Scan barcode
A review by veronian
Nixon Agonistes: The Crisis of the Self-Made Man by Garry Wills
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.