Book Description
In American Foundations, Mark Dowie argues that organized philanthropy is on the verge of an evolutionary shift that will transform America's nearly 50,000 foundations from covert arbiters of knowledge and culture to overt mediators of public policy and aggressive creators of new orthodoxy. He questions the wisdom of placing so much power at the disposal of nondemocratic institutions.
As American wealth expands, old foundations such as Ford, Carnegie, Rockefeller, Pew, and MacArthur have grown exponentially, while newer trusts such as Mott, Johnson, Packard, Kellogg, Hughes, Annenberg, Hewlett, Duke, and Gates have surpassed them. Foundation assets now total close to $400 billion. Though this is a tiny sum compared to corporate and government treasuries, and foundation grants still total less than 10 percent of contributions made by individuals, foundations have power and influence far beyond their wealth. Their influence derives from the conditional nature of their grant making, their power from its leverage.
Unlike previous historians of philanthropy who have focused primarily on the grant maker, Dowie examines foundations from the public's perspective. He focuses on eight key areas in which foundations operate: education, science, health, environment, food, energy, art, and human services. He also looks at their imagination, or lack thereof, and at the strained relationship between American foundations and American democracy.
Dowie believes that foundations deserve to exist and that they can assume an increasingly vital role in American society, but only if they transform themselves from private to essentially public institutions. The reforms he proposes to make foundations more responsive to pressing social problems and more accountable to the public will almost certainly start an important national debate.
Customer Reviews:
Strong on the politics of philanthropy, weak on economics..........2003-12-31
This was an excellent book on how foundations spend their money. But as the author points out, they distribute only about 5% of their assets per year. As a reader, I wanted a more searching analysis on many interesting economic issues raised by the other 95% of foundations' money.
There is little on the tax aspects of foundations. Namely, I would be interested in reading about the policy consequences of allowing large pools of capital to aggregate in perpetuity. Readers need some statistics on the cost of this tax exemption to government revenue and, by inference, to taxpayers-at-large. The author could have collated the data from public records filed with the IRS. IRS mandates that foundations file financial disclosure forms each year (unfortunately, many fail to comply).
There are only a few pages in an appendix on foundations' impact on capital markets. Where and how they invest their endowments? Do their trustees sit on corporate boards and, if so, how does the presence of these trustees affect corporate decision-making? Are the assets held offshore? What institutions invest the assets on behalf of the trustees of the foundations? How well do the trustees perform? The answers are of considerable importance as some of the larger endowments rival in size mutual funds and pension funds.
There is little on the legal framework within which foundations are created and operate. This is a key failing. If the author were familiar with the Statute of Elizabeth, adopted by virtually every common law jurisdiction, he would understand why foundations do not contribute to political activists. Political activities - defined by the Internal Revenue Code as the funding of electoral campaigns of individuals or parties and as exercising direct influence on the legislative process - would cost foundations their charitable status. They would be subject to taxation, which would rapidly erode their capital and force them to divert resources toward fundraising. The author repeatedly criticizes the restraint of the trustees. Much of this restraint is the product of fiduciary obligations imposed upon the trustees by law.
I would like to know more about the background of trustees. Where are these people from? where are they educated/trained? What about their attitudes to American society? Why did they join a foundation as opposed to government or the private sector?
One last complaint: the book focuses primarily on a handful of older, well-known foundations (Rockefeller, Carnegie, etc.) at expense of the tens of thousands of small family foundations.
Foundations in Cross Examination.......2001-12-20
(Foundations&Phil\Dowie-amazon Book Review) Dec. 19, 2001
There are over 50,000 foundations in the U.S. today. With $448 billion in assets (1999), foundations are an unbelievably huge philanthropic industry compared to almost 40 years ago, when the federal government launched its War on Poverty. Foundations' assets then were well under $30 billion.
Mark Dowie, author of American Foundations: An Investigative History (MIT Press, 2001), does not blanche in analyzing this industry, despite its diversity and differences in grant making and style of operating. Dowie sets an ambitious agenda. He reviews foundation funding of education, science, health, environment, food, energy, art, civil society, democracy and imagination! He is an accomplished writer with16 journalist awards and five books to his credit.
Perhaps consumer activist and Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader suggests best why this book should be read by those involved with the foundation world either as a staff member, trustee, grantseeker or academician. Dowie, says Nader, "is a scholar and a muckraker," who analyzes "foundations' past achievements and failures and then critically [takes] the institutions to task for directing their grants so often away from ?root causes.' Dowie shakes up the complacency, myopia, and insulation of [the] giant foundations by naming names and places."
Dowie clearly raises the most important questions about foundations' performance, and offers thoughtful, usually balanced answers that certainly pull no punches. As the longtime director of a national watchdog nonprofit organization charged with monitoring and redirecting foundations' grantmaking toward the disadvantaged and disenfranchised in the USA, I believe this study is both highly readable and extremely informative.
Education receives the largest share of foundation grants. Dowie observes that "Foundation trustees...seem to favor the spawning of an elite intellectual force over the principle of equal educational opportunity...The great preponderance of educational grants...have found their way to institutions of higher education where scientists and other experts are educated." Recently, however, more foundation money has been poured into reform of primary and secondary education, especially inner city schools. This money was stimulated by Walter Annenberg's $500 million challenge grant in 1993. Dowie applauds this trend. Nevertheless, he raises the question: Can such money ever change the entrenched public education monopoly to enable it to do significantly better educating poor and poorly prepared students? Maybe the foundations should "also be funding community organizations that demand more of public schools..."
"American foundations' second largest area of grantmaking is health." Dowie concludes that "foundations' enthusiasm for high-tech diagnostic systems, pharmacology, and the disease model of medicine has not only inhibited the development of preventative and holistic approaches but has also retarded public health and fostered the evolution of an essentially unjust health care system...Until quite recently the public health effects of environmental pollution have been virtually ignored by the large foundations."
