The Best Years of Our Lives–a reading tip

On Sunday evening at 6 pm EST, we will discussing THE CAUSE by Eric Alterman and Kevin Mattson.  I have invited two national leaders of the independent movement as discussants.

Harry Kresky is an attorney and the country’s leading expert on nonpartisan political reform.

Dr. Omar Ali is a historian and professor of African American studies at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro.

If you have not read the whole book, no worries.  Join the conversation, I think you will find it quite fascinating.  I asked Harry Kresky if there was one chapter he would recommend.  Here’s what he said:

  “A chapter to read is Chapter 5, “The Best Years of Our Lives.”  It sets the mold for the book by revealing (perhaps     inadvertently) that liberalism is best understood as a reaction formation to communism and, later, during the period of the 60’s and 70’s, to other forms of radical politics.  Perhaps the root cause of liberalism’s demise  is that when the Soviet Union fell and theU.S. won the “cold war,” liberalism lost its raison d’etre.”

Here is the call in information for Sunday’s  6 pm Call:

Call 712 432-3066

Passcode:  636053

Look forward to speaking together!  And come back by tomorrow for some of Dr. Ali’s thoughts about The Cause.

Book Discussion Moved to Sunday, July 15th at 6 pm

The discussion of The Cause will be on July 15th to allow more folks to read the book.  Here is a tip—pick an era that interests you and read that chapter.  Break the rule that says you have to read chapters in order!!!

If you have finished the book, you might want to lend it to a friend and invite them to join our discussion. Catana Barnes is planning to do that.

Below is another review of the book from Kirkus Review.

Happy Reading.

THE CAUSE (reviewed on February 15, 2012)

A liberal columnist and a professor examine the zigzag route of liberal politics since the New Deal.

Before the book was finished, Mattson (Contemporary History/Ohio Univ.;“What the Heck Are You Up To, Mr. President?”: Jimmy Carter, America’s “Malaise,” and the Speech that Should Have Changed the Country, 2009, etc.) left the partnership with the Nation contributor Alterman (Kabuki Democracy: The System vs. Barack Obama, 2011, etc.), who wrote the final draft. A chronicle of liberalism’s successes and failures, the text travels the labyrinthine road from the New Deal to the rise (and fall) of unionism, the theorists of the 1940s and ’50s (Dean Acheson, George Kennan), the battle against McCarthyism and the failures of Adlai Stevenson, whom Alterman writes helped create the notion of the effete intellectual. The author then charts the rise of the Kennedys, the tragic assassinations of the ’60s, civil rights and Lyndon Johnson, Betty Friedan and the feminist movement, the campaign and electoral failures of Eugene McCarthy, McGovern, Carter, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry. Alterman pauses often to visit relevant cultural history—the emergence of influential journals, Mailer’s writing, DeVoto’s criticism, Elia Kazan’s films, Cheever’s stories, the various liberal contributions of actor Sidney Poitier, novelist William Styron, filmmaker Oliver Stone and—in a long section—rocker Bruce Springsteen. Alterman points out continually how liberals have often been their own worst enemies—failing to stand up to the violence of the far left in the ’60s, fearing being branded “anti-American” in the face of war (Iraq), failing to confront the Tea Party and the ever-more-rightward GOP. Unfortunately, Alterman too often quotes others and only rarely flashes the scimitar wit he displays in the Nation.

Thorough and thoughtful, but with dense scholarly foliage that needs pruning

Review of The Cause in Sunday’s New York Times

How’s your reading going?  I just started Chapter 4: Patient, Firm and Vigilant.  In the New York Times Book Review this Sunday, Jeff Shesol wrote a review of The Cause.  What do you think?  I am looking forward to our conversation about the book on Sunday, June 3rd at 6 pm.

May 18, 2012

Loving Liberals



The Fight for American Liberalism From Franklin Roosevelt to Barack Obama

By Eric Alterman and Kevin Mattson

561 pp. Viking. $32.95.

The trouble with liberals, Robert Kennedy complained in 1964, was that they were “in love with death” — they romanticized failure, finding greater nobility in losing the whole loaf than in winning half of it. In the years since then, liberals have not only lost a lot of loaves but have acquired a mess of other troubles, among them the difficulty of getting anyone to admit to being a liberal. To wear the label today seems an act of defiance, much as members of the gay rights community have appropriated, from their antagonists, the epithet “queer.” Liberalism — for decades (centuries, even) the prevailing philosophy in American political life — has become the creed that dare not speak its name, except late at night on MSNBC.

Enter Eric Alterman, defiant to the last. In 2008, this columnist and media critic published a handbook called “Why We’re Liberals,” a crisply written and emphatically argued retort to the Coulters, Hannitys and others for whom liberalism is a strain of fascism, totalitarianism, socialism and overmothering (why choose?). Alterman’s new book, “The Cause,” written with an assist from the historian Kevin Mattson, is something of a companion volume: a history of liberalism from Franklin Roosevelt to the present. (Mattson’s role is a bit ambiguous; in the book’s acknowledgments, Alterman credits him with providing “raw material.”)

The story Alterman tells is in large part a familiar one, but worth restating given the strenuous — and to a distressing degree successful — campaign by conservatives to rewrite the entire history of liberalism, and indeed of America itself in the years before the Reagan “revolution,” as one long love affair with central planning and welfare dependency. Alterman works hard to correct the record. By concentrating on the men and women who have defined liberalism in the modern era, “The Cause” lends a human dimension to the dramatic expansion of the federal government, and of the public’s expectations of government, during the New Deal; the postwar faith in economic growth as the engine of social progress; liberalism’s landmark achievements during the early years of Lyndon Johnson’s presidency; its embrace of civil rights and other new expressions of liberal ideals of freedom, equal opportunity and the dignity of the individual; and, from the 1970s onward, its failure to square its ambitions, at least in an enduring way, with the values and norms of middle-class America and the slow corrosion of the American dream.

Much of this unfolds, in “The Cause,” by inference, or as interstitial material between character sketches. This is less a book about liberalism than it is a book about liberals — stretch limousines full of them, fleet after fleet. Liberalism, Alterman suggests, is a movement of “many different faces,” and his book, at times, appears intent on showing them all: faces of intellectuals, faces of politicians, faces of protesters and filmmakers, philosophers and diplomats.

There is an indiscriminate quality to Alterman’s attentions, which too often seem to reflect his personal passions rather than a careful weighing of a figure’s historical significance. Thus Oliver Stone gets just as much ink as Walter Reuther, a towering figure in the history of organized labor; Bruce Springsteen, about whom Alterman has written a previous book, receives more airtime than Hubert Humphrey and Thurgood Marshall combined. (Bob Dylan, meanwhile, merits only passing mentions.) Alterman’s choices can be interesting and even brave; one has to admire his willingness to include intellectuals like Lionel Trilling and Richard Rorty in a work of popular history. But in such a crowded field, their relative influence — and anyone else’s — becomes impossible to assess.

The net effect is that of a Pointillist painting, though when you step back from the canvas and squint a little, the dots fail to cohere into a discernible image. As “The Cause” smash-cuts from Henry Wallace to Richard Hofstadter and from Gloria Steinem to Gary Hart, Alterman pauses all too infrequently to reflect on the “cause” — or causes, or ideals — that connects them. This, to be fair, is a challenge, one compounded by liberal schisms and by the nebulousness of much liberal thought; Trilling, as Alterman notes, described liberalism as “a large tendency rather than a concise body of doctrine.” Liberals, quite unlike leftist radicals or conservative ideologues, tend to reject dogma and theory in favor of “bold, persistent experimentation,” asRooseveltcalled it, or, put another way, pragmatism grounded in enduring, yet evolving, values. It is hard to dissect a gestalt.

Still, that is the historian’s role, and other books — most notably, in recent years, by Alan Brinkley and Paul Starr — have brought sharpness to the picture that “The Cause” renders blurry. Despite its author’s best intentions, “The Cause” makes it harder, not easier, to understand how liberals ever mustered the intellectual clarity or collective resolve not only to govern but to achieve what they manifestly did during their long reign at the vital center of our national life — or even, in a more qualified way, during the two dec­ades since Bill Clinton promised to “put people first.”

As “The Cause” proceeds toward the present day, Alterman reveals a revanchist streak. Urging liberals to “recapture”Roosevelt’s “militant and optimistic spirit,” he casts a cold eye on virtually every effort, over the past 30 years, to do just that. The intimation of “The Cause” — of both its title and its tone — is that there really is a true faith against which subsequent vintages of liberalism must be judged (and found wanting). “Neo­liberals” like Gary Hart are dismissed as callow and cold; “New Democrats” of the late 1980s are overly in thrall to their corporate donors; and Michael Dukakis, poor Michael Dukakis, is not merely a loser but “no liberal at all — just a sign of the desperate times into which American liberalism had fallen in its apparently endless quest for solid political ground.” As for Clinton, Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama, the Democrats who have been elected president since Johnson, “The Cause” flays all three for yielding to “political pressures” and becoming “far more conservative” as president than as presidential candidates.

Each of these points is arguable in its own right. But taken together, they reflect a contempt for compromise. Without proposing an alternative path, Alterman leaves liberals in a familiar dead end. This, regrettably, is the sort of peremptory judgment that holds liberalism back (just as the conservative equivalent, with its fixation on Reagan-era doctrines and its incantation of old pieties, binds the Republican Party in a kind of intellectual aspic).

“The work goes on, the cause endures,” said Robert Kennedy’s brother Edward — one of the heroes of this book — in his stirring speech at the 1980 Democratic National Convention. But if it really is to endure, then the means of advancing it will surely have to evolve, taking full account of unpleasant realities: the scale of the debt; the depth of public suspicion not just of government but of most institutions; courts that have grown hostile to claims of civil rights and assertions of governmental power; and the tenuousness of our commitment to the common good. The work, indeed, goes on.

Jeff Shesol, the author of “Supreme ­Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. the Supreme Court,” was a speechwriter for President Bill Clinton.

New Book Club Selection

Hello everyone.  Here is our next book club selection:  The Cause: The Fight for American Liberalism from Franklin Roosevelt to Barack Obama, written by Eric Alterman and Kevin Mattson.  Mickey Edwards recommended the book when he was with us at Politics for the People.

He said, “There is a great new book out—you’ll be shocked that I wrote a very good review, very positive review of it—by Eric Alterman, quite a well known liberal writer.  He has a new book out called The Cause, making the case for liberal politics.  And one of the things he brought up is the tension that existed for so long between white liberals and African Americans about how do you resolve when one of them wants political advantage and the other says we want to be full partners in this democracy…”

I hope the book will be thought provoking and stimulate a conversation.

I will be hosting our discussion of The Cause on Sunday, June 3rd.  Hope you will pick up or down load the book and start reading.  I will be posting reviews and thoughts about the book along the way.

Welcome C-SPAN Viewers !

You may have just seen my Politics for the People event on C-SPAN where my guests, former Congressman Mickey Edwards and President, Jackie Salit discussed the role of independents in U.S. Politics.

Let me hear your thoughts on this critical topic in the comments section below.

In 2002 I founded Politics for the People as a  free educational series for independent minded New Yorkers and I’m thrilled to be “taking it national” with a Blog, a Book Club for independents and now this  C-SPAN broadcast.

So, sign up at right below the “Follow us via Email” heading.  You’ll receive updates when new posts are made to the Politics for the People Blog and join my Book Club for independents.  We’re about to make our next selection which we’ll discuss together in a national conference call in June!

Independently Yours,

Cathy L. Stewart

PS – Jackie Salit and Mickey Edwards both have forthcoming books which are available for pre-order  from your favorite online bookseller.

CSPAN Coverage Tonight at 10:30 pm ET

Jackie Salit, President of, former Congressman Mickey Edwards and I at Friday’s Politics for the People.  (Photo: Beth Brown)

This just in from CSPAN:

CSPAN will be airing Politics for the People tonight at 10:30 pm ET.  The program will reair at 11:30 pm PST, that’s 2:30 am ET.

I hope you will tune in, and then send me your comments.

CSPAN broadcast of Politics for the People Tomorrow

Last Friday evening, former Congressman Mickey Edwards and President Jackie Salit were my guests at Politics for the People at the Newman Conference Center at Baruch College.  Our topic: The People vs. The Parties.  Both Jackie and Mickey have books coming out the summer.

