Scan barcode
A review by socraticgadfly
Myth America: Historians Take On the Biggest Legends and Lies About Our Past by Julian E. Zelizer, Kevin M. Kruse
medium-paced
2.5
Following Kevin Kruse on Twitter, I thought this book would interesting when I first heard about it.
Then I saw <a href="https://slate.com/culture/2023/01/myth-america-kevin-kruse-julian-zelizer-review.html">this review</a> on Slate, and realized, "no it ain't." If Charlie Sykes is blurbing it positively on the back of the dust cover? Well, then, per that review, the obvious target is modern — presumably neoliberal — Dems plus never-Trumper Republicans.
Going beyond that? If you were expecting a, say, <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/8458.James_W_Loewen">James W. Loewen</a>, this ain't even close. It might get 2.5 stars on StoryGraph, but I can't give it 3 here.
Howlers include one from Joshua Zeitz, in his chapter on "The Great Society." He notes that, in her campaign memoir, Hillary Clinton says she came very close to proposing a basic income. Sure she did, but Zeitz appears to take this claim at face value.
Some chapters are good, like the one on "good protests" and the one on "police violence." Others are ... OK. Akil Reed Amar's chapter is good for noting "democracy" and "republic" were used interchangably back in the day. He doth protest too much about Madison not being "The Father of the Constitution." As I've understood it, Madison got that moniker from the Bill of Rights about as much as Philadelphia 1787. Besides, liberal originalism is warmed-over shite. Immerwahr's chapter on American imperialism is of course good, but — most of the Kruse target audience, both neoliberal Dems and never-Trumper Republicans — likely either rejects the idea, or says that an "American exceptionalism" empire is different. Speaking of?
Bell's chapter on the history of American exceptionalism? I didn't realize the idea originally came from Stalin, and has transmuted. That said, the idea that Trump rejects American exceptionalism? He may reject the phraseology, but the idea? No, he's totally behind it.
Sarah Churchwell's America First chapter gets Henry Cabot Lodge wrong and thus itself perpetuates a myth. He was OK with the League of Nations as long as the Versailles Treaty included the well-known "Lodge reservations" — which Wilson refused to accept. He was NOT William Randolph Hearst on this. She also seems to state that Pat Buchanan created the Reform Party. He hijacked it, of course, but didn't create it.
Per the Salon link? Yes, Slickster Bill Clinton arguably DID do more to peddle neoliberalism in America than did Milton Friedman. Oreskes and Conway miss this, peddling deregulation and similar issues as Republican-only.
Michael Kazin on socialism? Yeah, wrong. Plenty of Democrats hate socialism — half of House Democrats voted to condemn it (and yes, socialism, not "just" communism) just a month ago.
Summary? If your voting history is Bernie Sanders or leftward, you can take a pass on this book and not miss a lot.
Then I saw <a href="https://slate.com/culture/2023/01/myth-america-kevin-kruse-julian-zelizer-review.html">this review</a> on Slate, and realized, "no it ain't." If Charlie Sykes is blurbing it positively on the back of the dust cover? Well, then, per that review, the obvious target is modern — presumably neoliberal — Dems plus never-Trumper Republicans.
Going beyond that? If you were expecting a, say, <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/8458.James_W_Loewen">James W. Loewen</a>, this ain't even close. It might get 2.5 stars on StoryGraph, but I can't give it 3 here.
Howlers include one from Joshua Zeitz, in his chapter on "The Great Society." He notes that, in her campaign memoir, Hillary Clinton says she came very close to proposing a basic income. Sure she did, but Zeitz appears to take this claim at face value.
Some chapters are good, like the one on "good protests" and the one on "police violence." Others are ... OK. Akil Reed Amar's chapter is good for noting "democracy" and "republic" were used interchangably back in the day. He doth protest too much about Madison not being "The Father of the Constitution." As I've understood it, Madison got that moniker from the Bill of Rights about as much as Philadelphia 1787. Besides, liberal originalism is warmed-over shite. Immerwahr's chapter on American imperialism is of course good, but — most of the Kruse target audience, both neoliberal Dems and never-Trumper Republicans — likely either rejects the idea, or says that an "American exceptionalism" empire is different. Speaking of?
Bell's chapter on the history of American exceptionalism? I didn't realize the idea originally came from Stalin, and has transmuted. That said, the idea that Trump rejects American exceptionalism? He may reject the phraseology, but the idea? No, he's totally behind it.
Sarah Churchwell's America First chapter gets Henry Cabot Lodge wrong and thus itself perpetuates a myth. He was OK with the League of Nations as long as the Versailles Treaty included the well-known "Lodge reservations" — which Wilson refused to accept. He was NOT William Randolph Hearst on this. She also seems to state that Pat Buchanan created the Reform Party. He hijacked it, of course, but didn't create it.
Per the Salon link? Yes, Slickster Bill Clinton arguably DID do more to peddle neoliberalism in America than did Milton Friedman. Oreskes and Conway miss this, peddling deregulation and similar issues as Republican-only.
Michael Kazin on socialism? Yeah, wrong. Plenty of Democrats hate socialism — half of House Democrats voted to condemn it (and yes, socialism, not "just" communism) just a month ago.
Summary? If your voting history is Bernie Sanders or leftward, you can take a pass on this book and not miss a lot.