More generally, beyond specific subject areas, Dowie identifies proactive philanthropy for criticism: "...when proactive philanthropy is pursued without the participation of the people most affected by it" serious problems result.
The 50-year Green Revolution is often touted as one of the foundation world's greatest achievements. Dowie acknowledges its success in significantly raising food production per acre in the developing world. But he goes on to challenge its social, economic and environmental consequences for the peasant-farmers and the urban poor. Unfettered scientific experimentalism in increasing crop yields, supported by the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations, with little heed to culture, economics and sustainability, meant the rich got richer and the poor poorer, with 800 million people still hungry in the world.
The Energy Foundation was created in 1991 by the Pew Charitable Trusts, MacArthur and the Rockefeller Foundations "to assist the nation's transition to a sustainable energy future by promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy." This was a major proactive foundation initiative to do what the environmental movement was not perceived to be doing. Dowie records the positive accomplishments of the Energy Foundation, but worries that "concentrating so much leverage in one funding body could create serious power problems, as well as an orthodoxy, that, if misguided, would be difficult to challenge." And, in the end, he identifies how the Energy Foundation gave its largest grants to environmental legal organizations which were "agents of capitulation...deferring to free market arguments," while "throwing mere crumbs to energy visionaries, renewable activists, and consumer advocates."
Dowie's investigation into American foundations is not all negative. The author identifies several individual philanthropists as possible harbingers of "a new and imaginative era of philanthropy." In fact, the author seems mesmerized by the big money and big ideas of these individuals.
He singles out Irene Diamond, Ted Turner, Walter Annenberg and George Soros as "venturesome" philanthropists -- because they "imagined, respectively, worlds without AIDS, without strife, without ignorance, and without tyrants, then made massive and immediate financial efforts to make those worlds real"
The author acknowledges that it is an uphill battle for these individuals to be creators of "a new and imaginative era of philanthropy." He observes, "If historical precedent were to hold, foundations would [take] courses [that] would be safe and uncontroversial."
On the war of political ideas and foundations, Dowie writes, "During the last twenty years of the twentieth century, it was conservatives who prevailed.., financed the Reagan revolution, and provisioned the Republican recapture of Congress. A dozen or so medium-sized, uncharacteristically patient foundations can take a good deal of credit for the rise and endurance of America's conservative revolution...More recently, following this bold twenty-five-year foray into public policy by right-wing foundations, the Left has stepped timidly into the fray with a few programs in economic and political justice. Will mainstream foundations, too, learn from the conservative foundations' triumph of leveraged influence? Or will they continue their minimal, unimaginative funding of safe and soft institutions proposing weak, incremental solutions to urgent and undeniable crises?"
"Brilliant and constructive as some of their work has been," writes Dowie, "much of it has also been fruitless, uninspired, and designed to do little more than perpetuate the economic and social systems that allow foundations to exist."
He explicitly faults foundations for not doing enough for social movements which they have aided: "With the single exception of civil rights, foundation interests in America's signature social movements ? for women's rights, peace, environment, environmental justice, students, gay liberation, and particularly labor ? [have] been parsimonious, hesitant, late, and at times counterproductive...In any case, all foundation support for social movements...remains small potatoes any way it's measured."
In summation, Dowie argues that "Those empowered to make grants should not assume that they have the wisdom to solve such serious problems simply because they control the money." As a student of philanthropy and seeker of foundation largesse for the past 30 years, I can only say, "Amen!"
Foundations in Cross Examination.......2001-12-20
There are over 50,000 foundations in the U.S. today. With $448 billion in assets (1999), foundations are an unbelievably huge philanthropic industry compared to almost 40 years ago, when the federal government launched its War on Poverty. Foundations' assets then were well under $30 billion.
Mark Dowie, author of American Foundations: An Investigative History (MIT Press, 2001), does not blanche in analyzing this industry, despite its diversity and differences in grant making and style of operating. Dowie sets an ambitious agenda. He reviews foundation funding of education, science, health, environment, food, energy, art, civil society, democracy and imagination! He is an accomplished writer with16 journalist awards and five books to his credit.
Perhaps consumer activist and Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader suggests best why this book should be read by those involved with the foundation world either as a staff member, trustee, grantseeker or academician. Dowie, says Nader, "is a scholar and a muckraker," who analyzes "foundations' past achievements and failures and then critically [takes] the institutions to task for directing their grants so often away from ?root causes.' Dowie shakes up the complacency, myopia, and insulation of [the] giant foundations by naming names and places."
Dowie clearly raises the most important questions about foundations' performance, and offers thoughtful, usually balanced answers that certainly pull no punches. As the longtime director of a national watchdog nonprofit organization charged with monitoring and redirecting foundations' grantmaking toward the disadvantaged and disenfranchised in the USA, I believe this study is both highly readable and extremely informative.
Education receives the largest share of foundation grants. Dowie observes that "Foundation trustees...seem to favor the spawning of an elite intellectual force over the principle of equal educational opportunity...The great preponderance of educational grants...have found their way to institutions of higher education where scientists and other experts are educated." Recently, however, more foundation money has been poured into reform of primary and secondary education, especially inner city schools. This money was stimulated by Walter Annenberg's $500 million challenge grant in 1993. Dowie applauds this trend. Nevertheless, he raises the question: Can such money ever change the entrenched public education monopoly to enable it to do significantly better educating poor and poorly prepared students? Maybe the foundations should "also be funding community organizations that demand more of public schools..."
"American foundations' second largest area of grantmaking is health." Dowie concludes that "foundations' enthusiasm for high-tech diagnostic systems, pharmacology, and the disease model of medicine has not only inhibited the development of preventative and holistic approaches but has also retarded public health and fostered the evolution of an essentially unjust health care system...Until quite recently the public health effects of environmental pollution have been virtually ignored by the large foundations."
