Spectre of Democracy: The Rise of Modern Democracy As Seen by Its Opponents Book

It's just barely adequate in size and scope for the enormous and complex topic it sets out to address. The author seems to have only a few overriding concerns in the writing of such a work (maybe he broadens his sphere in his other projects?) He is mainly concerned with white culture vs black culture. Is that the only way to approach American history?

Example: to treat both the history of American magazine publishing and the history of American feminism (and doing justice to neither subject matter) the author devotes a chapter to the career of Fanny Fern, who first revolutionized women's advice columns found in periodicals. Yawn.

There is a good chapter on the Astor Place Riots --but nothing you can't get from the internet. Similarly, the chapter on Billie Holliday. Equally so, the chapters on Charlie Chaplin and Coney Island.

Is all this material not covered better and deeper in other textbooks? Why waste a whole chapter on Archie Bunker, the Jeffersons, and Carl Reiner? Does that really (pun alert) 'give us a good picture' of the television age?

Barely redeeming all this is a chapter devoted to the great Bert Williams of the old vaudeville circuit. Thank goodness for small favors!

This is a decent--if bland-- 'overview' type of textbook helpful in skimming general material such as timelines, births/deaths, general influences of what-on-which. Not good for fine detail and no really bold assertions.