The Fate Of The Union: America's Rocky Road To Political Stalemate [Hardcover]

Robert Shogan (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: September 3, 1998

The dreary presidential campaign of 1996 and Clinton's disillusioning presidency matched the convulsive pattern of events which yanked the nation in every direction except forward throughout the final decades of the twentieth century. The swings of the previous decade with the Republican ascension in Congress and the Democratic presence in the White House, were less an aberration than a continuation of the disruptions that haunted the post-depression American political system.The Fate of the Union: America's Rocky Road to Political Stalemate illustrates how the circumstances of each quadrennial American presidential contest have piled on the next, melding into the past and suggesting the future. The book explores the Clinton presidency as a continuum: first, placing it in the context of recent predecessors-from Truman to Bush-and then relating to the events that lead to his election in 1992, shaped his inaugural term, and enabled him to win four more years in the White House.Author Robert Shogan's timely examination shows that short of a thorough changing of the Constitution, the best prevention for an ever-worsening political system is to guard against self-delusion.

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com Review

As a national political correspondent through seven presidencies, Robert Shogan has seen many rounds of the dance between Congress and the White House. The Fate of the Union attempts to illuminate the fundamental rules of the game for American politics, and how the separation of powers created by the Constitution's framers has hamstrung modern presidents and resulted in gridlock. From the 1992 presidential campaign to the first two years of the Clinton presidency, through the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994 and Clinton's reelection two years later, Shogan addresses major political turning points and considers the impact of divided government on the nation. He writes:

As the decade of the 1990s has demonstrated, the limitations of our political and governing system are a constant source of frustration; but consensus politics, as propounded by Bill Clinton, is not the answer. The basic fallacy underlying the strategy of consensus is the theory that Americans, as Lyndon Johnson once put it and as Bill Clinton seems to believe, 'share a fundamental unity of interest and belief.' The trouble is that on only a very few public issues do Americans have common interests and beliefs.

Shogan argues that consensus politics probably isn't a very good strategy and that political parties should instead slug it out over ideas, with the spoils going to the victor. He also suggests that--given the constraints of the Constitution, not to mention the rigors and expenses of mounting a political campaign these days--American political discourse probably isn't going to get much better any time soon. --Linda Killian

About the Author

For more than 30 years and over the course of seven presidencies, Robert Shogan covered the political scene from Washington as national political correspondent for Newsweek and the The Los Angeles Times. He is currently Adjunct Professor of Government at the Center for Study of American Government of Johns Hopkins University. He lives in Chevy Chase, Maryland.

Product Details

• Hardcover: 352 pages
• Publisher: Basic Books (September 3, 1998)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0813367506
• ISBN-13: 978-0813367507
• Product Dimensions: 9.3 x 6.4 x 1.2 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.5 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 3.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (1 customer review)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #10,022,718 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Don't believe the hype, April 29, 2002

By 

Richard Thomas (washington, dc) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: The Fate Of The Union: America's Rocky Road To Political Stalemate (Hardcover)

Robert Shogan has an axe to grind, even though he disclaims that intent from the start of his book.

Shogan opens "Fate of the Union" by explaining that he is examining why Presidencies fail. However, this is a thinly veiled thesis for covering his real intention, which is to blacken Bill Clinton.

Shogan, of course, has very little good to say about anyone. His commentary on every single political figure dealt with in "Fate of the Union" is negative, and as a result he comes across as a man rendered very bitter by his many years covering the Washington scene. The only real question is not whether he approves or disapproves of a given politician, but to what extent he disapproves. The main target for his bile is Clinton, however. The strength of this book is in the magnitude of it's detail. He gives extensive biographies of every major player, and details each major issue. As a work of the political history of the early-to-mid-90s, it is excellent, if biased.

The irony of the book is in Shogan's terrible logic. He would have been better off if he had just stuck to writing about how little he thought of Clinton and politicians in general. However, by portraying the book as an example of why President's fail, he becomes entangled in his own contradictory reasoning.

For example, he clearly believes very strongly that America would be better off if the political parties stopped compromising and slugged it out over ideas. I would agree, except that he also believes the reason that legislation and policy initiatives fail is because our government was designed to gridlock, because of the checks-and-balances system. Shogan is critical of compromise and governing from consensus (he is relentlessly critical of Clinton for trying to govern from the center). However, with a system designed so that the executive and the legislative branches are competing (even when both are in the hands of the same party), how is anyone expected to accomplish anything significant without compromise and consensus politics?

Ironically, the one figure that (according to Shogan) had real vision, real talent, and ran on his ideas was Newt Gingrich - and Shogan has very little positive to say about him either. It is a measure of how negative Shogan's tone is that, while condeming Clinton's compromises and the very notion of governing from a centrist consensus, he accuses Gingrich of reaching too far with his Contract with America, and thus blowing his electoral victory. Clinton is deplorable for seeking compromise; Gingrich is a fool for being too much of an idealist to seek compromise.

The book is well-researched and makes for a fascinating read. However, I think the reader should be forewarned of one thing - the author has an axe to grind, and he seems to want to hit everybody with it!