More generally, beyond specific subject areas, Dowie identifies proactive philanthropy for criticism: "...when proactive philanthropy is pursued without the participation of the people most affected by it" serious problems result.
The 50-year Green Revolution is often touted as one of the foundation world's greatest achievements. Dowie acknowledges its success in significantly raising food production per acre in the developing world. But he goes on to challenge its social, economic and environmental consequences for the peasant-farmers and the urban poor. Unfettered scientific experimentalism in increasing crop yields, supported by the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations, with little heed to culture, economics and sustainability, meant the rich got richer and the poor poorer, with 800 million people still hungry in the world.
The Energy Foundation was created in 1991 by the Pew Charitable Trusts, MacArthur and the Rockefeller Foundations "to assist the nation's transition to a sustainable energy future by promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy." This was a major proactive foundation initiative to do what the environmental movement was not perceived to be doing. Dowie records the positive accomplishments of the Energy Foundation, but worries that "concentrating so much leverage in one funding body could create serious power problems, as well as an orthodoxy, that, if misguided, would be difficult to challenge." And, in the end, he identifies how the Energy Foundation gave its largest grants to environmental legal organizations which were "agents of capitulation...deferring to free market arguments," while "throwing mere crumbs to energy visionaries, renewable activists, and consumer advocates."
Dowie's investigation into American foundations is not all negative. The author identifies several individual philanthropists as possible harbingers of "a new and imaginative era of philanthropy." In fact, the author seems mesmerized by the big money and big ideas of these individuals.
He singles out Irene Diamond, Ted Turner, Walter Annenberg and George Soros as "venturesome" philanthropists -- because they "imagined, respectively, worlds without AIDS, without strife, without ignorance, and without tyrants, then made massive and immediate financial efforts to make those worlds real"
The author acknowledges that it is an uphill battle for these individuals to be creators of "a new and imaginative era of philanthropy." He observes, "If historical precedent were to hold, foundations would [take] courses [that] would be safe and uncontroversial."
On the war of political ideas and foundations, Dowie writes, "During the last twenty years of the twentieth century, it was conservatives who prevailed.., financed the Reagan revolution, and provisioned the Republican recapture of Congress. A dozen or so medium-sized, uncharacteristically patient foundations can take a good deal of credit for the rise and endurance of America's conservative revolution...More recently, following this bold twenty-five-year foray into public policy by right-wing foundations, the Left has stepped timidly into the fray with a few programs in economic and political justice. Will mainstream foundations, too, learn from the conservative foundations' triumph of leveraged influence? Or will they continue their minimal, unimaginative funding of safe and soft institutions proposing weak, incremental solutions to urgent and undeniable crises?"
"Brilliant and constructive as some of their work has been," writes Dowie, "much of it has also been fruitless, uninspired, and designed to do little more than perpetuate the economic and social systems that allow foundations to exist."
He explicitly faults foundations for not doing enough for social movements which they have aided: "With the single exception of civil rights, foundation interests in America's signature social movements ? for women's rights, peace, environment, environmental justice, students, gay liberation, and particularly labor ? [have] been parsimonious, hesitant, late, and at times counterproductive...In any case, all foundation support for social movements...remains small potatoes any way it's measured."
In summation, Dowie argues that "Those empowered to make grants should not assume that they have the wisdom to solve such serious problems simply because they control the money." As a student of philanthropy and seeker of foundation largesse for the past 30 years, I can only say, "Amen!"
One of our best journalists does it again.......2001-06-29
You simply cannot understand the social and political order in the United States without reading this book. Dowie is at the top of his game here, and that says a lot since he is arguably America's best left-leaning investigative journalist. Some people slow down in their 60s, but Dowie is picking up his pace. He has the wisdom and perspective and gonads to speak it like it is, picking apart the influence of wealthy foundations in helping, and mostly hurting, the cause for social, political and economic democracy and environmental sustainability. Too bad he left out an analysis of foundations and their impact on the worsening state of US media, but maybe that's the next book. This is a great follow-up to Losing Ground, his brilliant critique of the failures of US environmentalism.
Book Description
Should the Supreme Court have the last word when it comes to interpreting the Constitution? The justices on the Supreme Court certainly seem to think so--and their critics say that this position threatens democracy. But Keith Whittington argues that the Court's justices have not simply seized power and circumvented politics. The justices have had power thrust upon them--by politicians, for the benefit of politicians. In this sweeping political history of judicial supremacy in America, Whittington shows that presidents and political leaders of all stripes have worked to put the Court on a pedestal and have encouraged its justices to accept the role of ultimate interpreters of the Constitution.
Whittington examines why presidents have often found judicial supremacy to be in their best interest, why they have rarely assumed responsibility for interpreting the Constitution, and why constitutional leadership has often been passed to the courts. The unprecedented assertiveness of the Rehnquist Court in striking down acts of Congress is only the most recent example of a development that began with the founding generation itself. Presidential bids for constitutional leadership have been rare, but reflect the temporary political advantage in doing so. Far more often, presidents have cooperated in increasing the Court's power and encouraging its activism. Challenging the conventional wisdom that judges have usurped democracy, Whittington shows that judicial supremacy is the product of democratic politics.
Book Description
Drawing on his diplomatic experience and expertise, George F. Kennan offers an informed, plain-spoken appraisal of United States foreign policy. His evaluations of diplomatic history and international relations cut to the heart of policy issues much debated today.
This expanded edition retains the lectures and essays first published in 1951 as American Diplomacy, 1900-1950 and adds two lectures delivered in 1984 as well as a new preface by the author. In these additional pieces, Kennan explains how some of his ideas have changed over the years. He confronts the events and topics that have come to occupy American opinion in the last thirty years, including the development and significance of the Cold War, the escalation of the nuclear arms race, and the American involvement in Vietnam.
