold it, and what the consequences have been.” In my view, this task failed. The author limited the book’s scope to the presidencies. While a substantial part of the book was devoted to presidential details, national political, cultural, and economic developments were treated as mere background. The book seldomly touched racial tension, income inequality, demographic changes, and population aging, although these trends significantly influenced American politics at the time scale of decades. The book also ignored equally, if not more important, economic developments such as international competition, the rise of high tech, the Internet, and globalization. Even the ideal and tradition of conservatism and its competitors did not receive adequate treatment. The merit of conservatism, or its lack, does not consume any of the more than 400 pages of the book. In that sense, the book is more of a chronological record of the past decades and a selective one. It does not provide appropriate analyses to answer the question that the author puts forward above.
To a layman like me, the book provides an interesting framework by looking at the Reagan legacy over a time window of more than thirty years. By reviewing the sequences of events in the White House, we understand the footsteps of America over these tumultuous times. However, the book is superficial in analyses, selective in narrating, and sensational in presentation. One should treat it as an opinion essay instead of a faithful historical recording.
November 5, 2009
The narrative in Age of Reagan is engaging; but the book is, nonetheless, disappointing. Author Sean Wilentz, (a Democrat, a witness during the Clinton impeachment proceedings, and an adviser to Hillary Clinton during her presidential campaign) gives the impression in his introduction that the reader should not necessarily expect a steady stream of criticism toward Reagan and, perhaps, may reasonably expect some favorable commentary. He writes:
"The conclusions I have reached differ greatly from those advanced with increasing fervor in recent years by Reagan's admirers. They differ from those of his most vociferous critics. And they differ in several ways from the conclusions I would have expected myself to draw about Reagan's presidency and about much else when I began work on this book."
The book, however, is long in its criticism of Reagan, while praise - or at least credit - is almost non-existent. For example, Wilentz understandably focuses a great deal on the Iran-contra scandal, which comprises 36 pages as a single chapter. Yet, some of Reagan's more successful foreign policy ventures, such as his public and covert support for the Polish Solidarity movement and the war in Afghanistan, received, respectively, no mention and four sentences.
Wilentz acknowledges that U.S. covert efforts in Afghanistan "placed enormous military pressure on the Soviet-backed regime", but he then goes on to say that the "Soviet Union under Gorbachev, who had inherited responsibility for the occupation of Afghanistan, lacked the will to sustain the draining effort, especially after the hard-liners in the Soviet military establishment were removed." (pg. 280) He makes this claim despite previously noting (pg. 247) that Soviet military spending comprised 20% of GDP through the early 1980's, while failing to specify, or even render an educated guess, what percentage of this spending went toward Afghanistan. Thus, we receive little examination of just how much of a cost U.S. covert efforts imposed upon the Soviets, while leading us to believe that the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan is more attributable to the prudent policies of Gorbachev and less attributable to the opportunistic policies of Reagan.
With respect to the Solidarity movement: if one is curious about Reagan's impact in Poland, then I suggest reading Lech Walesa's (leader of Solidarity and President of Poland from 1990-1995) op-ed tribute to the man, where he claims: "We [Poles:] owe him our liberty."
mylink text
Or see: "In Solidarity. The Polish People, hungry for justice, preferred 'cowboys' over Communists", Wall Street Journal, June 11, 2004.
"The conclusions I have reached differ greatly from those advanced with increasing fervor in recent years by Reagan's admirers. They differ from those of his most vociferous critics. And they differ in several ways from the conclusions I would have expected myself to draw about Reagan's presidency and about much else when I began work on this book."
The book, however, is long in its criticism of Reagan, while praise - or at least credit - is almost non-existent. For example, Wilentz understandably focuses a great deal on the Iran-contra scandal, which comprises 36 pages as a single chapter. Yet, some of Reagan's more successful foreign policy ventures, such as his public and covert support for the Polish Solidarity movement and the war in Afghanistan, received, respectively, no mention and four sentences.
Wilentz acknowledges that U.S. covert efforts in Afghanistan "placed enormous military pressure on the Soviet-backed regime", but he then goes on to say that the "Soviet Union under Gorbachev, who had inherited responsibility for the occupation of Afghanistan, lacked the will to sustain the draining effort, especially after the hard-liners in the Soviet military establishment were removed." (pg. 280) He makes this claim despite previously noting (pg. 247) that Soviet military spending comprised 20% of GDP through the early 1980's, while failing to specify, or even render an educated guess, what percentage of this spending went toward Afghanistan. Thus, we receive little examination of just how much of a cost U.S. covert efforts imposed upon the Soviets, while leading us to believe that the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan is more attributable to the prudent policies of Gorbachev and less attributable to the opportunistic policies of Reagan.
