1. I can appreciate Mitch Daniels choosing his family over his country and all. But his timing gives him the appearance of being a tease. Mainstream Republicans were embracing him as the only hope, libertarians were relieved that they were going to get one of their own, and the Tea Partiers were tentatively on the board. Now it appears there’s no one. Romney can’t win. Pawlenty couldn’t possibly beat Obama or suddenly become more than he really his. Herman Cain (is his name) is sounding better than the rest, but come on… Newt’s mouth has reduced his small chance to microscopic (thank God). So…?
2. If you were to teach a kind of capstone course featuring synoptic books by legendary American teachers of political science, what would you include…?
3. Here’s my thoughts on why AMERICAN IDOL is finishing country strong.
May 22nd, 2011 | 6:58 pm
Pawlenty and Romney can probably win if the circumstances of November 2012 are as favorable for the Republicans as the circumstances of November 2010. Though I suspect things will be at least a little better. I don’t see either of them beating the odds or out talking and out organizing Obama in a genuinely ambiguous situation. I don’t think most of the rest couldn’t beat Obama in November 2010-type circumstances (to include Cain – I don’t think he will wear well past the first three months of next year.) I suppose one of them might win if circumstances are such that the living envy the dead.
Yeah, I’m bitter. I’m also frustrated that a it is simultaneously too early and too late for the best non-Daniels Republicans (Bobby Jindal, Bob McDonnell) to launch campaigns. We are in so much trouble.
May 22nd, 2011 | 9:01 pm
I’m hanging with the tea partiers and some governator or congressperson rising out of the ashes of autonomy to smite the radical. Kind of a Custer at the Little Big Horn does well scenerio..do or die.
Peter, you might enjoy “Winter’s Bones” but probably not. It is dark and a look at the future if the Libertarians dominate.’
Gas at $3.79.
May 22nd, 2011 | 11:46 pm
Good morning blues,
blues how do you do?
Good morning blues,
blues how do you do?
Well I feel alright,
but I come to worry you.
‘Course that’s jazz/blues (“Good Morning Blues,” Basie/Rushing, 1937), always in a way healthy…but what we need is something utterly bleak, impossibly bleak, worse than one of those horrible songs from Pink Floyd’s The Wall, worse than the Pretty Things’ “Loneliest Person in the World,” and the winner is…
…”Bela Lugosi’s Dead” by Bauhaus! You-tube it yourself.
Or if you’re determined to have more good music, truly American medicine for bleakness of the soul, I’ll prescribe “Bad Moon Arisin’” by CCR.
Markets are going to be hit by this… …might Christie be convinced? Romney would be better than McCain was, but that means the only victory possible is a squeaker.
Chin-up later on, but now’s the time for wallowin’ hopeless despair.
May 24th, 2011 | 7:03 pm
Just curious: Why can’t Romney win?
May 25th, 2011 | 7:33 pm
Wilson Carey McWilliams was surely a legendary teacher (rightly so), and even though he produced a synoptic book on politics in America early in his career–The Idea of Fraternity in America–and perhaps his later writings qualified his ideas there, this would nonetheless be a good book with which to begin to think about American literature and its implications for political life and political science. Of course, it’s also a LONG book.
May 26th, 2011 | 7:24 am
I agree with John’s recommendation of Carey, although I’d use Redeeming American Democracy. I’d also include Jim Ceasar’s Liberal Democracy and Political Science. And I’d use something by Lasch. (Im reading Eric Miller’s fine intellectual bio right now.)
May 26th, 2011 | 11:11 am
So now we’re cooking with gas–
1. I agree on Carey and redeeming liberal democracy.
2. Lasch too
3. Ceaser, but maybe the new book–LD and pol science is a little boring and the framework may not be wearing that well (don’t tell Jim I said that). I NEED MORE…ESPECIALLY LIBERALS ETC.
May 26th, 2011 | 12:12 pm
Sandel’s a legendary teacher at Harvard; Democracy’s Discontents. Something by Walzer? (On #3, Carl and I think that LD & PS is a must-read book; it clearly lays out how to think scientifically about politics. It may be ur students’ only opportunity to encounter its wisdom.)
May 26th, 2011 | 12:40 pm
Sandel is in–maybe the new book on JUSTICE reflects his teaching magic, or even the little book on DESIGNER BABIES and such, which is left cohen/kass/lawler light and at least raises cool issues. To show what a high-tech teacher I can be, one compromise on Ceaser is to xerox the parts of LD and PS I like and parts of the new book–the nonfoundationalism and reaganism and conservatism stuff. Just don’t like Walzer. Maybe George Grant? I also need me A GOOD WOMAN.