"A book about foreign policy by a man who really knows something about foreign policy."—James Reston,New York Times Book Review
"These celebrated lectures, delivered at the University of Chicago in 1950, were for many years the most widely read account of American diplomacy in the first half of the twentieth century. . . . The second edition of the work contains two lectures from 1984 that reconsider the themes of American Diplomacy"—Foreign Affairs, Significant Books of the Last 75 Years.
Customer Reviews:
Still very relevant.......2007-05-17
I read this book as a text book for a class in American Foreign Policy that I took and I was surprized to find that it was still relevant to today's issues.
Kennan's premise that our foreign policy is based on idealism rather than realism is still true. Some of the past incidents he covers parallel some of the same attitudes we have today in expecting foreign nations to act like we do.
Our naive idea that Iraq could be turned into a western style democracy is addressed in the historical episodes described by Kennan. The use of the media in the Spanish American war parallels our present experience.
We seem to base our foreign policy on our perceptions of the world as we think it is rather than a realistic evaluation of what is really going on.
Eloquent but Slight.......2004-07-03
The lectures reprinted in this book were delivered in 1951 by George Kennan, the legendary American diplomat who authored the "containment" doctrine that guided U.S. relations with the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War. Each lecture analyzes a key episode or turning point in American foreign policy between 1898 and the onset of the Cold War.
The lectures stand up pretty well after half-a-century. Kennan's main point is that the American aversion to diplomatic realism leads to an infantalized domestic debate on foreign policy issues and limits our ability to pursue balance of power strategies. Kennan wrote eloquently and knew what he was talking about -- the ease with which the Bush Administration gulled the American public into supporting the invasion of Iraq is a timely reminder of the need for better public education on foreign policy.
Kennan had a distinguished career as an historian after he left the State Department. However, the reader looking for diplomatic history should know that these lectures are short quasi-philosophical ruminations on the goals and methods of foreign policy in a democracy. They are not detailed reconstructions of diplomatic episodes or negotiations.
A misleading title covers a gem.......2004-04-14
The original title of this book, American Diplomacy 1900-1950, is misleading. It implies that this is a study of American diplomacy between the two dates. Wrong. The book is split into two parts.
The first part is based on a series of lectures given by Kennan. Each talk looks at a specific event (Spanish American War, WWI or WWII) and draws a general lesson from that event that can be applied to other times and places.
For example, the lesson (well, one of them) Kennan draws from his lecture on the Spanish-American War and the US grab for empire is that the US often does not adequately consider the consequences of its actions. In particular, we do not consider what to do after the fighting stops. Hmm, does that sound familiar?
The second part is a reprint of two famous Kennan articles. The first is the Mr. X article laying out the theory of containment. The second speculates about the nature of a Russia that has gone through the changes hypothesized in the first piece.
These two pieces might seem dated, but there are some points that are still vary valid. For example, Kennan stress that US must be on the side of the angels. He thinks that the USSR's fall is inevitable. He wants the Russian people to think well of the US when that event happens. The first article (and the "long telegram" on which it was based) provides a great model for any analysis of an enemy state and the proper way to think about US policy
Canonical Foreign Policy.......2002-02-16
Mr. Kennan is a fine example of the best in American thought. Europeans who complain that U.S. policymakers are not thoughtful about the world would do well to read this book. Fantastic.
Very Interesting Perspectives.......2000-04-29
This book is a collection of speeches by George F. Kennan made during the Cold War. For those unfamiliar with the author, he is the author of the famous "X" article, The Sources of Soviet Conduct, which served as the intellectual foundation of the Containment Doctrine.
Although dated, especially since the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, this short book provides a useful look not only at the ideas of one of our most eminent Cold War thinkers, but also of the atmosphere and conditions of the period.
Book Description
African American history resounds with calls for black unity. From abolitionist times through the Black Power movement, it was widely seen as a means of securing a full share of America's promised freedom and equality. Yet today, many believe that black solidarity is unnecessary, irrational, rooted in the illusion of "racial" difference, at odds with the goal of integration, and incompatible with liberal ideals and American democracy. A response to such critics, We Who Are Dark provides the first extended philosophical defense of black political solidarity.
Tommie Shelby argues that we can reject a biological idea of race and agree with many criticisms of identity politics yet still view black political solidarity as a needed emancipatory tool. In developing his defense of black solidarity, he draws on the history of black political thought, focusing on the canonical figures of Martin R. Delany and W. E. B. Du Bois, and he urges us to rethink many traditional conceptions of what black unity should entail. In this way, he contributes significantly to the larger effort to re-envision black politics and to modernize the objectives and strategies of black freedom struggles for the post-civil rights era. His book articulates a new African American political philosophy--one that rests firmly on anti-essentialist foundations and, at the same time, urges a commitment to defeating racism, to eliminating racial inequality, and to improving the opportunities of those racialized as "black."
Book Description
This transcript of the video by the same title is designed as a tool to demonstrate that the current separation of church and state is something never intended by the Founding Fathers. It not only surveys the historical statements and records surrounding the original drafting of the First Amendment, but also shows what happened statistically when the 1962 Court rejected the Founders' intent. It further shows that the current Court is beginning to return to and uphold many values previously struck down. This transcript gives an overview of the Founders' own understanding of the First Amendment and will be helpful to anyone who desires to know the truth about their interpretations.
Customer Reviews:
Short, quick reference.......2007-03-18
This is a short, easy to read booklet on that shows that the current doctrine of "separation of church and state" was not the intent of the original Founders and authors of the Constitution. Might be a good booklet to spark the interest of some young person who is not interested in reading a lengthy book on the subject.