With respect to the Solidarity movement: if one is curious about Reagan's impact in Poland, then I suggest reading Lech Walesa's (leader of Solidarity and President of Poland from 1990-1995) op-ed tribute to the man, where he claims: "We [Poles:] owe him our liberty."
mylink text
Or see: "In Solidarity. The Polish People, hungry for justice, preferred 'cowboys' over Communists", Wall Street Journal, June 11, 2004.
July 3, 2009
If you are looking for an explanation of what's happened and why in the past 30 years this book is for you!
I've searched my own mind in the course of the present economic crisis to try to recall just when we embraced this culture of greed. I knew there was a fundamental change, just couldn't pin it down. Thought deep down that basic changes began when Reagon became President. Then I found this book and all my suspicions were confirmed, only worse.
Then in the course of traveling to all corners of the country over the past five years, particularly the South, I was impressed with how far apart this country was in terms of political thought. We sure don't think in California like they do in Tennessee, or Georgia, or South Carolina, or Texas. Wilentz's book is not specifically about these subjects but it sure does explain them.
Wilentz traces the Presidency from the fall of Nixon to Geo. W. Bush, and in the course of this journey we see an overview of how politics have changed from the advent of Reagon through Bush II, and the picture is not pretty. Of course the debunking of the New Deal led to Regonomics which led not to enlightened government and leadership, but to a fool's paradise in his "Shining City on the Hill", something right out of Don Quixote. We have apparently come to the end of the Age of Reagon with some of us perhaps better off, but certainly not those left to pick up the pieces, e.g., our children...and their children. And now we are left with the question, if the New Deal was a failure, and if Reagonomics was a failure, can the Age of Obama really be one of hope?
If what has occured in the few short months since he took power the outlook does not look bright. Reagonomics, now clothed in the habiliments of the Christian Right, is not going to surrender easily. We are more polarized than ever before, hateful is not too strong a word. Obama's mounting of the throne kind of reminds one of Lincoln's ascendancy, and we all know where that led. There are those who look upon Obama as the knight in shining armor (the second coming of Reagon?); there are those who see him as one who will lead us into economic ruin. One person I know even compared him to Hitler saying his ultimate goal was to destroy the Constitution! Well, as a pragmatist of sorts, I don't buy either of these scenarios, but with polarity like this what chance has he? I think we are truly at a crossroads.
I've searched my own mind in the course of the present economic crisis to try to recall just when we embraced this culture of greed. I knew there was a fundamental change, just couldn't pin it down. Thought deep down that basic changes began when Reagon became President. Then I found this book and all my suspicions were confirmed, only worse.
Then in the course of traveling to all corners of the country over the past five years, particularly the South, I was impressed with how far apart this country was in terms of political thought. We sure don't think in California like they do in Tennessee, or Georgia, or South Carolina, or Texas. Wilentz's book is not specifically about these subjects but it sure does explain them.
Wilentz traces the Presidency from the fall of Nixon to Geo. W. Bush, and in the course of this journey we see an overview of how politics have changed from the advent of Reagon through Bush II, and the picture is not pretty. Of course the debunking of the New Deal led to Regonomics which led not to enlightened government and leadership, but to a fool's paradise in his "Shining City on the Hill", something right out of Don Quixote. We have apparently come to the end of the Age of Reagon with some of us perhaps better off, but certainly not those left to pick up the pieces, e.g., our children...and their children. And now we are left with the question, if the New Deal was a failure, and if Reagonomics was a failure, can the Age of Obama really be one of hope?
If what has occured in the few short months since he took power the outlook does not look bright. Reagonomics, now clothed in the habiliments of the Christian Right, is not going to surrender easily. We are more polarized than ever before, hateful is not too strong a word. Obama's mounting of the throne kind of reminds one of Lincoln's ascendancy, and we all know where that led. There are those who look upon Obama as the knight in shining armor (the second coming of Reagon?); there are those who see him as one who will lead us into economic ruin. One person I know even compared him to Hitler saying his ultimate goal was to destroy the Constitution! Well, as a pragmatist of sorts, I don't buy either of these scenarios, but with polarity like this what chance has he? I think we are truly at a crossroads.
August 21, 2008
I am fairly sure that this is not technically a work of history; lacking significant primary sources (Wilentz spurned interviews and Bush has denied access to primary documents going back to the early Cold War), this is instead a polemic on the politics of Wilentz’s life. Had Wilentz approached the book as a memoir-polemic, he may have been on to something. However, by trying to shoe horn half a lifetime of political opinions into a history of Reagan and Reaganism, he has written an oddly hollow book. The first third is essentially an essay on the fall of New Deal-New Frontier-Great Society liberalism and the failure of McGovern-Carter New Politics. The second third presents itself as something of a historical shock treatment concerning the wane of the Democratic Party and Reagan’s role in ending the Cold War. The final third is an extremely lengthy defense of the Clinton presidency and a standard-issue denunciation of the George W. Bush administration. Because this book’s origins seem so personal, the choices of focus are extremely idiosyncratic. For example, “Travelgate” (the now forgotten controversy over Hillary Clinton’s restructuring of the White House Travel Office) is given as much space as Iran-Contra (one of the greatest constitutional crises of the post-World War II era), Bob Dole’s doomed 1996 campaign is given over twice as much space as the entirety of the 1988 Republican Presidential landslide, and the Granada invasion is investigate at length, while the Rwandan Genocide is given one sentence. More damming as a history book is that study of politics in society is devoid of any discussion of the larger culture or even of voting habits. The ideology of Reagan is treated at lengthy, but there is zero talk of how that ideology interacted with society; all measures found no change in moderates dominating the electorate, yet conservatives dominated government; the New Right was a reactionary champion of social values, yet ushered in one of the greats shifts in cultural norms (there is as much space between “It’s a Wonderful Life” and “Wall Street,” as between “The Philadelphia Story” and Bonnie and Clyde”). In the end, it is a book guilty of attacks often brought against Reagan himself, there is nothing there.
May 7, 2018
April 8, 2017: Sean Wilentz gives a strong explanation of why Reagan came to power. He stepped into Richard Nixon's power vacuum after Watergate and spoke the language of the growing conservative bloc that opposed state initiatives such as civil rights, abortion, and government spending. Wilentz makes legitimate and unsettling criticisms of the Reagan administration, which hurt civil society with its budget cuts, ignorance of the AIDS crisis, and support for the Iran-Contra deal. Unfortunately, Wilentz's rhetoric frequently skews toward hyperbole and sensationalism. Even when we agree with him, we want him to be more restrained in his words. Wilentz is also ridiculously pro-Clinton and writes off Barack Obama dismissively; the author's Clinton favoritism has been well documented, and criticized, elsewhere. Generally speaking, Wilentz's prose is weak — the book has about as much flavor and style as the average newspaper article. There must be better surveys of late-twentieth-century politics on the market than this alternately dull and whiney tome.
April 4, 2018: I'll add a star. Reading it again, I am impressed by Wilentz's factual command of labyrinthine political developments in seven presidential administrations. His discussion of a political power vacuum and Democrats in disarray in the 1970s anticipates the arguments of Jefferson Cowie's 2010 history, "Stayin' Alive." I still feel there are many weaknesses to Wilentz's analysis of the Clintons, and Wilentz could have given us more information on the Religious Right, the environmental movement, Reagan's liberal children, and stagflation. This is the kind of book that gets assigned to undergrad survey classes for the sake of teaching the basic facts of the 1970s–90s. For sterling prose, less overt Clinton favoritism, and more economic content, seek other volumes.
April 4, 2018: I'll add a star. Reading it again, I am impressed by Wilentz's factual command of labyrinthine political developments in seven presidential administrations. His discussion of a political power vacuum and Democrats in disarray in the 1970s anticipates the arguments of Jefferson Cowie's 2010 history, "Stayin' Alive." I still feel there are many weaknesses to Wilentz's analysis of the Clintons, and Wilentz could have given us more information on the Religious Right, the environmental movement, Reagan's liberal children, and stagflation. This is the kind of book that gets assigned to undergrad survey classes for the sake of teaching the basic facts of the 1970s–90s. For sterling prose, less overt Clinton favoritism, and more economic content, seek other volumes.
June 30, 2015
Readable, well-researched, unpretentious.
The chapter on Iran-Contra is fantastic. The rest of the stuff on the Reagan presidency is solid and even-handed. The parts about Carter and Bush I are okay; the parts about Clinton and Bush II are not good at all.
A totally political history (as in "what high-level politicians were doing), really an overview of whatever was in the New York Times, without much real digging and absolutely no social perspective.
