The Age of Reagan: A History, 1974-2008 Book

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).