What do you think?
Rate this book
American Political Thought
Theodore Roosevelt, the Progressive Party, and the Transformation of American Democracy
Led by Theodore Roosevelt, the Progressive Party made the 1912 campaign a passionate contest for the soul of the American people. Promoting an ambitious program of economic, social, and political reform-"New Nationalism"-that posed profound challenges to constitutional government, TR and his Progressive supporters provoked an extraordinary debate about the future of the country. Sidney Milkis revisits this emotionally charged contest to show how a party seemingly consumed by its leader's ambition dominated the election and left an enduring legacy that set in motion the rise of mass democracy and the expansion of national administrative power. Milkis depicts the Progressive Party as a collective enterprise of activists, spearheaded by TR, who pursued a program of reform dedicated to direct democracy and social justice and a balance between rights and civic duty. These reformers hoped to create a new concept of citizenship that would fulfill the lofty aspirations of "we the people" in a quest for a "more perfect union"-a quest hampered by fierce infighting over civil rights and antitrust policy. Milkis shows that the Progressive campaign aroused not just an important debate over reforms but also a battle for the very meaning of Progressivism. He describes how Roosevelt gave focus to the party with his dedication to "pure democracy"-even shoehorning judicial recall into his professed "true conservative" stance. Although this pledge to make the American people "masters of their Constitution" provoked considerable controversy, Milkis contends that the Progressives were not all that far removed from the more nationally minded of the Founders. As Milkis reveals, the party's faith in a more plebiscitary form of democracy would ultimately rob it of the very organization it needed in order to survive after Roosevelt. Yet the Progressive Party's program of social reform and "direct democracy" has reverberated through American politics-especially in 2008, with Barack Obama appealing to similar instincts. By probing the deep historical roots of contemporary developments in American politics, his book shows that Progressivism continues to shape American politics a century later.
378 pages, Hardcover
First published September 1, 2009
About the author
Sidney M. Milkis
30 books10 followersSidney M. Milkis is the White Burkett Miller Professor of the Department of Politics at the University of Virginia and Faculty Associate at the Miller Center. He has a B.A. from Muhlenberg College and a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Pennsylvania.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
August 28, 2013
This is a physiological thriller telling the story of how Theodore Roosevelt single-handedly defeated a whole team of sharks... just kidding. This book is actually a breakdown of Theodore Roosevelt's political endeavors during the period of the 1912 election. Sidney M. Milkis talks about splits within both the democrat and republican parties, the roles social advocacy groups played in party politics, and how parties did or did not use media to help win support for their party. The author discusses all this while explaining to the reader how the progressive party formed and what role Theodore Roosevelt played in the party itself.
Overall, I believe that Sidney M. Milkis was taking on too much at once when writing this book. This book scatters in many different directions and has only a loose rallying point, much like the progressive party. I found it hard to get started on this book, and harder to keep focused on it, despite being interested in the topic. Sidney M. Milkis did a poor job of keeping their audience engaged in the book by going off on tangents instead of continuing the flow of their argument. This gave the book a lazy and unfocused pace, making it difficult to pay attention and easy to get distracted. The book did have some shining moments, however, they were lost in a cloud of unfinished arguments.
Overall, I believe that Sidney M. Milkis was taking on too much at once when writing this book. This book scatters in many different directions and has only a loose rallying point, much like the progressive party. I found it hard to get started on this book, and harder to keep focused on it, despite being interested in the topic. Sidney M. Milkis did a poor job of keeping their audience engaged in the book by going off on tangents instead of continuing the flow of their argument. This gave the book a lazy and unfocused pace, making it difficult to pay attention and easy to get distracted. The book did have some shining moments, however, they were lost in a cloud of unfinished arguments.
September 8, 2013
Ok, this book, I would have never read if I hadn't been assigned it for homework outside of school. Because it was homework though, doesn't make it a bad book. If knowing the origins and foundations of modern day politics appeal to you, then learning about the Progressive era is definitely something you should learn about. Milkis does an excellent job educating the reader about this era and it is understandable even if you don't know the first thing about American politics. This is not an easy read however. This is not a book you can take to beach and just read every other word to get the gist of it. If you read this, you are making a huge mental commitment and time commitment. This is a great book for students of American history and politics, though I think the Milkis could have gotten his message across in fewer words.
June 13, 2020
This book was both decently educational and extremely frustrating. The author was clearly biased toward Roosevelt, and often used pointed, negative language about his critics, even when the criticisms were entirely legitimate. It colored his arguments and thus the entire basis of his (already watered down) analysis. He also used many terms (like "rule of the bosses" and "reform and recall") without satisfactorily explaining what he meant by them. There was a lot of assumed knowledge, which is not remotely effective. The author also tried way too hard to make himself seem more academic than he clearly is. There is no reason for any book in any universe to use the sentence: "Even the British press, which frequently lampooned the whirligig of American politics, conceded the importance of the campaign." This book desperately needed an editor.
It took more than half of the book to get through the primary elections of 1912. In short, it dragged. There was a very brief and clearly rushed final section (approx. 10 pages) that suggested ways in which this election might have had far-reaching implications into the formation of modern American politics, but that was all. He threw in a couple of anecdotes about Bush and Obama, but failed to mention in its entirety the implications of the 1912 Progressive Party on the foundations of the Administrative State. He did not in any way explain how this campaign shaped the transformation of American democracy beyond a brutally repetitive emphasis on the candidate-centered reformed Presidential campaigns of the modern era, and a subsequent shift away from party-central campaign efforts.
This book probably could have been 1/3 the entire length and gotten the same point across. Instead, Milkis felt the need to make a point, then reiterate it, then reiterate his reiteration, then do it again and again until he'd made one point so many times it made me want to throw this damn book at the wall.
He was careful to avoid a lot of definitive statements; he often said things like "According to X political figure" or "According to Y newspaper," stick in painfully long and always out of context quotations, and then move on without providing his own insights. There's such a thing as a heavy-handed author, and then there's the opposite--an author like Milkis who avoids actually saying anything at all. In an academic text, the latter is definitely undesirable.
Milkis reported multiple times that the 1912 Progressives undermined the growth of Socialism in the United States (largely due to the American deeply rooted fear of a centralized government) but a) never really expressed what the Socialist platform was or how it was similar but also so different and b) never fully committed to pointing out the inherent contradictions of the Progressive platform that relied on an Administration that was more or less a centralized bureaucracy, but that was disguised enough to be palatable to the American people while also more or less running the Socialist platform. He also tried for 2/3 of the book to make it seem as though this entire campaign was not just about TR's extensive ego or obsession with personal power. Then, in later chapters, he expressed that it was precisely that, and because of the personality-politics, the Progressives actually had no clear and unified platform--again because they were running on Socialist ideals with a massive dose of racism, some sexism, and the "Social Gospel" (ie. Protestant idealism) that refused to commit to centralized government despite needing it to implement any of their proposed reforms in short, their platform was bullshit and would've been impossible to implicate. That seems kind of important to include, don't you think? And yet there is no mention of it at all in the entire book.). All the background information was (mostly) there besides any substantial information about the Socialists (he claimed they were a major contender that year but didn't talk about them), but again, he did no real analysis and came to no real conclusions.
Unless you're already familiar with the emergence of the Administrative State (and if not, definitely read Philip Hamburger), there is no definitive conclusion in this book of how exactly TR and his campaign changed anything. You need to have that background knowledge and be able to read between the lines, or it's a lot of floundering and unnecessary details that never get to the point (Milkis and Treebeard, to that end, would get along very well).
This gives a good overview of the 1912 election if you can survive the insufferable and unnecessary repetition and don't want to drill a hole into your skull by the time you're through just to get this man to stop repeating himself. If you're at all familiar with any of this, however, definitely do not read this book--you'll hate yourself before you even make it through his history of the primaries.