A bigger flaw: the Reagan Revolution wasn't as much of a revolution as people think. A better book would be "The Age of Nixon, 1968-2008." Politically, 1968 was a much bigger shift than 1980, and much of Reagan's presidency operated within terms set by Nixon. And--it must be said--much of what Bill Clinton's presidency operated within those terms as well. (Obviously, the same can be said for Bush II, whose presidency had all of the bad parts of Nixon's and none of the good parts.) This matters because Wilentz' claims about Reagan are substantial but they fail to account for the ways that Reagan was still playing Nixon's game, while Nixon was NOT playing Johnson's or Kennedy's or Eisenhower's game. Obama has been doing all he can to not play that game as well, and we shall see how successful or not he was.
But still: the Iran-Contra chapter is worth 5 stars, bringing up the value of this 3-star book.
The chapter on Iran-Contra is fantastic. The rest of the stuff on the Reagan presidency is solid and even-handed. The parts about Carter and Bush I are okay; the parts about Clinton and Bush II are not good at all.
A totally political history (as in "what high-level politicians were doing), really an overview of whatever was in the New York Times, without much real digging and absolutely no social perspective.
A bigger flaw: the Reagan Revolution wasn't as much of a revolution as people think. A better book would be "The Age of Nixon, 1968-2008." Politically, 1968 was a much bigger shift than 1980, and much of Reagan's presidency operated within terms set by Nixon. And--it must be said--much of what Bill Clinton's presidency operated within those terms as well. (Obviously, the same can be said for Bush II, whose presidency had all of the bad parts of Nixon's and none of the good parts.) This matters because Wilentz' claims about Reagan are substantial but they fail to account for the ways that Reagan was still playing Nixon's game, while Nixon was NOT playing Johnson's or Kennedy's or Eisenhower's game. Obama has been doing all he can to not play that game as well, and we shall see how successful or not he was.
But still: the Iran-Contra chapter is worth 5 stars, bringing up the value of this 3-star book.
February 4, 2018
Listened to this book on Audible on walks in Buffalo Bayou Park in Houston. Called to mind many forgotten episodes in American political history. It is also a very good overview of the conservative era that brings some perspective to our current political impasse. Recommended reading as a curative for nostalgia. Would be a great reading for a course on the American Conservative Movement.
October 29, 2018
So I'm not qualified to accurately gauge how well Wilentz tackles a lot of this book. I was born in 1984, and while I know things about 1974-1995(ish) most of what I know is ephemeral. It's not an era I've studied in any detail.
I have two major problems with this book. One, it's billed as a political history. Sure, if by that you mean a presidential history. Wilentz is better about giving Congress more even coverage during the 70s and 80s (not great, but better) but it completely disappears in the 1990s when Congress becomes the enemy going after poor Bill Clinton.
I am a liberal. Members of my family call me a dirty liberal, so when I say that Wilentz is a Clinton apologist, I want you to understand exactly what I mean. Those going after Clinton are painted as villainous hypocrites, but there's no space given to the people who honestly thought they were doing right.
Slate just did a great podcast series on this subject (Slow Burn), doing a good job of pointing out where there was a witch hunt (White Water) and where Clinton was definitely guilty. There was a lot more at work on both sides of the aisle about whether or not to investigate or impeach Clinton, but Wilentz didn't talk about it. If this was the only information you ever read about the impeachment, you might agree with him that the entire thing was a right-wing conspiracy from start to finish. I don't disagree that Republicans took advantage, but he excuses any wrongdoing on Clinton's part almost entirely and it doesn't sit right with me.
He conducted no interviews, which is a choice that I'm glad he acknowledged but I cannot understand. You are discussing a period in which 80% of the people involved are alive and might actually talk to you. How do you not even seek out some of them?
This book shouldn't have gone past 2000. I know Wilentz argues for it in the introduction but I disagree with his handling. George H.W. Bush's eight years in the White House cannot be accurately described in thirty pages, and it's a superficial analysis in order to prove Wilentz's conclusion about the end of the age of Reagan. It actively damaged the book for me.
This epilogue was written after the rest of the book and stops just short of the 2008 election, but it has several errors and uncomfortable judgments. Barack Obama is cast as the "political newcomer with a sketchy past" (452) while Wilentz misnames the Louisiana Senator accused of sexual misconduct in 2007 (he writes James Vitter, not David Vitter). (454) There's no exploration of what Wilentz means by sketchy past, and it's downright irresponsible because this book was released DURING the election of 2008 (May 6, 2008). I am appalled by that characterization of the candidate with no explanation. Prove your point.
I've read Sean Wilentz for other grad classes and I've been happy with his other works. This is out of his wheel house and it shows.
I have two major problems with this book. One, it's billed as a political history. Sure, if by that you mean a presidential history. Wilentz is better about giving Congress more even coverage during the 70s and 80s (not great, but better) but it completely disappears in the 1990s when Congress becomes the enemy going after poor Bill Clinton.
