Reviews for Americanism and Americanization: A Critical History of Domestic and Global Influence

The average rating for Americanism and Americanization: A Critical History of Domestic and Global Influence based on 2 reviews is 3 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2009-11-11 00:00:00 Todd Selander I read Charlie Savage's Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency some years ago, which referred to this, and thought I should read it. This book is not necessary for the other one, though it has its own points and its own weaknesses. Maybe weakness is the wrong word. The first chapters are about legal history and constitutional law, and this is true with other authors too, but reading that is a long and difficult slog. i can't say that it is boring, because interesting information comes out, but it comes out between bits of forcing yourself to stay awake. That's just how it goes, at least for me, but there is definite value in seeing how precedents have been established, especially when they are being overturned. Still, the part about Nixon himself and his attempts to consolidate presidential power were the most vivid parts of the book, and also fairly short. There is a lot of buildup, a fascinating segment, and then some long speculation about potential future solutions. Takeover is a better book, and more on point, because of its tight focus on the presidency of George W. Bush. Interestingly, there are clearer correlations between Trump and Nixon than Bush and Nixon, though that information would not have been available to either Savage or Schlesinger. Part of that is in leaving various positions empty and a greater reliance on aides, though Nixon didn't pull from family as much. It was interesting seeing things that were terrible about Nixon before Watergate. I had not known about him impounding federal funds to prevent integration, or fighting fair housing and pushing out George Romney over it. I had recently learned more about his role in Vietnam anyway, but this did treat the bombing of Cambodia a little as well. That was actually one thing that weakened the book, in that all of the previous demonstrations of how presidential power was used or not used is supposed to help give Nixon's behavior context, and he was so far out of precedent and propriety, and it seems to be more a matter of personality than anything else. It was valuable and interesting to see things that responsible presidents did to stay informed and make good choices, and maybe even make poor choices but with some attempts at doing right, but it does not relate to Nixon. The other sad thing is that this presidential historian had previously noticed a 50-year cycle of presidential corruption - that perhaps the recoil from one scandal helps everyone avoid carefully avoid scandal for that long - so concluded that Americans should brace themselves for 2023. If only. I just want to share one line that I am sure is unfair, but it did wake me up: "Quite the contrary, valued obstinate and opinionated men (who else could have put up for a dozen years with Harold Ickes?) and made debate a fundamental method of government." Feels longer than it is.

Review # 2 was written on 2012-03-13 00:00:00 Brice Butgereit I saw this book in a library book sale and thought, as it was written in 1973 and focuses on the Nixon administration, would make a very interesting parallel to what is currently going on in government. I bought it (for a dime!) and was not disappointed. The book traces presidential power from the nation's founding up to Nixon, and focuses primarily on war powers, foreign policy and treaties, emergency powers, and secrecy (i.e. executive privilege). It is incredibly well researched and documented, and as such there are some choice quotes in here. Some of my many, many notes follow: Chief Justice John Marshall: No exception to compulsory process of the court…President "may be impeached and may be removed from office." The POTUS "may be subpoenaed, and examined as a witness, and required to produce any paper in his possession…" (Page 31) Founding Fathers: "A decent respect to the opinion of mankind " impelled them to write the Declaration of Independence. Federalist papers: "sensibility to the opinion of the world" was an indispensable characteristic of sound government. 63rd Federalist: (paraphrased) We should consider opinions and reactions of other nations when making policy for two reasons: 1) Other nations should feel our policy is wise and honorable. 2) When we are divided in our thinking or whipped up into a passionate frenzy, the opinion of the impartial world might be a good guide. "What has not America lost by her want of character with foreign nations; and how many errors and follies would she not have avoided, if the justice and propriety of her measures, had, in every instance, been previously tried by the light in which they would probably appear to the unbiased part of mankind?" (Page 34) Push toward neutrality grew in 30s. Popular referendum of World War "except in cases of actual or threatened attack" or "actual invasion." In a 1937 gallup poll 3/4 of nation in favor of Peace Amendment: Except in event of invasion, "the authority of Congress to declare war shall not become effective until confirmed by a majority of all votes cast in a Nation-wide referendum." Congressman Louis Ludlum: "To declare war is the highest act of sovereignty...and should not be delegated to any man or body of men." (Page 98) Resolution from 1951 saying that no additional forces could be sent [to Korea] without prior auth of Cong in each instance, also specifies funds cannot be used to send additional troops. Truman said he didn't need Cong auth. Great debate info here. Resolution watered down a bit authorized four more divisions but no more, passed narrowly in the Senate. Senator Nixon voted against inherent presidential authority and for the principal of Congressional control of troop deployment (pp. 136-140) Jefferson: "The freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotic governments." (Article XIV of the Virginia Declaration of Rights) (p 228) Watergate discussion…"Locke condemned the executive who in normal times 'set up his own arbitrary will as the law of society' or who employed "the force, treasure, and offices' of society to gain his purposes through interference in the political process..." (page 269) Woodrow Wilson "No peculiar dignity or sanctity attaches amongst us to any officer of government. The theory of our law is that an officer is an officer only so long as he acts within his powers; that when he transcends his authority he ceases to be an officer and is only a private individual, subject to be sued and punished for his offense." (page 273) "As problems unforseen in 1787 had emerged, judicial interpretation had unfolded new possibilities in the Constitution, which was after all, as Holmes said, a document to be read 'in the light of our whole experience and not merely in that of what was said a hundred years ago'" (page 285) Hamilton in 26th Federalist: limitations on army appropriations "obliged" congress "once at least every two years, to deliberate upon the propriety of keeping a military force on foot, to come to a new resolution on the point, and to declare their sense on the matter, by a formal vote in the face of their constituents." (page 309) Author: "though who could tell what might result from building up an American base in the Persian Gulf?" (page 314) "The whole concept of a return to secrecy in peacetime demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of the role of a free press...The plea for security could well become a cloak for errors, misjudgements and other failings of government." Quote by Richard Nixon 1961 (Page 343) "The tyranny of the legislature is really the danger most to be feared, and will continue to be so for many years to come. The tyranny of the executive power will come in its turn, but at a more distant period." Jefferson to Madison six weeks before Washington's first inaugural. (page 377) Americans have tacitly assumed that through the winnowing process of elections no one will be elected who will reject "the written restraintsof the Constitution and the unwritten restraints of the republican ethos." Bryce, 1921: "Not many Presidents have been brilliant, some have not risen to the full moral height of the position. But none has been base or unfaithful to his trust, none has tarnished the honor of the nation." [Ironically, this was just before Harding's election!] (Page 378) George Mason at the Consitutional Convention: "No point is of more importance than the right of impeachment should be continued. Shall any man be above justice? Above all shall that man be above it, who [as President] can commit the most extensive injustice?" (page 414) And finally: Author: "We have noted that corruption appears to visit the White House in fifty-year cycles. This suggests that exposure and retribution inoculate the Presidency against its latent criminal impulses for about half a century. Around the year 2023 the American people would be well-advised to go on the alert and start nailing down everything in sight." (page 418) I guess he was off by a few years...