May 26th, 2011 | 2:30 pm
Judith Shklar (‘liberalism of/against cruelty’)?
May 26th, 2011 | 4:20 pm
I would like to to know a little more about the course’s organizing concept (in addition to the eminent teacher criterion). Is the primary point to study methodology and approaches to American politics?
May 27th, 2011 | 3:33 am
Yes Ceaser is a must, and maybe the new book–Designing a Polity–is better (it is very good) regarding wearing well compared to his others, but it seems to be more of a collection of essays than a wholly conceived book. LD & PS is very good, but in terms of what Peter is looking for, i.e., synoptic, I’m not sure if even it fits. Nature and History in American Political Development is excellent, but it is more of an extended essay. The most synoptic of Ceaser seems to be Reconstructing America, but that may lead you too far afield. Nonetheless, Ceaser is a must even if you only take parts of his books.
But when you start thinking of parts, well then there are far too many excellent writers who understand politics and American politics and government and law and culture, etc. and from whom you could cull an essay here or there for your purposes. I need not list names here.
When it comes to synoptic books–let alone synoptic books by legendary professors–then it is hard to say. I assume you want the breadth of a text book, but with the serious point of view and argument that shows an awareness of political philosophy to boot. This is hard to do. Sandel’s Democracy’s Discontent fits this bill, but I’m not sure at the end of the day how good it is. His book Justice raises all sorts of interesting and profound conundrums, but if you use it, I fear you may get bogged down in the ethics of price gouging without ever getting anywhere else. However, that may be appropriate.
Finding a good synoptic book is difficult. For instance, I learned much from reading VL Parrington, but I would never assign that book except for a PhD student. It generalizes from an obvious and perhaps dated point of view. Economic determinism fought out between so-called Jeffersonian and Hamiltonian positions only goes so far. You may as well read Herbert Croly even if he is not as comprehensive in his knowledge of the actual literature as Parrington. The same might be said for Beard, Becker, Hofstadter, Hartz, etc., and that only includes synoptic approaches to American politics.
Pangle’s book on the Ennobling of Democracy is good, but assumes a lot of prior reading too. And when it comes to synoptic and legendary, Lasch’s The True and Only Heaven certainly fits. Who has carried on his concern for what he calls “populism” since him–and I don’t mean the Lawrence Goodwyn take on populism.
As far as liberals go Walzer and Sandel are good. James P. Young’s Reconsidering American Liberalism is useful and comprehensive. More tendentious but instructive from the liberal end is John McGowan’s American Liberalism. But neither Young nor McGowan are legendary. Regarding the founding there are the very good books by Alan Gibson.
Perhaps you ought to stick to your own collection of primary sources in American Political Rhetoric and then allow those pieces to be occasions for which you could fill in the blanks.
Of course, all this raises a good question regarding what is a really good synoptic book on politics, and since I’ve focused on it–American politics.
May 27th, 2011 | 3:40 am
More liberal synopses of American politics may be found in James Morone and Michael Kazin and John Patrick Diggins.
May 27th, 2011 | 9:22 am
The point is that the “capstone” should lead a big-picture direction. And in political science–which makes even Lasch marginal (he’s in, though). Let me think about Diggins. Other ideas that came thru on the email, pretty obvious ones–Kass, Fukuyama, Elshtain, Deneen, Robby George. None of Jean’s books fits the bill, so I’m still gender-challenged on this thing. John sure knows a lot of books!
May 27th, 2011 | 10:27 am
Samuel Beer’s To Make a Nation
Shklar’s Redeeming American Political Thought (essays)
May 27th, 2011 | 11:08 am
Before moving on to synoptic books about American politics written by political scientists, you might touch on the question of a “political” approach, which presupposes a provisional answer to the question, “what is politics?” Ceaser’s LD & PS–a must for the list–does much of this work, but having the students read some selections from Crick’s In Defence of Politics could be a good way to start the course (even though Crick’s of course British).
May 29th, 2011 | 4:56 pm
I had the same question as Elton. What reasons are behind the ‘Romney can’t win’ scenario?
It seems that we need someone with proven real world experience, not another politician.
June 9th, 2011 | 3:41 pm
hey check out my blog at http:imawesome9.blogspot.com
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact