Franklin Roosevelt
From charlesreid1
Read
| Title | Author | Year | Started | Finished | Opinion |
|---|
Unread
| Title | Author | Year | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scorpions: The Battles and Triumphs of FDR's Great Supreme Court Justices | Noah Feldman | Idea came from Amazon
In Marriott Library:
From Publishers Weekly: As a conservative Supreme Court flexes its muscles against a Democratic president for the first time since the New Deal, a series of recent books has explored the constitutional battles of the Roosevelt era and their contemporary relevance. Harvard law professor Feldman's Scorpions focuses more on the battles of the 1940s and 1950s, and it is distinguished by its thesis that the "distinctive constitutional theories" of Roosevelt's four greatest justices, all of whom began as New Deal liberals--Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, Felix Frankfurter, and Robert Jackson--have continued to "cover the whole field of constitutional thought" up to the present day. Feldman argues that Black, the liberal originalist; Douglas, the activist libertarian; Frankfurter, the advocate of strenuous judicial deference; and Jackson, the pragmatist; achieved greatness by developing four unique constitutional approaches, which reflected their own personalities and worldviews, although they were able to converge on common ground in Brown v. Board of Education, which Feldman calls the last and greatest act of the Roosevelt Court. The pleasure of this book comes from Feldman's skill as a narrator of intellectual history. With confidence and an eye for telling details, he relates the story of the backstage deliberations that contributed to the landmark decisions of the Roosevelt Court, including not only Brown but also cases involving the internment of Japanese-Americans, the trial of the German saboteurs, and President Truman's seizure of the steel mills to avoid a strike. Combining the critical judgments of a legal scholar with political and narrative insight, Feldman is especially good in describing how the clashing personalities and philosophies of his four protagonists were reflected in their negotiations and final opinions; his concise accounts of Brown and the steel seizure case, for example, are memorable. And he describes how the rivalries and personality clashes among the four liberal allies eventually drove them apart: Hugo Black's determination to take revenge on those who offended his Southern sense of honor led him to retaliate not only against Jackson and Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone but also against the racist Southerners who had disclosed his former Ku Klux Klan membership to the press. Not all readers will be convinced by Feldman's thesis that the judicial philosophies of the Roosevelt justices continue to define the Court's terms of debate today: on the left and the right, there are, for example, no advocates of Frankfurter's near-complete judicial abstinence or of Douglas's romantic libertarian activism. And in the political arena, the constitutional debates of the 1940s and '50s seem less relevant today than those of the Progressive era, when liberals first attacked the conservative Court as pro-business, and conservatives insisted that only the Court could defend liberty in the face of an out-of-control regulatory state. But Feldman does not try to make too much of the contemporary relevance of the battles he describes: this is a first-rate work of narrative history that succeeds in bringing the intellectual and political battles of the post-Roosevelt Court vividly to life. 528 pages
| |
| FDR: A Biography | Ted Morgan | Idea came from PresidentProfiles.com:
Two superb one-volume treatments of FDR are Frank Freidel, Franklin D. Roosevelt: A Rendezvous with Destiny (Boston, 1990), and Ted Morgan, FDR: A Biography (New York, 1985). In Marriott Library:
From Amazon User Review: FDR is a frustrating figure, in my opinion, because he was so big, and so transformative a leader (to pin James MacGregor Burns's taxonomy of leadership onto him) that every other biography of him I have seen has become reduced to simply the author's bias and idiosyncratic interpretation of him. Some little twerp laboring over a PhD thesis for 10 years gives us a whole book on FDR and the Supreme Court, or FDR and public works, or FDR and WW II. Boring. Which is where this one comes in. I bought it more than 15 years ago, but never really read it until last year. Before then, I was only interested in "proof texting" FDR to basically show what a socialist bad guy he was, a poor comparative reflection of cousin Theodore. In this sense, too-high a view of Theodore dooms FDR to second-best. Then I read Churchill's 6 Vol. history of WW II, and through that lens saw a very compelling FDR, one big enough to "run" Churchill. And Churchill makes it clear in his history why it was utterly impossible for the West to save Eastern and Central Europe from the Russians. Explaining this take on things drops the charges against FDR so long-brought by the John Birchers--that somehow he gave away the world to the communists. Ted Morgan gets deep into this, but by way of Roosevelt's childhood and familial relations, focusing on Franklin's impossible mother--the root of his famous evasiveness, says Morgan. Then on into minor politics after a little Harvard; a glimpse of some adultery, and then polio. The adultery is interesting, because compared to someone like Bill Clinton, FDR's sounds quite focused, or even traditional--his Lucy Mercer of Pre-Presidency fame stays in the picture, and is in the room with him 4 terms later when he has his stroke after going thru the morning's mail at the resort in Georgia he had purchased (in pale, or maybe non-pale imitation of Teddie's purchase of the badlands ranch--both places of rehabilitation for each Roosevelt). And although Eleanor may have played house in a cottage behind Franklin's Mom's ancestral property, with a few lesbian friends, she, too is a sympathetic figure, putting up with Franklin, then becoming his functional nurse, and raising their children in the scant time left after working on the ills of the rest of the world. Something like Hillary with more empathy, or substance. How about Hillary minus the switchblade? Somewhere in all of the polio and then political battle, FDR decided to be great; and this seems to have translated, as the story unfolds through Morgan, into a similar decision to make the United States great, and dominant. Doing this while paralyzed from the waist down, and while taking time to "stick it" to old foes in the New York State government throughout his presidency, induces a kind of involuntary admiration which lets me see how people like Bill Clinton are so drawn to the FDR memory, and how they seek to replay FDR's utter commitment to the moment and the audience. Compared to a Clinton, the multimillionaire Dutchman from upstate New York paradoxically had a lot less to prove, but yet accomplished so much more. So after a long time admiring Teddy and dumping on Frank, this book makes it clear to me that although an FDR without the preexisting