We had a rich and fascinating discussion with our audience.  We talked about the negative role of the political parties in US, the cultural component of change, the competing powers of our government and the role of the President, the massive political disalignment of the American people from the political parties and more in this wide ranging conversation.

CSPAN is planning to broadcast  Friday’s Politics for the People on Thursday, May 3rd between 8-10 pm.  As soon as I know the exact broadcast time, I will get a post up right away.  I hope you will set your DVR or plan to tune in and watch.

National Poetry Month Giveaway

Photo: CLStewart

April is National Poetry Month.  And to celebrate,  (courtesy of the Poetry Foundation) I have free copies of the April 2012 edition of Poetry.  It is yours for the posting—just leave me a comment about why you love poetry, or better yet post a favorite poem or share a poem you wrote!  And I will send you out a copy.

Let me leave you with a little emily dickinson on a warm spring day:

A little madness in the Spring

Is wholesome even for the King,

But God be with the Clown,

Who ponders this tremendous scene—

This whole experiment of green,

As if it were his own!

Politics for the People—LIVE in NYC on April 27th

I am pleased to let you know,  Jackie Salit and former Congressman Mickey Edwards will be my guests at the next Politics for the Peoplewhich is being held on Friday, April 27th at Baruch College in Manhattan.

Jackie Salit is president of, the country’s leading strategy and organizing center for independents. She ran all three of Michael Bloomberg’s campaigns on the Independence Party line, and is the author of the forthcoming book Independents Rising which explores how independents are not only deciding elections, but reshaping the political landscape.

Mickey Edwards is the Director of the Aspen Institute Rodel Fellowships in Public Leadership and was a  member of Congress from Oklahoma from 1977 to 1992.  He has written critically about the partisanship embedded in both our electoral system and in Congress itself, issues he explores in his upcoming book The Parties vs. the People.

I am looking forward to this event.  Jackie and Mickey are two of America’s leading advocates for structural political reform.  Their passion for change, their belief in the American people, and their unique histories will make for a fascinating discussion.

If you live in the tri-state area, I hope you will come and join in our conversation.  RSVP today by clicking here, and I’ll see you on the 27th.  If you can’t make it, I have good news—CSPAN is shooting the event and planning to air it, so stay tuned.

Punching a Hole in the Big Boys’ Political Science Paradigm

Punching a Hole in the Big Boys’ Political Science Paradigm

Linda Killian’s book, The Swing Vote  is stirring up the national conversation about independent voters.  Last week, Ruy Teixeira, a DP operative and the author of  The Emerging Democratic Majority (2002) wrote a scathing and self serving review of the book in which he asserts that Linda’s book is based on “the greatest myth in American politics: that independents are actually independent. They are not,” says Teixeira.

James Taranto, writing in the Wall Street Journal, takes apart some of Teixeira’s assertions about who indies are and are not, and his slippery use of polling data.

Linda responded in a Daily Beast piece: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics: How Ruy Teixeira Got it Wrong on ‘Swing Vote’.  Referring to Teixeira’s charge that indies are a myth, Killian has this to say: “Such a charge is larger than just one book and goes to the heart of what is wrong with our political system and with the party and the media elite who control it.  They don’t believe there is room for the voters….”

On Friday, Jackie Salit, the President of also responded with a piece on the Huffington Post: “Ruy the Day!

Salit comments, “Teixeira argues that voters are defined by who they vote for….  Leaving aside the obvious point that in nearly every election, the only choice voters have is a ballot, or ballots, for one or another major party candidate, but they still feel it is important to maintain their independence.” 

It is an excellent piece—definitely worth a read.  And I couldn’t agree more with Salit’s ending: “The problem with political science, which Teixeira worships, is that it isn’t a science and it’s extremely political.  Killian’s book may have its flaws.  But she did punch a hole in the Big Boys’ prevailing political science paradigm, the one that is strangling the country.  You go, girl!  That’s worth a read right there.”

Hope you will all get involved in the conversation.  Post a comment here, or go to any of the pieces above and add your thoughts!!!

PS  If you missed our discussion with Linda Killian on February 26th, you can listen by calling (218) 844-0952, password 732282#.  To fast forward into the conversation, you can press 2 once you have logged in.