I am a liberal. Members of my family call me a dirty liberal, so when I say that Wilentz is a Clinton apologist, I want you to understand exactly what I mean. Those going after Clinton are painted as villainous hypocrites, but there's no space given to the people who honestly thought they were doing right.
Slate just did a great podcast series on this subject (Slow Burn), doing a good job of pointing out where there was a witch hunt (White Water) and where Clinton was definitely guilty. There was a lot more at work on both sides of the aisle about whether or not to investigate or impeach Clinton, but Wilentz didn't talk about it. If this was the only information you ever read about the impeachment, you might agree with him that the entire thing was a right-wing conspiracy from start to finish. I don't disagree that Republicans took advantage, but he excuses any wrongdoing on Clinton's part almost entirely and it doesn't sit right with me.
He conducted no interviews, which is a choice that I'm glad he acknowledged but I cannot understand. You are discussing a period in which 80% of the people involved are alive and might actually talk to you. How do you not even seek out some of them?
This book shouldn't have gone past 2000. I know Wilentz argues for it in the introduction but I disagree with his handling. George H.W. Bush's eight years in the White House cannot be accurately described in thirty pages, and it's a superficial analysis in order to prove Wilentz's conclusion about the end of the age of Reagan. It actively damaged the book for me.
This epilogue was written after the rest of the book and stops just short of the 2008 election, but it has several errors and uncomfortable judgments. Barack Obama is cast as the "political newcomer with a sketchy past" (452) while Wilentz misnames the Louisiana Senator accused of sexual misconduct in 2007 (he writes James Vitter, not David Vitter). (454) There's no exploration of what Wilentz means by sketchy past, and it's downright irresponsible because this book was released DURING the election of 2008 (May 6, 2008). I am appalled by that characterization of the candidate with no explanation. Prove your point.
I've read Sean Wilentz for other grad classes and I've been happy with his other works. This is out of his wheel house and it shows.
March 21, 2017
This synthesis of political history in the last 20 years is kind of a mixed bag, but it is worth checking out for certain people. Liberals like me will be strongly inclined to agree with Wilentz' highly negative take on RR and his generally positive view of Clinton. Wilentz definitely could have toned the rhetoric and obvious bias down and he still would have had a strong argument that the GOP has become the crazier and less competent party. There are some chapters in here devoted entirely to key political scandals and controversies, (Iran-Contra, Lewinsky, Bush v Gore), which I thought was a strength because in many ways these scandals are as much a part of politics in this era as "the real issues." It's also a good resource for teachers setting up lessons or lectures on politics in this era.
Wilentz is on to something with the whole idea of the Age of Reagan. He means that Reagan brought true ideological conservatism to American politics: supply side economics, huge tax cuts for the wealthy, reductions of social welfare programs, high military spending, more ideologically conservatives in the federal judiciary, some degree of conservative moralism. However, he did so in such an optimistic, personally appealing way that he pulled the entire political spectrum to the right. He also kept the religious right loons and the hardline foreign policy types at arms length, which gave him the flexibility to do things like respond positively to the USSR's efforts at ending the Cold War. The best evidence that he shifted politics rightward was Bill Clinton, who moved confidently and effectively to the center in his governance. Bush Jr., in Wilentz's telling, went much further to the right than RR, completely rejecting bipartisanship, waging the culture war, and
2008 was far too early for Wilentz to put an end to the Age of Reagan. 2016, however, might be a decent expiration date. After decades of trying to resuscitate the Reagan style and image (which was probably unique to RR), the GOP has been taken over by a totally different version of conservatism: pessimistic, rejecting the open society, indifferent to religion other than as an expression of white or Western culture, suspicious, and most of all, pro-Russia! RR was also much less of an ideological zealot than most current Republicans. One of the nice things about this book was Wilentz's convincing portrayal of the GOP's steady journey into ever greater forms of radicalism. Their treatment of Clinton illustrated that shift over and over again; just consider the fact that Gingrich came in as a right winger and within a few years was run out of town by even more radical Republicans.
Still, there's not much that makes this book a whole lot more than a competent, thorough, but conventional narrative of politics since Watergate. It also feels a bit rushed; there are a lot of typos and a few minor errors. It is a useful book for seeing the big picture but definitely a first draft of history; better stuff will come down the road.
Wilentz is on to something with the whole idea of the Age of Reagan. He means that Reagan brought true ideological conservatism to American politics: supply side economics, huge tax cuts for the wealthy, reductions of social welfare programs, high military spending, more ideologically conservatives in the federal judiciary, some degree of conservative moralism. However, he did so in such an optimistic, personally appealing way that he pulled the entire political spectrum to the right. He also kept the religious right loons and the hardline foreign policy types at arms length, which gave him the flexibility to do things like respond positively to the USSR's efforts at ending the Cold War. The best evidence that he shifted politics rightward was Bill Clinton, who moved confidently and effectively to the center in his governance. Bush Jr., in Wilentz's telling, went much further to the right than RR, completely rejecting bipartisanship, waging the culture war, and
2008 was far too early for Wilentz to put an end to the Age of Reagan. 2016, however, might be a decent expiration date. After decades of trying to resuscitate the Reagan style and image (which was probably unique to RR), the GOP has been taken over by a totally different version of conservatism: pessimistic, rejecting the open society, indifferent to religion other than as an expression of white or Western culture, suspicious, and most of all, pro-Russia! RR was also much less of an ideological zealot than most current Republicans. One of the nice things about this book was Wilentz's convincing portrayal of the GOP's steady journey into ever greater forms of radicalism. Their treatment of Clinton illustrated that shift over and over again; just consider the fact that Gingrich came in as a right winger and within a few years was run out of town by even more radical Republicans.
Still, there's not much that makes this book a whole lot more than a competent, thorough, but conventional narrative of politics since Watergate. It also feels a bit rushed; there are a lot of typos and a few minor errors. It is a useful book for seeing the big picture but definitely a first draft of history; better stuff will come down the road.
March 21, 2020
Absorbing history of the ascendancy of conservatism in the US since 1980. The book was published in 2008, prior to Obama’s election, but is highly relevant reading, as the trends discussed persist in 2020. The author reviews the administrations of Ford, Carter, Reagan, GHW Bush, Clinton, and GW Bush, in an efficient and highly readable manner. The book is best understood as a history of the radicalization of the Republican Party, and its rejection of political norms that had existed prior to Reagan’s election, culminating with the current presidency of Donald Trump. All of the familiar elements are there - the reliance upon tax cuts for the wealthy, the explosion of deficits, thus justifying declines in spending for social programs, the appeals to white prejudice and evangelical religion, the dismantling of environmental and other types of regulation, the packing of courts with right wing judges, the concentration of unlimited power in the executive, and an uncompromising partisanship that seeks to destroy, rather than work with, political opponents. As the book and subsequent history have shown, the conservative dominance is sometimes interrupted by a Democratic administration, but the Republicans soon regain power, and resume their pursuit of continuous rule, employing the same playbook, with slight modifications.
Wilentz is not a neutral observer, as he clearly leans to the left. But his history is fairly even-handed. He dispenses credit where it is due, particularly in the case of Ronald Reagan, and doesn’t hesitate to criticize Democrats, such as Bill Clinton and Al Gore. It is in the epilogue, a quick and harshly critical review of the George W. Bush administration, where the author’s liberal bias is most evident. Not that the criticism of GW Bush’s disastrous presidency is undeserved, mind you.
The book is a valuable study of what has happened to our politics in the last 40 years, and I highly recommend it.
Wilentz is not a neutral observer, as he clearly leans to the left. But his history is fairly even-handed. He dispenses credit where it is due, particularly in the case of Ronald Reagan, and doesn’t hesitate to criticize Democrats, such as Bill Clinton and Al Gore. It is in the epilogue, a quick and harshly critical review of the George W. Bush administration, where the author’s liberal bias is most evident. Not that the criticism of GW Bush’s disastrous presidency is undeserved, mind you.
The book is a valuable study of what has happened to our politics in the last 40 years, and I highly recommend it.
July 19, 2021
Overall, this is a flawed but still solid chronicle of political events in Washington from 1974 to 2008. The narrative is well-organized and flows smoothly, the amount of information is impressive, and the writing is easy to read. The first few chapters effectively paint a picture of the events that led to Reagan's rise to power. Wilentz definitely has a left-leaning take on Reagan's presidency and legacy, but none the less does an adequate job of giving him credit where credit is due while not holding back on criticism. Considering the sheer amount of long-lasting consequences (both good and bad) that came from Reagan's presidency, Wilentz's take that his time in office shaped American politics long after his tenure is a valid one. Reagan is rightfully taken to task for everything related to the Iran-Contra scandal. I felt Wilentz doesn't give enough credit to Reagan for the end of the cold war, but his chapters on the fall of the USSR are some of the book's best.
Where the book falters is in the post-Reagan chapters, especially the Clinton years. His admiration for Clinton and Al Gore borders on gushing at times and the integrity he displayed while covering Reagan (a president he dislikes) disappears. Subsequently, his unabashed hatred of George W. Bush also comes off as petty. Even if you dislike the junior Bush and his cabinet, the constant references to W's privilege and lack of intellect eventually become cumbersome. Frankly, if you stop reading after the George H.W. Bush presidency ends, it is a better book.
Overall, despite its flaws, I enjoyed this take on post-Nixon American politics. It's worth a read if you are unfamiliar with post-Nixon American politics or want to learn more about the Reagan-inspired Republican party.
Where the book falters is in the post-Reagan chapters, especially the Clinton years. His admiration for Clinton and Al Gore borders on gushing at times and the integrity he displayed while covering Reagan (a president he dislikes) disappears. Subsequently, his unabashed hatred of George W. Bush also comes off as petty. Even if you dislike the junior Bush and his cabinet, the constant references to W's privilege and lack of intellect eventually become cumbersome. Frankly, if you stop reading after the George H.W. Bush presidency ends, it is a better book.
Overall, despite its flaws, I enjoyed this take on post-Nixon American politics. It's worth a read if you are unfamiliar with post-Nixon American politics or want to learn more about the Reagan-inspired Republican party.
July 20, 2020
4.0 / 5.0
Perhaps a better title would be the rise of the Conservative Right. First half does a good job of looking at the Rise of Reagan and the foibles of the Democrats. Lots of reminders of the Partisan Infighting that developed at this time. Nice job of creating a picture without over doing the detals. Section on Reagan Presidency is balanced and Sympathetic. Reagan disappears from book through Bush , Clinton, and Bush Presidencies and resurfaces at end trying to ties it all together. Prediction that by 2008 the Age of Reagan had run out of steam seems prescient but failed to see it was in remission and the cancer would metastasize into Trump.
Well written balanced and extremely memory and thought provoking.
Perhaps a better title would be the rise of the Conservative Right. First half does a good job of looking at the Rise of Reagan and the foibles of the Democrats. Lots of reminders of the Partisan Infighting that developed at this time. Nice job of creating a picture without over doing the detals. Section on Reagan Presidency is balanced and Sympathetic. Reagan disappears from book through Bush , Clinton, and Bush Presidencies and resurfaces at end trying to ties it all together. Prediction that by 2008 the Age of Reagan had run out of steam seems prescient but failed to see it was in remission and the cancer would metastasize into Trump.
Well written balanced and extremely memory and thought provoking.
January 12, 2022
In recounting the cabinet debate over whether Clinton should veto the conservatives' welfare reform legislation, Wilentz has Al Gore encouraging Clinton to sign it by saying something like, "It's a terrible proposal but, if you veto it, the welfare reform debate will float away and you'll lose the opportunity to reform welfare." Wilentz treats Clinton's entire presidency as if this were compelling logic. Wilentz also endorses Clinton's decision to sign the bill into law on the grounds that doing so made conservatives stop courting white supremacists by racializing welfare as a campaign issue. Not that Clinton offered that justification or genuinely believed it at the time. Wilentz asserts it as a historical fact! The book was pretty solid before that.
June 14, 2019
This books help me understand the complexities of US political machinations. In the effort, it gave me a glimpse of what the politics really like and how much of it is similar to my own country's. The only criticism I have for the book is the number of names there is in any event. Some sentences could have up to five or six names making the understanding of an even a single sentence to be quite daunting. Whilst I understand that the author try to do this to ensure none of the critical point or factors in play not to be missed, it is still a challenge nevertheless. Sometimes I wish the book was written in two parts just so the need for such sentences can be mitigated.
May 14, 2022
I enjoyed this book, but it was a real slog to get through parts of it. I appreciated the critical assessment of Reagan that was willing to give credit where credit was due but the overly forgiving portrait of Bill Clinton raised my hackles some. Perhaps, this just shows how much the assessment of Clinton's administration has shifted since 2008. It is always hard to read recent American history that doesn't include the shocking advent of the Trump era. I think that Wilentz argument for the victory of Reaganite politics in George W. Bush and its exhaustion by 2008 is compelling, but I know, that it gets more complicated afterward. More a functional book than a real barn burner.
July 15, 2017
Interesting history of the last quarter of the twentieth century. Argues that Reagan created a dynamic where he was able to starve government by cutting taxes and thus killing any chance of another New Deal increase in government.
The portion from 2000 to 2008 seems a little brief. Wilentz tells readers at the beginning that it will be brief, but it seems so brief as to not be necessary. As he approaches the contemporaneous period, he increasingly has trouble meeting his goal of maintaining a historian's objectivity.
The portion from 2000 to 2008 seems a little brief. Wilentz tells readers at the beginning that it will be brief, but it seems so brief as to not be necessary. As he approaches the contemporaneous period, he increasingly has trouble meeting his goal of maintaining a historian's objectivity.
March 21, 2025
This author is very sympathetic to the Clinton family, his personal friends. It is a sort of boring, middle of the road history of the Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II presidencies that doesn't really focus on any single aspect of US foreign or domestic policy, besides them all being shaped by "the age of Reagan." No doubt American society became more socially conservative and seemingly embraced supply-side "voodoo economics," but this book is vague and muddled. Some parts were interesting but overall its quality is mixed.
July 29, 2019
Wilentz gives a really good overview of the American socio-political climate in what he terms is the "Age of Reagan", which he places from the 70's to the mid 2000's.
He brings a good amount of analytical depth to a fairly broad take on this period in American history and opens the door to further discussion on Reagan and the impact of his presidency on both American and global politics.
An excellent book!
4/5 Stars
He brings a good amount of analytical depth to a fairly broad take on this period in American history and opens the door to further discussion on Reagan and the impact of his presidency on both American and global politics.
An excellent book!
4/5 Stars
June 22, 2021
Pros: It covers the political controversies and memorable moments from 1974 to 2008 rather well and with an admirable degree of completeness. It isn't vitriolic, nor does it have a particular ax to grind. Its coverage of economic history, especially government austerity measures and the myth of the GOP as deficit hawks is quite good.
Cons: Because it focuses so much on the halls of political power in DC, it takes precious little time to look at the margins of US history. The growth of the carceral state is not mentioned. The War on Drugs is only referenced in passing, as it relates to a particular anti-crime bill or other piece of federal legislation. The utter mishandling of the AIDS epidemic is given barely a paragraph, and the unnecessary death and suffering Reagan's administration caused hardly moves the scales of judgment. The Communist world is also treated in a caricatured way, with the "end of the Cold War" and the "fall of the Soviet Empire" seen as unalloyed triumphs rather than the mixed (often quite negative) bag that historical was in fact.
Overall, Reagan is given a degree of charity that seems undeserved. Since this was written so near to W Bush's tenure, the treatment of Reagan might very well reflect a desire to overcorrect the 2D picture of Reagan among liberals, perhaps subconsciously fulfilling a desire to make Republicans seem (at least at some point in recent memory) more reasonable and politick than they had become in 2008. I see the same phenomenon now in 2021 with the rehabilitation of W Bush so as to make him seem more acceptable and "normal" than Trump. The attempt at fairness to Reagan was admirable, but I think over done.
Cons: Because it focuses so much on the halls of political power in DC, it takes precious little time to look at the margins of US history. The growth of the carceral state is not mentioned. The War on Drugs is only referenced in passing, as it relates to a particular anti-crime bill or other piece of federal legislation. The utter mishandling of the AIDS epidemic is given barely a paragraph, and the unnecessary death and suffering Reagan's administration caused hardly moves the scales of judgment. The Communist world is also treated in a caricatured way, with the "end of the Cold War" and the "fall of the Soviet Empire" seen as unalloyed triumphs rather than the mixed (often quite negative) bag that historical was in fact.
Overall, Reagan is given a degree of charity that seems undeserved. Since this was written so near to W Bush's tenure, the treatment of Reagan might very well reflect a desire to overcorrect the 2D picture of Reagan among liberals, perhaps subconsciously fulfilling a desire to make Republicans seem (at least at some point in recent memory) more reasonable and politick than they had become in 2008. I see the same phenomenon now in 2021 with the rehabilitation of W Bush so as to make him seem more acceptable and "normal" than Trump. The attempt at fairness to Reagan was admirable, but I think over done.
June 1, 2019
In the weeds, unadulterated, blow-by-blow political history, for the politics wonks among us. Found to my surprise that much more of the Reagan material was familiar to me in its intimate detail than the Clinton material. Maybe that's the difference between absorbing your parents politics and the nightly news as a child, versus growing absorbed in one's own activities in high school and college.
February 22, 2023
Decent factual overview but kinda sucks as a writer. Kinda just writes about things as if they just happened by accident as compared to Rick Perlstein who writes history focusing on intentional actions made by people and organizations and their consequences. Total lib shit. Also, Obama didn't end the age of Reagan lol.
August 10, 2025
I always wanted to read a book that explored the U.S politics from the 60s to the beginning of the 2000s. The language is superb, and if you are into U.S politics, then you are going to finish this in one go.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 73 reviews