Great overview, right to the point.......2005-12-29
Purchased this transcript and it is a great overview of the true meaning of "separation of church and state". True meaning in the sense that it is not even written in the constitution! David Barton gives a quick overview of where this statement comes from. Because it's a transcript, its a quick read and great to pass along to those who you would like to enlighten on the subject.
Good but too short to justify cost.......2005-09-24
This booklet contains some good information, but there is too little useful data to justify the cost. Try David Barton's DVDs instead. They're chock full of information.
Book Description
With feedback from adopters, editor Laurence O'Toole retains important classic selections from earlier editions while freshening this volume with new selections that cover not only the impact of recent fiscal developments and international influences on U.S. intergovernmental relations, but also explore the key role of the Supreme Court in shaping the system's evolution in such areas as homeland security, interstate relations, and local finance. Judicious editing of essays and substantial part introductions make American Intergovernmental Relations an invaluable text and an engaging read.
Book Description
The first systematic examination of the federal civil service in nearly forty years, The Foundation of Merit analyzes the historical development of the civil service in the context of the political and democratic environment that is central to its effectiveness and legitimacy. Patricia Ingraham describes theincremental and disjointed growth of the federal civil service and explains how, and why, it came to be a system with control in the wrong places, with discretion in the wrong places, and why--in its current form--it has little hope of meeting the enormous challenges of the next century.
The book concludes with an examination of the need for reform, the challenges that have shaped that need, and the lessons from the past that should guide the reforms of the future.
Book Description
As politicians and judges argue over the original intent of our country's founding fathers, the American Founding itself continues to inspire a prodigious amount of research and commentary, reflecting a bewildering array of methods and interpretations. Alan Gibson now offers readers an insightful and convenient guide through this daunting and sprawling body of scholarship.
Comprehensive and judicious, Interpreting the Founding provides summaries and analyses of the leading interpretive frameworks that have guided the study of the Founding since the publication of Charles Beard's An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution in 1913. Gibson argues that scholarship on the Founding is no longer steered by a single dominant approach or even by a set of questions that control its direction. He also examines the challenges posed to Founding scholarship by this diversity and complexity and the possibilities opened by new avenues of inquiry that have recently emerged.
The book features extended discussions of pioneering works by leading scholars of the Founding-including Louis Hartz, Bernard Bailyn, Gordon Wood, and Garry Wills-that best exemplify different schools of interpretation. Gibson focuses on six approaches that have dominated the modern study of the Founding: Progressive, Lockean/liberal, Republican, Scottish Enlightenment, multicultural, and multiple traditions approaches. For each approach, he traces its fundamental assumptions, revealing deeper ideological and methodological differences between schools of thought that, on the surface, seem to differ only about the interpretation of historical facts.
While previous accounts have treated the study of the Founding as the sequential replacement of one paradigm by another, Gibson argues that all of these interpretations survive as alternative and still viable approaches. By examining the strengths and weaknesses of each approach and showing how each has simultaneously illuminated and masked core truths about the American Founding, he renders a balanced account of the current debate over the origins and foundations of the American republic and offers solid footing on the path to understanding the vast literature devoted to this important subject.
This book is part of the American Political Thought series.
Customer Reviews:
Magisterial metahistorical overview that provides an interpretive framework for an entire field of study.......2007-03-25
Alan Gibson's new book is incredibly useful for anyone who reads a lot about the founding of the American republic. What Gibson wants to do and succeeds in doing is to provide an overview of the different post-WWII schools of interpretation about the founding that is both nuanced and balance. It is by any standard a remarkable work of synthetic scholarship. It should be read by all majors in American history- not necessarily to agree with but as an exemplar of how to organize an overview of a field.
Gibson examines in 101 very tightly written pages (plus fourty pages of meaty footnotes) the "fundamental assumptions" and the "deeper ideological and methodological differences between schools...of interpretation that on the surface differ only about the interpretation of the facts" (p.xi). I have read deeply in this area continuously for the last fourteen or so years and I am in awe of Gibson's achievement.
Any story of the post WWII historigraphy about the founding has to really start with what that historigraphy is reacting against- the work of Charles Beard and the Progressive school. Gibson sees their work as based on two basic precepts: 1. the motives of the Founders cannot be ascertained by their writings and 2. that economic determinism was the key to understanding American history (p.7). Basing his empirical research on these precepts, Beard argued that the Constitution was an anti-democratic document that was motivated by the property interests of incipient capitalists. Beard supported his arguments with empirical research about the property holdings of those people who wrote and ratified the Constitution.
The post war period saw the reemergence of a consensus history that can be broadly categorized as liberal. Instead of emphasizing the class structure of the Founding period, this schools emphasizes "the continuity throughout American history of the middle-class structure of American society and the hegemony of liberal values such as the sanctity of property, economic individualism and democracy" (p.15). The methodology of this school of thought understands the motives of historical actors based on their own self-understanding. Gibson sees three major variants of the contemporary liberal school- 1. a triumverate of "Neo-Lockeans" (Joyce Appleby, Isaac Kramnick and John Patrick Diggins), 2. students of Leo Strauss (such as Paul Rahe) and 3. those who see liberalism as the core of a multi-tradition approach (p. 16). Gibson goes on to explore the work of each variant in a series of perfect short book reviews of the major works of these schools. Really many of us who review books on Amazon would do well to read Gibson's book as an object lesson in writing book reviews. His review of Rahe's Republics: Ancient and Modern on pp.18-21 almost makes me want to disown the one I wrote on Amazon.
Gibson next delineates the basic precepts of the republican synthesis. This group of scholars draws heavily on the work of Clifford Geertz and rely on a theory of ideology in their understanding of the founders. This theory allow them to mediate critically against both the idealist of the Liberal school and the Progressives. Ideologies are socially conditioned means of organizing the otherwise buzzing confusion of experience. They place a structure on our thought that is both confining and conditioning(p.23). Gibson nicely quotes Lance Banning on this: "...Sometimes this intellectual universe is so well structured and has so strong a hold that it can virtually determine not only the ways in which a society will express its hopes and discontents but also the central problems with which it will be concerned." (p. 23 of Gibson quoting Banning)
As such, ideologies make possible the self-understanding of historical actors. So what the writings of the Founders may reveal is not their musings on transhistorical truths or their rationalizations of their economic interests but the structure of the ideologies that were available to the actors. This school has focused on the civic humanist tradition as being the dominant language of discourse for the Founders. This chapter includes superb readings of Pocock, Wood, Banning and Bailyn all within 14 pages. Do you begin to see why I am so impressed?
Next, Gibson tackles a group of writers (Wills, Adair, McDonald, Yarbrough) who want to emphasize the influence of the Scottish Enlightenment (SE)on the Founding. Gibson notes that the SE provided the Founders with many of the preachers and educators who formed their thought. Madison, Monroe, Jefferson, Hamilton, Wilson, Rush all studied with Scots either here or in Scotland (p.38) The SE provided the founders with the idea of the 'invisible hand', the 'division of labor', the stadial theory of social and economic development along with moral-sense and common-sense philosophy.
Gibson goes on to examine those who try to combine some or all of the above schools in a multiple-traditions approach. Again, there are some here who do so with liberalism as the core approach to which the others are seen as supports. Gibson sees Michael Zuckert as the most sophisticated of these scholars. Gibson's review of the work of Rogers Smith and his book Civic Ideals was the part of this chapter that I found the most provocative. Smith is willing to posit that there are parts of our intellectual traditions that are inherently irrational and based on ascription. I have to wait until I read Smith's book for myself but I think his approach could be usefully applied to the states rights tradition of constitutional interpretation.
Finally, Gibson examines recent works of social history especially those that focus on feminist contributions to our understanding of the Founding, on the contribution of native americans and on how recent understanding of the issues surrounding slavery have transformed our understanding of the Founders. The last section is particularly strong.
In his final chapter, Gibson tries to examine what he feels each approach has to offer a synthetic historigraphy. In general, I find his arguments convincing. He, of course, is for a hybrid approach that would allow individual historians to mix and match these different approaches to the body of historical facts. He definitely feels there needs to be a further mixing of the social historical approach with the others. I would offer Sean Wilentz' recent The Rise of American Democracy as an exemplar.
I would also comment that I think a lot of the controversy that Gibson so brilliantly delineates was caused by the fact that none of the historians took seriously enough the basic datum that the actors in this period were working politicians, lawyers, merchants, farmers, etc. Yes, people like Madison, Jefferson, and Wilson read a lot. Really a lot. But I doubt if more then a couple of them were systematic philosophers who took the time to study (say) Locke, Hume and Harrington enough to note all the incompatibilities and to decide which one they agreed with. They were absorbed by the everyday details of governance more than by philosophical distinctions. I may be wrong. In his final chapter, Gibson mentions a few historians, like Peter Onuf, who have made this point. I would also like to mention the fine recent book by Max Edling on The Federalist that drives home this point.
I hope I have given an impression of the scope and compression of this book. I have read about 90% of the works that Gibson refers to but I learned something about all of them that I missed. I have mentioned in my music reviews my respect for those artists who devote themselves to the music of another. This fine historical work is impressive in that same way. It has taken Alan Gibson years to understand the work of scores of other historians so well that he can explicate their achievements with such concision. I found myself frequently marveling at what I was reading as I was reading this book. Isn't that why we read history?
I cannot recommend this book highly enough.
Heady Stuff.......2006-09-19
The book description sounds pretty good but I only got half way through it before my head hurt. Sounds like Gibson knows his stuff and has researched it thoroughly. He has a pretty good tennis serve but his overheads are weak. I am sure the founding fathers will forgive him for that.
Book Description
Liberals have acclaimed, and conservatives decried, reliance on courts as tools for changes. But while debate rages over whether the courts should be playing such a legislative role, Gerald N. Rosenberg poses a far more fundamental question—can courts produce political and social reform?
Rosenberg presents, with remarkable skill, an overwhelming case that efforts to use the courts to generate significant reforms in civil rights, abortion, and women's rights were largely failures.
"The real strength of The Hollow Hope . . . is its resuscitation of American Politics—the old-fashioned representative kind—as a valid instrument of social change. Indeed, the flip side of Mr. Rosenberg's argument that courts don't do all that much is the refreshing view that politics in the best sense of the word—as deliberation and choice over economic and social changes, as well as over moral issues—is still the core of what makes America the great nation it is. . . . A book worth reading."—Gary L. McDowell, The Washington Times
Customer Reviews:
Indispensable examination of the efficacy of courts as agents of social change. .......2006-02-01
Lawyers and politicians see courts as a means of creating, or forcing, social change. Lawyers have a professional commitment to this vision because without powerful courts, their work becomes less important; politicians adhere to this view because of the rhetorical force of rants against the evil and (usually) liberal courts. Rosenberg describes this as the dynamic view of courts. In contrast, the constrained court model posits a court that requires certain internal and external conditions before it can act, and that these constraints limit the courts to only a supporting role to change primarily pushed through the political processes.
Rosenberg engages in an empirical analysis of the Supreme Court's effect upon social change in primarily two areas: desegregation and abortion. These are ambitious and controversial challenges because it is accepted legal gospel that both Brown and Roe created massive social change. Contrary to this wisdom, Rosenberg argues that neither case directly or indirectly created social change. For instance, desegregation rates remained nearly unchanged for more than 10 years after Brown; it was not until Congress passed the Civil Rights Act and educational funding bills that conditioned federal aid on ending segregation that desegregation became a reality. Rosenberg engages in a similar analysis for abortion and Roe. While the evidence as to the limits of direct social change is compelling, Rosenberg's analysis of indirect effects is obviously weaker and somewhat more speculative because of the difficulty of demonstrating causation for indirect effects, though he does argue that there is little reason to believe court decisions indirectly effect change through encouraging popular movements. Overall, the Court's work for the 15 years following this book seems to support its conclusion: the Court refused to declare a right to die where the country is deeply divided over the issue; it has loosened constitutional protection for abortion, which is in line with the majority of Americans who support abortion with some limits; it has only shown limited interest in gay rights, striking down sodomy laws that 70%+ of Americans opposed, while avoiding gay marriage which roughly 70% oppose.
While not without controversy, Rosenberg's book is a central and indispensable work of political science. There is vigorous debate over elements of this book, particularly regarding his conclusions on indirect effects, which is all for the best because scholars who once assumed the efficacy of courts are now on notice that they most prove their assumptions are empirically valid. Students of public law and the Court will find much of value in Rosenberg's seminal book.
Best Book EVER!.......2002-05-15
Rosenberg kicks ... "GR" has written a thought-provoking, insightful, saucy account of the academy's hero worship of the Supreme Court. Not unlike McCloskey, Rosenberg refuses to divorce the Court from its socio-political location and in the process challenges reductive analyses from the likes of David O'Brien. Rock on, GR.
An Insult to the Academic World.......2001-04-20
(In response to Rosenberg's work on Brown v Board of Education only)
In this poor attempt to prove an impossible argument, Gerald N Rosenberg produces one of the biggest insults to the academic world I have ever come across.
Do not be persuaded by Rosenberg's seemingly convicing argument, it is full of holes and poor logic. In attempting to disprove the axiom that courts can bring out significant social change, Rosenberg, ignores the best evidence in support of the dynamic court view, and the majority of the evidence he uses is presented in a deceptive manner.
To give two examples of Rosenberg's terrible work, one can look to his examples of the actions of Eisenhower and King, in which he argues that neither man was influences by the Supreme Court and its ruling in Brown v. Board of Education. Rosenberg argues that Eisenhower did not legitimize his actions in 1957 to send troops into Little Rock, Arkansas on the basis of the Supreme Court's ruling. However, in a famous and nationally televised address, Eisenhower specifically mentions the Brown decision as the reason for action in Little Rock - Rosenberg omits this glaring fact with the hope that a reader will passively accept his evidence. Furthermore, when quoting King in an attempt to prove that the bus boycotts were not influenced by the court, Rosenberg starts off with a quote from King, and ends the quote skipping 130 pages of King's remarks simply to find an appropriate end to the quotation that will prove his point. As if this weren't enough, Rosenberg deceptively ADMITS in a footnote that the night before the boycott King specifically mentions Brown in a speech as the reason for his followers mobilization.
These are only few of the glaring holes in Rosenberg's argument against the dynamic court view and in favor of the constrained court view. Rosenberg feels that it is a "hollow hope" to think that the courts can lead to social change in America, however, the only thing that is "hollow" about his work is his argument.
An absolutely meaningless work - do not believe the hype about how great and revolutionary this book is - its argument and conclusion hold no weight and ignore the most relevant evidence against it.
The weakest branch.......1997-03-20
In The Hollow Hope, University of Chicago political science and law professor Gerald Rosenberg defends a thesis that, although its roots in American thought extend back to Alexander Hamilton, is currently a highly controversial one. He argues that court decisions, in spite of the importance ascribed by political analysts of all stripes to such landmark cases as Brown v. Board and Roe v. Wade, are generally incapable of generating significant social reform.
Using a combination of quantatitive data and textual analysis, he argues (persuasively) that the Brown decision had little impact on school segregation. Significant headway, Rosenberg argues, was not made against this vexing social problem until the enactment of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. With respect to Roe v. Wade, he argues that the decision had an ultimately counterproductive effect by energizing the pro-life movement and setting back a trend towards the liberalization of abortion laws that was well under way before 1971.
A social scientist, Rosenberg is careful to maintain a degree of equivocation with respect to the issue. He posits a framework under which court decisions might mave a greater than typical impact. And indeed, his evidence cannot be regarded as defintive proof- it is impossible to quantify all of the possible effects of a key court decision. He argues very compellingly, however, that the faith placed by liberals in the courts is based more on emotion than evidence, and this might have the consquence of wasting precious resources on expensive legal victories that do not manifest themselves within the American polity. As such, this lucid and challenging book is essential reading for anyone who is interested in American public law
Book Description
Bruce Ackerman offers a sweeping reinterpretation of our nation's constitutional experience and its promise for the future. Integrating themes from American history, political science, and philosophy, We the People confronts the past, present, and future of popular sovereignty in America. Only this distinguished scholar could present such an insightful view of the role of the Supreme Court. Rejecting arguments of judicial activists, proceduralists, and neoconservatives, Ackerman proposes a new model of judicial interpretation that would synthesize the constitutional contributions of many generations into a coherent whole. The author ranges from examining the origins of the dualist tradition in the Federalist Papers to reflecting upon recent, historic constitutional decisions. The latest revolutions in civil rights, and the right to privacy, are integrated into the fabric of constitutionalism. Today's Constitution can best be seen as the product of three great exercises in popular sovereignty, led by the Founding Federalists in the 1780s, the Reconstruction Republicans in the 1860s, and the New Deal Democrats in the 1930s.
