Beyond Left and Right: Insurgency and the Establishment

by David A. Horowitz

Beyond Left and Right is a sweeping overview of political insurgency in the United States from the 1880s to the present. It is at once a stunning synthesis, drawing on a large number of scholarly works, and an ambitious and original piece of research. The book ranges over diverse individuals and groups that have attacked the established order, from the left and the right, from the Populists of the 1890s to Ross Perot and the religious right of our times, dealing along the way with noninterventionists, the Klan, monetary radicals, McCarthyites, Birchers, and Reaganites, among many others.

472 pages, Paperback

First published December 1, 1996

About the author

Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.

Reviews

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

I picked up this book while I was taking courses in grad school with Professor Horowitz, who was one of my favorite instructors. I never got around to reading it at the time, though – it wasn’t used in any of my classes, so it waited until I had “free time” to get to it. To some degree, reading it reminded me of the pleasure of being in one of Prof. Horowitz’s classes: there was the fascinating array of facts and anecdotes, the refreshingly simple explanations of theory and motivations, the quirky personality that doesn’t quite conform to expectations. Still, I was ultimately a little disappointed by the end, so I can’t quite give this a full five stars.

The book’s title would be deceptive to most people who encountered it at random. Nothing in the title even indicates that it is a history book, much less what period it covers. It sounds like a political science title, or even possibly some kind of “Third Way” manifesto, which it certainly isn’t. What it actually is is a study of American populism from roughly 1910 to 1964, with a brief introductory chapter that stretches back a bit into the 19th century and a final chapter that attempts to discuss more recent times (up to the election of Bill Clinton, but with no mention of the “Contract with America”). The focus is almost entirely on elected officials in Congress, with very occasional mentions of grassroots organizations like the Grange movement and a few non-elected leaders like Father Charles Coughlin.

That may seem like rather a narrow focus for a book with such a sweeping title, but it actually does provide for a very good overview of American politics, and particularly why it is so different from European politics. I think for a lot of people wondering, “how did we get here?” in the age of Trump and Sanders, this book could provide some fascinating context, if no definite answers. The strongest part of the book is the first part, covering isolationism in both world wars, anti-corporate and anti-trust populism, the decline of progressivism in the mid-twentieth century, and the ongoing critique of Eastern elites by Western farmers and small businessmen. This portion of the book is supported by extensive archival research and references to primary sources. Then, when he moves into 1950s anti-communism, a slow shift takes place. Almost the entire section on Joseph McCarthy is drawn from secondary research. Then, he returns to primary research for other congressional responses to anti-communism. Then the final chapter, the one that purports to cover 1964-1992 begins, and the primary sources dry up almost entirely. Suddenly, he relies on synthesized analyses by “political journalists” who appear to be pushing agendas. His conclusions seem all the more dubious in light of the bias that snuck into this section.

Reading between the lines, it looked to me as if the former populist agenda was co-opted by increasingly far right sources, contradicting his thesis and his title throughout this period. These new forces conveniently forgot about most of the anti-corporate aspects of the populist program, except when it was convenient to use Wall Street or New York bankers as whipping posts, and made government de-regulation far more intrinsic to their definition of a free market than trust busting. But, they continued to claim to be speaking for the “small producer” even as they lined the pockets of the ultra-rich and created economic conditions that caused money to flow up from the bottom, and the lower middle classes lost power and mobility, while being riled up against urban dwellers who were not so different to themselves in real economic interest.

But, Horowitz doesn’t say any of that. Nor does he consider the other side of post-war populism, which has produced the Occupy movement, Bernie Sanders and other democratic socialists today. I was particularly surprised when he made no mention, even in passing, to the candidacy of Eugene McCarthy for president and his connection to traditional producer values. And when I think back on it, this book, like his classes, is a lot of trees with no visible forest. At times it is hard to see the connections he is trying to make in the flurry of facts given. Possibly it is this emphasis on detail that causes him to miss other possible connections. In any event, I found the book to be enjoyable and interesting, but ultimately not as satisfying as I’d hoped.

[Andrew Figueiredo · Rating 4 out of 5]

There are many ways to tell American history through a certain lens, and Horowitz succeeds at crafting a narrative of the 20th century of anti-establishment figures militating for small producers, individual liberty, and republican values. As per Horowitz, these figures were united by their opposition to concentrated power in both government and business. He weaves together people as diverse as Wright Patman, Joe McCarthy, Robert Welch, Ross Perot, and Burton Wheeler, and provides a special level of attention to early 20th century progressives. It's fascinating to see the common threads between otherwise disparate figures elucidated. I never would have thought about US history in this lens otherwise. What I found particularly cool is how well-researched this work is on topics like the fight against chain stores in the 1920s and 1930s. Horowitz uses legislative correspondence to get an idea of regular Americans' sentiments, which is a good use of primary source material. He pairs this with strong legislative research, which makes it a good political history book.

There are a few gaps in this history though, as there are in many of these narrative-based tellings. Namely, Horowitz does a poor job engaging with the civil rights movement and its activists. His mention of it is essentially limited to describing how the business community worked for civil rights, engendering opposition from neopopulists like George Wallace. He also doesn't talk about anti-establishment politics in Latino communities (thinking Cesar Chavez here). For that matter, he also seems to mischaracterize the 1920s KKK as more of a reaction to concentrated power rather than a racist backlash movement. Moreover, I found that the stronger portion of the book was the first half, right up until about the 1960s. After that, it felt decidedly rushed and surface-level at times, especially in covering Reaganomics.

Overall, I think Horowitz provides a telling of American history that's too often absent from textbooks and the like. I don't always agree on his characterization of movements (didn't deal with the 1920s KKK well imo), but he ably develops his arguments for the most part. A creative approach, and one worth reading, especially if you, like me, have been into populist authors like Wilson Carey McWilliams and Christopher Lasch lately.

[Hubert · Rating 5 out of 5]

Closely researched exegesis on a variety of insurgent movements in America beginning in the late 1890s until the present day (as of publication date). Horowitz goes through much detail in explaining how the debates over currency, agricultural power, and corporatism have been kept fresh and renewed up until the current day. Advocating for a worldview that surpasses "Beyond Left and Right," Horowitz reminds us that individuals and small groups fight established and elite ideologies to pursue their own interests, couched in ideals of localized, democratic virtue; however, at times those individuals employ scaremongering tactics (e.g. McCarthy as his purge of suspected Communists) to root out perceived threats to their sense of tradition, community, and identity.

The early chapters are stronger than the post-1950s material, especially the role of Progressive party candidate Robert La Follette, supported by Union leaders, farmer leaders, and the Socialist party.