It took more than half of the book to get through the primary elections of 1912. In short, it dragged. There was a very brief and clearly rushed final section (approx. 10 pages) that suggested ways in which this election might have had far-reaching implications into the formation of modern American politics, but that was all. He threw in a couple of anecdotes about Bush and Obama, but failed to mention in its entirety the implications of the 1912 Progressive Party on the foundations of the Administrative State. He did not in any way explain how this campaign shaped the transformation of American democracy beyond a brutally repetitive emphasis on the candidate-centered reformed Presidential campaigns of the modern era, and a subsequent shift away from party-central campaign efforts.
This book probably could have been 1/3 the entire length and gotten the same point across. Instead, Milkis felt the need to make a point, then reiterate it, then reiterate his reiteration, then do it again and again until he'd made one point so many times it made me want to throw this damn book at the wall.
He was careful to avoid a lot of definitive statements; he often said things like "According to X political figure" or "According to Y newspaper," stick in painfully long and always out of context quotations, and then move on without providing his own insights. There's such a thing as a heavy-handed author, and then there's the opposite--an author like Milkis who avoids actually saying anything at all. In an academic text, the latter is definitely undesirable.
Milkis reported multiple times that the 1912 Progressives undermined the growth of Socialism in the United States (largely due to the American deeply rooted fear of a centralized government) but a) never really expressed what the Socialist platform was or how it was similar but also so different and b) never fully committed to pointing out the inherent contradictions of the Progressive platform that relied on an Administration that was more or less a centralized bureaucracy, but that was disguised enough to be palatable to the American people while also more or less running the Socialist platform. He also tried for 2/3 of the book to make it seem as though this entire campaign was not just about TR's extensive ego or obsession with personal power. Then, in later chapters, he expressed that it was precisely that, and because of the personality-politics, the Progressives actually had no clear and unified platform--again because they were running on Socialist ideals with a massive dose of racism, some sexism, and the "Social Gospel" (ie. Protestant idealism) that refused to commit to centralized government despite needing it to implement any of their proposed reforms in short, their platform was bullshit and would've been impossible to implicate. That seems kind of important to include, don't you think? And yet there is no mention of it at all in the entire book.). All the background information was (mostly) there besides any substantial information about the Socialists (he claimed they were a major contender that year but didn't talk about them), but again, he did no real analysis and came to no real conclusions.
Unless you're already familiar with the emergence of the Administrative State (and if not, definitely read Philip Hamburger), there is no definitive conclusion in this book of how exactly TR and his campaign changed anything. You need to have that background knowledge and be able to read between the lines, or it's a lot of floundering and unnecessary details that never get to the point (Milkis and Treebeard, to that end, would get along very well).
This gives a good overview of the 1912 election if you can survive the insufferable and unnecessary repetition and don't want to drill a hole into your skull by the time you're through just to get this man to stop repeating himself. If you're at all familiar with any of this, however, definitely do not read this book--you'll hate yourself before you even make it through his history of the primaries.
August 19, 2013
Theodore Roosevelt, the Progressive Party, and the Transformation of American Democracy is a book that discusses exactly what the title says. This book is written in a textbook fashion, which is not the right style for a 300+ page book. Milkis Idolizes the Progressive party even though they lasted for less than four years. This book should not be read without sufficient historical background and should be kept for college students instead of tenth graders. This book is constantly jumping around from topic to topic. The chapters are too long. Milkis should have more chapters that are more focused and then summarize and connect ideas at the end. I could not stay focused while reading and had to force my self to read it. I would not recommend this book unless you are a really into history.
January 2, 2017
Really wanted to love this book. Overall I thought there was good content, but the author should have kept her thesis to a few main points. She went in every direction possible and made it difficult to follow. The 1912 election did foment a lot of the changes we saw later on, but were not tied together until the last chapter. Due to this, it took longer for me to finish than I would have liked.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews