Michael Barone

From 2004, this is a dated work. The craziness of the Bush years was only about to come (remember Bushitler?). People still overwhelmingly approved of the war in Iraq (and Afghanistan) and the downturn of 2008 hadn't happened yet. Barone is a tad rosy in his conclusions. But, the Softness—to use his term—of the Obama years was about to come. New entitlements, endless "infrastructure projects," bailouts, boondoggles (does anyone remember Solyndra?), and the birth of what was going to turn into B.L.M. and C.R.T. and transgressiveness galore. But, to what Barone wrote. Basically, America was Hard in the late 1800s to early 1900s: tough, no welfare, no safety net, no regulations, etc. Then, starting in the New Deal, through the War, through to the Great Society, we added a whole bunch of Soft: welfare, entitlements, regulatory state, welfare capitalism, Big Business, coddling schools and government, etc. But, then the late 1960s and 1970s America frayed to almost the point of no return, with crime rampant into the 1980s and drugs (like crack) and welfare dependency destroying sectors of society. Hardness started to come back with Reagan in the 1980s, tough on crime policies in the 1980s to the 1990s, and even Clinton reforming welfare and declaring that "the era of Big Government" is over. Then 9/11. Along the way Barone makes trenchant observations about culture, discusses economics, politics, and statistics. It's a good book to conceptualize a good chunk of the twentieth century, useful for professor of American history, I'd say. But, we are still soft. Other, less slick thinkers might say decadent. And the book thus seems incomplete or hopelessly hopeful. But, perhaps I should've read it in 2004 instead of hanging onto it for fifteen years or so before getting around to reading it.… (más)

This is about the events leading up to the "Glorious" or "Bloodless" British revolution of 1688-1689. The author believes this revolution was vital for the American Revolution a hundred years later, though it's not until the last couple of chapters that he explains how. The book is mostly about the scheming and interplay between King Charles II of Britain, who tried to remain pragmatic, tolerant, and not beheaded like his father; his ebullient brother James, Duke of York (and New York City's namesake), whose conversion to Catholicism worried many; the taciturn Prince William III of Orange, who led the quasi-federal United Provinces of the Netherlands and wanted to use Britain in his war against France; and King Louis XIV of France, the Darth Vader of Europe of who liked to keep everyone on their toes.

It's a pretty interesting read about a little-discussed subject, and helped fill gaps in my knowledge of European history. Ultimately, it makes a good case for how the Glorious Revolution had unintended and lasting reverberations that shaped Britain's and America's laws, political systems, economies, and foreign policies.

I'll mention a couple of gripes. They are too minor to expound upon, but I enjoy being petty.
- Chapter 8, bottom of page 202: While discussing the passage of the Toleration Act, the book says "The Devil Tavern Club group was in accord, and William gave his consent on May 24." Um, what was the Devil Tavern Club group? The author never explains this and doesn't mention it again. It's not listed in the index, and the endnote just references some other book I don't have, so no help there. All I can ascertain from a little Googling is that the Devil Tavern Club was a group of some 200 Parliamentarians, named after the Devil Tavern that was a popular hangout for these idiots.
- Chapter 10, page 241: While talking about how the Glorious Revolution led to Britain and America practicing balance-of-power to contain foreign hegemonies, the book says "Then, after September 11, 2001, the United States with Britain among many others on its side, found itself at war with Islamofascist terrorists, believers in a totalitarian ideology seeking weapons of mass destruction and determined to inflict terrible damage on the democratic and tolerant West." Sheesh! For a Fox News commentator, the author manages to keep his book free of frothy conservative nonsense, but he slips up here. The post-9/11 global war on terror is a lousy example of balance of power. If Britain and America really cared about containing the growing Islamofascist hegemony (which they helped establish in the first place), they wouldn't have waited until 9/11 to do so.

Finally, though this is well beyond the scope of the book, it made me reflect on how Western Europe was in a constant state of war for a thousand years, often because of religion. It wasn't until the end of World War II that Europeans became tired of fighting and started embracing peace, democracy, and secularism.… (más)