Teddy would not have been possible, FDR very arguably accomplished a great deal more than TR. As recent, more critical biographers of Teddy explain (H.W. Brands, TR: The Last Romantic), Teddy sort of fanatacized-out during his third party phase, maybe paralleling Winston Churchill's father's flame-out--an interesting common point which may have given these two leaders in their wartime phase the ability to compromise and survive, when it would be easier to lecture and purify (and get tossed out). Thus the connection with the mess of the war, and part of the explanation for us coming out on top (in spite of FDR's child like view of India, and some-said-strange courting of Ibn Saud). If these actions were designed to take adavntage not only of Germany's destruction, but also of England's slide, then FDR succeeded. Maybe Churchill would call him another Marlborough, had he been related, due to this balance of power maneuvering. But maybe FDR didn't intend it that way at all, if he was more a tool of providence mingled in with great effort (kind of an Augustinian view of political success). In summary, I'm not as hacked off as I used to be when I see FDR's face on our dimes, after reading this book. It's OK with me now if stays right there. He puts a better human face on our money than a stylized Mercury-head yanked from mythology. And that's what this author has also done for me. One thing I'd like to see a future historian look into: Campobello Island, the family's version of the Kennedy compound, is actually in Canadian territorial water (so I'm told). What relationship did this have to the Roosevelt family import fortune of glass and hardware back in the 1700s and 1800s? Was there a tax avoidance or illegality angle, like the Forbes family, the Bronfmans of Canada (See Peter Newman's book "Bronfman Dynasty" on that), and the Kennedys? That would complete the economic substrate of our knowledge of this family, long since passed, it seems, into fashionable senescense. And sure, all families seem to decline; but few leave behind such great men. Which gets us back to the pack of FDR authors. They're everywhere, some of their books skinny, some quite fat. But this one really stands out. I highly recommend it. | |
| Roosevelt's Secret War: FDR and World War II Espionage | Joseph Persico | Idea came from PresidentProfiles.com
In Marriott Library:
User Review: Intelligence professionals will be very disappointed by this book, citizens interested in Presidential approaches to intelligence, somewhat less so. The author's brilliant biography of William Casey, OSS Veteran and Director of Central Intelligence under President Ronald Reagan, was a much more satisfying book. What we have here is by and large a mish-mash of the works of others, together with an original composition on FDR's involvement in intelligence that is uneven--partly because the subject did not put much in writing, and partly because the author chose to rely primarily on secondary published sources. From the perspective of one interested in "Presidential intelligence," that is, how does a President manage various means of keeping informed, the book is a must read but also a shallow read. We learn that FDR was a master of deception and of running many parallel efforts, balancing them against one another. We learn that FDR was remarkably tolerant of amateurism and incompetence, while good at finding the gems these same loose but prolific intelligence endeavors could offer. Perhaps most importantly, we gain some insights into how Presidents, even when properly informed by intelligence (e.g. of Pearl Harbor in advance, or of the lack of threat from domestic Americans of Japanese descent) must yet "go along" and provide either inaction pending the public's "getting it", or unnecessary action (the internments) to assuage public concern. There are enough tid-bits to warrant a full reading of the book, but only for those who have not read widely in the literature of intelligence and/or presidential history. The British lied to the President and grossly exaggerated their intelligence capabilities, in one instance presenting a man "just back from behind the lines" when in fact he was simply on staff and lying for effect. We learn that the Department of State was twice offered, and twice declined, the lead on a global structure for collecting and processing intelligence. We learn that FDR himself concluded that Croatia and Serbia would never ever get along and should be separate countries. On the NATO side, we learn that Eisenhower went with bad weather and the invasion succeeded in part because of a successful deception and in part because of Ike's courage in going forward in the face of bad weather--fast forward to how weather incapacitates our high-technology today. Most interestingly, we learn that FDR finally approved Eisenhower as leader of Overload, in lieu of his favorite, General Marshall, in part because he recognized that the allied joint environment required a general and a politician in one man. This book is a hybrid, attempting to mesh presidential history with intelligence history, and perhaps this should gain the author some margin of tolerance. Unfortunately, in focusing on the relationships among the various intelligence principals and the president, he seriously passes over the enormous contributions of military as well as civilian and allied intelligence to the larger undertaking, and one is left with the narrow impression that American intelligence consisted largely of a number of self-serving clowns vying for Presidential favor. The flaws inherent in a Federal Bureau of Investigation dominated by J. Edgar Hoover, and the lack of cooperation between the FBI and other major intelligence activities that continues today, are noted throughout the book. Bottom line: worth buying and reading to gain insight into the challenges facing a President who can become isolated from reality by a corporate staff, but nowhere near the quality of Christopher Andrew's For the President's Eyes Only, or any of many good histories of espionage in World War II. 608 pages | |
| The New Deal: The Depression Years 1933-1940 | Anthony Badger | Idea from PresidentProfiles.com
In Marriott Library:
From Library Journal: An interpretive synthesis of the history of the New Deal. Historical writing about that era has been stalemated since the 1960s, when radical critics challenged the dominant liberal interpretation. Though many aspects of this significant period have since been researched, historians largely have avoided the grand interpretation of the New Deal that used to predominate. The result has been many studies but little coherence. While Badger's work can hardly be called a major synthesis, nor can his conclusions be considered startling, it reveals that some sense can be made out of the massive, fragmented body of historical work. The New Deal was not as revolutionary as some have thought, but neither was it as conservative as others have argued. Its significance came from its success in sustaining American society during a period of great stress. A well-written study. 416 pages |
| |||||||||||||||||