Ackerman examines the roles played during each of these periods by the Congress, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court. He shows that Americans have built a distinctive type of constitutional democracy, unlike any prevailing in Europe. It is a dualist democracy, characterized by its continuing effort to distinguish between two kinds of politics: normal politics, in which organized interest groups try to influence democratically elected representatives; and constitutional politics, in which the mass of citizens mobilize to debate matters of fundamental principle. Although American history is dominated by normal politics, our tradition places a higher value on mobilized efforts to gain the consent of the people to new governing principles.In a dualist democracy, the rare triumphs of constitutional politics determine the course of normal politics.More than a decade in the making, and the first of three volumes, this compelling book speaks to all who seek to renew and redefine our civic commitments in the decades ahead.
Customer Reviews:
The most significant constitutional work in 25 years.......2005-01-17
This seminal piece of constitutional theory represents more than a decade of thought and consideration; it is Ackerman's opus that substantial reinterprets the traditional understanding of constitutional history. Ackerman begins by developing the concept of the Dualist Constitution. Unlike the British parliamentary system, we do not give plenary lawmaking authority to the victors of a normal election. Instead we recognize a two track system with the victors of normal elections given the political power, but not the authority to change the basic constitutional structure. To gain the power to alter the Constitution, a movement for constitutional change requires the sustained support of We The People.
Of course, this idea flies in the face of the traditional claim that the only valid means of changing the Constitution is through Article V. Ackerman claims that the two most important periods of constitutional reorientation occurred outside of the strictures of Article V by utilizing unconventional modes of ratifying popular change (see Volume 2, Transformations, for this). Ackerman argues that there were three periods of massive constitutional change: the Founding, Reconstruction, and the New Deal. Now I have historical criticisms with some of this, which is dealt with in my review of Transformations, but overall Ackerman's argument is persuasive.
After making his historical argument, Ackerman lays out a role for the Supreme Court that refutes the monist claim that Court power violates democratic principles. Ackerman argues that the Court has a preservationist role to play: that it maintains the principles established by the People against attack by politicians in normal eras.
Ackerman's book is brilliant, but one must remember that this volume is only the initial overview. It doesn't seek to explain every piece of the theory in thorough detail; that is the job for the other volumes. I would recommend that anyone reading this volume should hold off making judgments until after reading Transformations.
Something's Missing.......2001-08-28
Something's missing from this book. Maybe it's that Ackerman is not as incandescently deceptive .... No, Ackerman is not so fine a worker with the constitution. It's more like he's rummaging around in the cupboard, making a lot of noise about historical debates here and there, and big supreme court decisions that do or don't bear out some preferred value. By the middle of the book, you cease to care, and just wish he'd stop making noise. .... In summary, this is an example of what the Crits refer to as a "hard book" ....
Essential Historical Constitutional Analysis.......1999-12-18
Ackerman describes historically how we arrived at our current Constitutional jurisprudence. He compares the original Constitution with the changes arising out of Reconstruction and then out of the New Deal--emphasizing that those changes cannot be adequately described within the formal Article V ammendment process. We might wish history had gone otherwise--I know I often do--but he gives a framework to at least understand it.
This book is a major step forward in recogizing that the fundemental structures of American Constitutional law require both sound analytical models as well as rich historical context.
This is one of the handful of most thought-provoking and persuasive books I have read on the Constitutional process.
This is a terrible book........1999-04-25
At times our constitutional jurisprudence has fundamentally changed without a constitutional amendment. Bruce Ackerman tries to expalin this. He offers the theory of a constitutional moment that occurs when the public makes it clear that it is time for a new constitutional way. The problem is that only Ackerman knows when that moment occurs. This arrogance does violence to serious and meaningful constitutional interpretation
Great Overview of Constitutional Development.......1998-10-31
I bought Mr. Ackerman's Transformations part II to learn about the constitutional changes brought on by reconstruction. I learned so much about the constitution in this book that I went back to volume I. This is a MUST for anyone who desires to understand the nature of our government under the constitution.
Books:
- American Government and Politics Today, 2005-2006 (with PoliPrep) (American Government and Politics Today)
- Analyzing Policy: Choices, Conflicts, and Practice
- Annual Editions: Global Issues 05/06 (Annual Editions : Global Issues)
- Artful Applique: The Easy Way (That Patchwork Place)
- Blood Diamonds
- Boomsday
- Boss Tweed: The Rise and Fall of the Corrupt Pol Who Conceived the Soul of Modern New York
- Breaking Strongholds in Your City: How to Use Spiritual Mapping Tomake Your Prayers More Strategic, Effective and Targeted (Prayer Warriors)
- Bringing the Jobs Home: How the Left Created the Outsourcing Crisis--and How We Can Fix It
- Capitalism and Freedom: Fortieth Anniversary Edition
Books Index
Books Home
Recommended Books
- How to Value, Buy, or Sell a Financial Advisory Practice: A Manual on Mergers, Acquisitions, and Tra
- Applique the Basics and Beyond: The Complete Guide to Successful Machine and Hand Techniques with Do
- The Inside Scoop: Recruiters Share Their Tips on Job Search Success with College Students
- The Worship Warrior: Ascending in Worship: Descending in War
- Vintage Neon
- Book of Thoth A Short Essay on the Tarot of the Egyptians, Equinox Volume III, No. V
- A Field Guide to Reptiles & Amphibians of Eastern & Central North America
- Acing Your First Year of Law School: The Ten Steps to Success You Won't Learn in Class
- The Small Business Insider's Guide to Bankers
- The Birth of Industrial Britain: Social Change, 1750-1850
Nonprofit Organizations & Charities
| Industries & Professions
| Business & Investing
| Subjects
| Books
Charity, Philanthropy, and Civility in American History
Just Money: A Critique of Contemporary American Philanthropy
The Foundation: A Great American Secret; How Private Wealth is Changing the World
Inside American Philanthropy: The Dramas of Donorship
The Future of Philanthropy: Economics, Ethics, and Management
