I probably should avoid mentioning books like this, but here is "Judge" Napolitano weighing in on Roosevelt and Wilson, who he dismissively refers to as Theodore and Woodrow in his new book on how they "destroyed" constitutional freedom. What on earth he means by this is anyone's guess, but it is all part and parcel of the ongoing conservative assault on what it regards as America's liberal past, published in large part by Thomas Nelson. The same guys who brought us David Barton's Jefferson's Lies.
Judging by the "reviews" it is the progressive streak in Roosevelt and Wilson that Napolitano takes exception to, ushering in a new era of regulation he says was previously unseen in "Federalist" America. I don't imagine he digs too deep into the past, preferring to take the legislation that was passed during this time at face value. If he did, he might have noted that Federalism died in 1800 with the election of Jefferson, and that Roosevelt modeled himself on Lincoln. One could consider Roosevelt a reluctant progressive at best, as the new labor and anti-trust laws were not the srongest, as was the new tax code passed under Wilson, so it was hardly a big pinch on big business. However, this new legislation did establish a precedent for stronger laws during FDR's administration, which conservatives like Napolitano so much abhor.
I suppose TR is an easy target for conservatives, since they pretty much disowned him from the start, which is why he created the Bull Moose Party. Roosevelt became much more of a reactionary after he stepped down from the White House than he was while in the WH. I don't imagine Napolitano is interested in how popular "Theodore" was at the time, and that he probably could have run for a third term and won, but TR deferred to his VP Taft, which he came to regret. Roosevelt didn't think too favorably of Wilson either. In many ways Wilson was an opportunist moreso than the radical visionary Napolitano presents him as.
You can hear these views spewed on Freedom Watch, his syndicated show with Faux News, where the former judge makes his home. But, having his own show doesn't seem to be enough for Napolitano, who has quite a number of books to his credit.
I've got to hand it to you, you have the patience of Job when it comes to this stuff. I couldn't do it on valium.
ReplyDeleteI don't know why it fascinates me so much. I suppose it is because it worries me that we have a whole knew wave of "redemption" taking place with conservatives treating the New Deal and Civil Rights eras like Reconstruction, going out of their way to dismiss it. I would like to think the tide has finally turned in this last election, and we will see less of this historical revisionism, but probably not. What amazes me is who these guys take to be their heroes, Harding and Coolidge, and castigate persons like Roosevelt and Wilson.
ReplyDeletePerhaps our most recent election results show that neocon historical revisionism, much like the Faux News echo chamber, is not a winning strategy. Whether these folks want to believe that is another question. As Hillary Clinton noted recently, these folks simply don't live in an evidence-based world. It is ironic almost beyond comprehension that conservatives have become our leading relativists.
DeleteI see there are 22 pages of notes for a 251 page text.I would love to see what the notes are in relation to sources.Some of the pro reviews I read don't even cite source and a few of the negative ones are attacked as the usual right wing nonsense.
ReplyDeleteI see there are 22 pages of notes for a 251 page text.I would love to see what the notes are in relation to sources.Some of the pro reviews I read don't even cite source and a few of the negative ones are attacked as the usual right wing nonsense.
ReplyDeleteWhen both sides view the other as "idiots,"
ReplyDeletehttp://www.amazon.com/The-Idiot-Vote-Constituency-ebook/dp/B0096VTL6I
It is pretty hard to reach a common ground. I really don't understand why the right wing has purposefully backed itself into a corner like this, when the rank-and-file Democrat today is rather conservative in nature, especially when you compare him to the Democrat of the 1960s. But, this is where we are at, and it doesn't seem the 2012 election significantly altered the Republican view of America.
I made the mistake of reading the first couple of pages. Mr. Stein is not ready for prime time.
DeleteDefinitely not, but i just linked to illustrate the point that each side sees the other as idiots, despite how idiotic their ramblings, making it extremely hard to break this impasse in politics.
ReplyDeleteTime out for a brief meander, if you please ...
ReplyDeleteI just read two old brief American classics:
Hemingway's "The Sun Also Rises"
and
Steinbeck's "Of Mice & Men"
As always, I enjoy books that are brief and to the point. Both remain very striking despite all the decades that have passed since they were first published.
Recently, I took an interest in the writings of Frank Yerby who is said to be one of the greatest literary scholars in USA history. I ordered two of his books and hope to get them when the district bookmobile makes its way to our building tomorrow. The books are:
An odor of sanctity : a novel of medieval Moorish Spain [1965]
and
The Saracen blade [1952]
Both are rather large books and I hope they make for quick reading. The writer wrote numerous Hollywood scripts but moved to Spain due to self imposed exile. He claimed to have faced undue discrimination in the USA but lived in a country ruled by fascist Franco! I hope to read more bio data about him after completing these books.
I read The Sun Also Rises eons ago and remember enjoying it. Not so long ago I read Death in the Afternoon after returning from a trip to Spain. A lot of interesting insights into bullfighting but not much else.
ReplyDelete