Scan barcode
senpai_eeyore's review
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
5.0
One of the best books I have ever read on American Politics. Never have I read something that so perfectly encapsulates the American hypocrisy more in words written so well.
jabarkas's review against another edition
5.0
This was the most stunningly intelligent books I have ever read. Over forty years old at this point, I found it as salient today as the day it was written, and devastatingly incisive. The terrifying question that this begs is: how have we changed so little in the last half a century?
The first 3/5 of the book consists of a series of anecdotes which roughly Sketch our the 1968 Republican primary, as well as its background, and the surrounding environment at the time. He uses this setup to begin to infect the readers mind with a series of questions about the surreal implausibility of the situation. Then in the last 2/5, he goes in for the kill fundamentally shattering the philosophical scaffolding that has been (barely) propping up classical liberalism since the great depression (for the uninitiated, liberalism and Liberalism have only slightly more in common than catholic and Catholic.) Though I will not, with my halting words, do his arguments the disservice of a summary, I will say that an education on this book and its contents should be required for anyone participating in American democracy.
The first 3/5 of the book consists of a series of anecdotes which roughly Sketch our the 1968 Republican primary, as well as its background, and the surrounding environment at the time. He uses this setup to begin to infect the readers mind with a series of questions about the surreal implausibility of the situation. Then in the last 2/5, he goes in for the kill fundamentally shattering the philosophical scaffolding that has been (barely) propping up classical liberalism since the great depression (for the uninitiated, liberalism and Liberalism have only slightly more in common than catholic and Catholic.) Though I will not, with my halting words, do his arguments the disservice of a summary, I will say that an education on this book and its contents should be required for anyone participating in American democracy.
neiljung78's review against another edition
4.0
Well written, some resonant observations and startling insights but I’m not sure about the more abstract parts of the critique and conclusion.
tsharris's review against another edition
4.0
Not sure how well this book has aged - some sections don't feel especially relevant today - but Wills's book is an exceptional portrait not of Nixon so much as of the America that elected Nixon in 1968. Wills portrays Nixon as an avatar of the old authorities and shibboleths of American life that would be overturned by the convulsions of the late '60s/early '70s.
milo10000's review against another edition
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
4.0
Wills takes the broad view of Nixon in this book, tracing his personal and political influences from his childhood to his post-Vice Presidency in the 60s, campaigning for governor of California. He also takes the broad view on liberalism, making his point that Nixon is a liberal through sections examining the many markets classical liberalism forces upon us and Nixon's navigation and faith in them.
I found this book informative and well-written (the prose is surprisingly good for such a long non-fiction book) but it's still dry at times.
I found this book informative and well-written (the prose is surprisingly good for such a long non-fiction book) but it's still dry at times.
veronian's review against another edition
2.0
This was a real doorstopper and a dead weight on my Currently Reading shelf throughout 2018. At last, I have finished Nixon Agonistes, the famous Nixon book (written in 1970, pre-Watergate) proposing that Nixon was actually a liberal.
What I expected:
*A biography of Nixon, the "self-made man" described in the book title.
*Some diving into Nixon's policies, way of thinking, etc.
*Coverage of Nixon as Eisenhower's VP, his loss to Kennedy in 1960, boucing back to win the 1968 presidential election, whatever.
What I got:
*Some truly great chapters about Nixon as a man with a lifelong chip on his shoulder, a constant drive to prove himself, and an overpreparer on every level to build his public facade.
*Pretty good essays about Spiro T. Agnew, Wallace, George Romney, Moynihan, Nelson Rockefeller, and some other major characters of this time period that do not support his overall thesis (Nixon was actually a liberal?) and maybe did not belong here, but Garry Wills is all about the kitchen sink approach.
And also.....
*On the ground descriptions of public sentiment, rallies, protests, etc, and the people involved that go on forever without really providing a sense of what it was like to live through this, and without ever providing much beyond some sketches and caricature (despite GOING ON FOREVER).
*Tedious discussion about the philosophy of war (Wilsonian vs.... Rooseveltian?)
*Tedious discussion about the philosophy of liberalism, what is a liberal, what does it mean to be liberal, WHAT IS LIBERAL?
*Less tedious digression about the meaning of elections, the purpose of elections, the meaning of democracy, the role of elections in expressing public will (or not).
*Even more tedious digression into the role of liberalism in philosophy of war and liberalism in philosophy of elections.
*A lot of generalizing about national vs local political parties and the role of minorities that was dated, but also too general to be helpful in understanding the time period.
*Actually, a metric ton of generalizing about lots of topics in a way that is simultaneously too broad to be helpful and too specific to not be dated.
Overall: A long disorganized ramble about a LOT of topics but with some gems. The latter half seemed to contain the bulk of the philosophizing and was almost unbearable. Probably a better read for more academically/philosophically minded people who like to ask questions like "what is the purpose of war" and have debates about the purpose of democracy.
What I expected:
*A biography of Nixon, the "self-made man" described in the book title.
*Some diving into Nixon's policies, way of thinking, etc.
*Coverage of Nixon as Eisenhower's VP, his loss to Kennedy in 1960, boucing back to win the 1968 presidential election, whatever.
What I got:
*Some truly great chapters about Nixon as a man with a lifelong chip on his shoulder, a constant drive to prove himself, and an overpreparer on every level to build his public facade.
*Pretty good essays about Spiro T. Agnew, Wallace, George Romney, Moynihan, Nelson Rockefeller, and some other major characters of this time period that do not support his overall thesis (Nixon was actually a liberal?) and maybe did not belong here, but Garry Wills is all about the kitchen sink approach.
And also.....
*On the ground descriptions of public sentiment, rallies, protests, etc, and the people involved that go on forever without really providing a sense of what it was like to live through this, and without ever providing much beyond some sketches and caricature (despite GOING ON FOREVER).
*Tedious discussion about the philosophy of war (Wilsonian vs.... Rooseveltian?)
*Tedious discussion about the philosophy of liberalism, what is a liberal, what does it mean to be liberal, WHAT IS LIBERAL?
*Less tedious digression about the meaning of elections, the purpose of elections, the meaning of democracy, the role of elections in expressing public will (or not).
*Even more tedious digression into the role of liberalism in philosophy of war and liberalism in philosophy of elections.
*A lot of generalizing about national vs local political parties and the role of minorities that was dated, but also too general to be helpful in understanding the time period.
*Actually, a metric ton of generalizing about lots of topics in a way that is simultaneously too broad to be helpful and too specific to not be dated.
Overall: A long disorganized ramble about a LOT of topics but with some gems. The latter half seemed to contain the bulk of the philosophizing and was almost unbearable. Probably a better read for more academically/philosophically minded people who like to ask questions like "what is the purpose of war" and have debates about the purpose of democracy.
More...