Customer Reviews

The Most Exclusive Club: A History of the Modern United States Senate

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

While there is no shortage of books on Presidents and the Presidency, and quite a few on the Supreme Court, it seems that the legislative branch is a bit neglected. That's not to say that there aren't some good books on individual Congressmen (especially the big names such as Clay, Webster and Calhoun), but the institution seems to be the least chronicled of the three branches. With The Most Exclusive Club, Lewis Gould tries to fill this void with a history of the Senate from 1900 on.

Why the beginning of the 20th century as a starting point? There are probably two reasons, although Gould doesn't really develop them. For one thing, this period chronicles what Gould would call the Modern American Presidency (in his book by the same name, which goes from McKinley onward). Secondly, by starting in 1900, we see the last years of the "old" Senate that was composed of members chosen by state legislatures and the whole period of the "modern" popularly elected Senate.

Unlike the President and Supreme Court which can - to some extent - define themselves, the Senate, as Gould describes it, is more defined by its relationship with the President. Perhaps that is because so many Senators aimed for the Presidency as their ultimate goal, with the Senate as a mere stepping stone; ironically, this is not the best way to become a President; only Harding and Kennedy were able to go from the Senate to the Presidency in the 20th century, and history is littered with more ill-fated Senators (most recently, Kerry and Dole, plus all the many who weren't even nominated, like Gephardt or McCain).

Gould's history is pretty chronologically straightforward. Most of the chapters are either broken down by historic events (such as the Depression or World War II) or by certain Senate figures (such as Joseph McCarthy or Lyndon Johnson). He does a good job at highlighting some obscure but important Senators and demythologizing others (like Johnson or Robert Taft). Generally, he keeps things objective until the last couple of chapters when Gould's politics begin to really show; there's a lot he says that I can agree with, but his views transform the book from a history to an opinion piece.

Removing Gould's politics, there is an important idea that is communicated here, namely that the Senate has transformed considerably over the years, and not necessarily for the better. At one time, the Senate could be counted on for its more deliberate nature: with members serving six year terms, there wasn't a constant obsession with holding onto a seat. Senators, rightly or wrongly, could act with less concern of immediate political effect. Nowadays, there is perpetual campaigning, and the Senate is more like the House of Representatives in its behavior. Although Gould thinks that the "old days" are overly romanticized, he feels that the current Senate is worse and no longer serves the function it once did.

Is this a good book? Yes, although Gould's writing is a bit stiff at times, and, as mentioned, loses its objectivity towards the end. Nonetheless, this book does provide a reasonably well-written and needed chronicle of the upper house of Congress.

Like many people in late 2005, I have been watching the HBO series, "Rome," and noticing the role of the Roman Senate in the collapse of the republic to be replaced by Julius Caesar's empire. "The Most Exclusive Club" is a capable, relatively short anecdotal history of the U.S. Senate in modern America. This Senate's relationship to its ancient Roman namesake is more than just coincidental. In Gould's telling, the modern U.S. Senate, like its Roman predecessor, had its share of corrupt politicians, dedicated public servants, power brokers, and reprobates. Both groups shared the authority and responsibility of high office in a time of crisis and transition. Both senates also found themselves under the control of a powerful chief executive, and while Caesar was a tyrant who did not have to stand for election, at various times in the twentieth century the United States Senate also contended with an "imperial presidency" that demanded obedience of the Senate. That is certainly the case of the most recent post-9/11 era.

This is an important book that traces the history of the Senate throughout the twentieth century and into the first years of the twenty-first. In it we see the institution evolve as differing concerns rise and subside, as crises come and go, and as personalities change and the forces of political will shift. One of the my favorite sections of the book deals with Lyndon B. Johnson, whose leadership was one of domination and browbeating on both members of his own party and on the Republicans. He accomplished much before leaving the Senate for the vice presidency in 1961, but he also left an institution in disarray. Gould is also excellent in his discussion of the issue of divided government, that is, the control of the Legislative branch by the party not in control of the White House. That division helped ensure an effective check on runaway political power. This division has not been present in recent years, leading into a discussion of the Senate's recent past. IGould's analysis of the Senate decided lack of backbone in opposing the war in Iraq, despite the misgivings of many of its members, is both enlightening and provocative.

This is a breezy read and a valuable consideration of this important body in the twentieth century United States. One cannot understand the recent political situation without appreciating the roles of the various organizations of government and how they interact. "The Most Exclusive Club" helps to decipher the role of the Senate in this set of relationships.

Lewis L. Gould paints an unflattering portrait of the United States Senate from 1900 to the present. This lively and comprehensive history should be of interest to all Americans who care about the upcoming 2006 elections and the future of our political system.

Gould, a historian from the University of Texas Austin, serves up many delicious quotes about the worst character traits of modern Senators. He directs particular scorn upon rampant alcoholism, naming several of the Club's most inebriated members. Gould pulls no punches to expose their other unpleasant tendencies: protectionism in trade policy; isolationism in foreign policy; racism in civil rights; and obstructionism of every kind to protect parochial interests.

Far too many Senators from the "modern" era have succeeded only in lowering the bar for their successors, judging by this latest historical account of their behavior in office. One enduring history lesson from this period: the biggest grandstanders and publicity hounds often leave the smallest mark in terms of lasting legislative legacy. Low-key Mike Mansfield, on the other hand, emerges as the most revered of the modern Senate Majority Leaders. An entire chapter is devoted to bipartisan accomplishments, in both foreign and domestic matters, achieved under the Montanan's distinguished, but quiet, leadership. Men from small Western states like Montana seem to thrive in the Senate backrooms where, like Mike Mansfield, they can have an impact on U.S. history disproportionate to their home state's population.

History buffs will find much to like in these pages. Gould's narrative draws more heavily from diaries and private correspondence than from the Congressional Record. Widows speaking after their late husbands' deaths provide the volume's most sensational quotes. This would explain why our incumbent senators are largely spared individual criticism in these pages. For those wishing more, the notes are extensive and the author provides a bibliography for each decade.

This highly readable history should leave most readers hoping that better years lie ahead for the U.S. Senate. The "men's club" that ruled over the U.S. Senate for most of the last century is at last breaking up. A brand new Senator, entering this chamber with sound principles and vision, could quickly make a positive impact on our nation's public affairs.

I never received this book after waiting 30 days on it. I got an empty manila folder that had been slit open with nothing inside. I have not been happy about it as it was a Christmas present. A Dickens

I came into this book with high hopes. Gould takes a tough and incredibly underdeveloped subject, the formation of the modern senate as an institution, and engages it with gusto. Unfortunately, the book was not what I was expecting.

Throughout the book, from the second chapter or so until the end, he transforms himself from a historian to a commentator, adding his own viewpoint (often times in a fairly snarky manner) to events as he described them unfolding. An occassional normative comment about a senator's ideology or motivation would have been sloppy but acceptable. This book, however, is loaded with them. Tragically, this causes the reader to question whether he is still telling the history of the US Senate, or if he is telling a revisionist history. The information that he is giving is interesting, but the credibility becomes dubious when it does not need to be.

I am also concerned about the source of much of his information. His citations are few and far between, and as a researcher I wanted to know where he was finding out about the backroom talks that he kept referencing.

In short, this is an interesting book, but it is not a scholarly one. There is too much personal, normative commentary with too few citations backing up the information that Gould is using. If he could clean this up, I think this book has a lot of potential, but at this time, it is potential unrealized.

a few things I think would be helpful before you pick up this book -

1. "History of Modern US Senate" basically means from 1900 (about the time that direct senator elections began) to where the book sputters out, about 1980. The book is roughly organized by decade, and only about 30 pages are dedicated to post 1980. That's fine, because it's usually about 25 years out that political history really turns into political science. As another note, Ike doesn't get elected til about page 212/300, which gives you an idea of the distribution of materal. If you want to find out more about your recent senators from your state, look for another book.
2. The book does a good job of describing the cultural changes of the US senate, i.e. the cloakroom, introduction of CSPAN 2, alcoholism, etc. Does not do a very good job of describing the process of some of the major bills that have been passed. This is where an extra 100-200 pages would have been very helpful.
3. Focuses on major players, La Follette, Johnson, etc., and not a very flattering portrait of them. Cynicism is rather rampant in this book, which sometimes is a good thing. You will hear very little of the minor players, which, once again, some more pages to flesh these characters out would have been nice.

It's worth a read, the 300 plus pages move fast, just be aware that this book has some limitations.

Wikipedia has made these kinds of books irrelevant. Gould writes a work based on secondary sources -- no interviews -- that hardly looks deeply at anything.

Well, no one expected this book to be a knock your socks off thriller, but while I can sit and read 1776 in one long go, I find this is more like a bible, only it tends to read 'and so and so' did 'such and such' for this bill, and it was so...

What really gets me is that, despite all of the author's careful research, it doesn't seem to portray the most rounded view of the Senate. The author's omnipotent presence continually intrudes with insidious comments designed to lead the reader into a specific train of thought. In short, he underscored heavily what he felt were the most important issues (and perhaps they were) and stressed which people affected legislature regarding these issues and which did not. Consider that the reality may have been that individual members of the Senate felt other issues were more pressing at the time. Maybe one senator did not handle segregation issues (to the author's satisfaction) because he was worried about pollution, or child labor, or any number of other topics.

After reading through the lists of scoundrels, I actually liked our current Senate more. I felt it was improving from the earlier accounts portrayed so harshly in this book. I just wish that the author had made a better attempt to climb into the minds of the Senators themselves, instead of looking at them through 'editor-tinted' goggles. I want the whole picture when I read a historical non-fiction.

The Most Exclusive Club is one of those books for which a review should be written only to alert readers NOT to read the book.

The US Senate is a remarkably under-studied institution and offers numerous subjects for scholarly attention. And a popular history of the Senate is badly needed as the Senate remains the least understood institution within the three branches of our government. Hence, Dr. Gould had a fantastic subject, but he completely fails in his efforts to provide a readable and accurate account of the recent history of the US Senate.

First and foremost, the author's politics cloud his judgment. He is clearly a dedicated liberal Democrat, and his partisan views are interjected throughout the book. Now, having a view point is essential to a good book and having a liberal or conservative or other view point does not discount any book. Yet, Dr. Gould has allowed his opinion to substitute for scholarly research and a comprehensive treatment of his subject. For example, Dr. Gould states that Trent Lott's succession to Majority Leader "showed how southern senators had abandoned their Democratic allegiance to embrace a Republican Party that shared their narrow view of the place of African Americans in society." Besides the clear partisan shot represented by this statement, it is arguably contracted by facts contained in the book, especially the fact that for 12 years the only African American in the Senate was a Republican. Rather than discuss all of the reasons behind the realignment of the south to the Republican Party (including its stronger support for national defense, pro-life measures, and lower taxes), Dr. Gould lazily states his opinion as the gospel. This pattern of stating opinions rather than reasoned conclusions based on scholarly research is repeated throughout the book.

Second, Dr. Gould's portrayal of the Senate is disturbingly shallow. His main theme is that the Senate has not been an effective institution. For example, he notes its failure to pass legislation for extensive regulation of business until the New Deal. Since its creation, however, the country has debated the proper balance of government in the economy and the Senate's actions reflect that debate. Failure to pass such legislation was arguably not a reflection of the Senate's inability to pass legislation supported by the electorate, but of the political views of the nation. Furthermore, a strong case exists that the New Deal (as well as the Great Society) harmed the US economy, in which case not passing that legislation would have done the country much good. Dr. Gould may not agree with this conclusion, but it is a legitimate argument and the Senate should not be condemned for not always embracing his views throughout its history. A serious scholar would discuss this tension over government's involvement in the economy and show how it impacted (or did not impact) the Senate. Dr. Gould also criticizes the Senate's obsession with procedure, especially the filibuster. Again, he does not present a full picture of the issue. There are solid reasons to support, for example, the filibuster (protection of minority rights, ensuring a national consensus on legislation); none of which Dr. Gould gives fair consideration. I am curious to know if he thinks whether Supreme Court nominees can be filibuster. I suspect the answer depends on who the nominee is rather than on a disinterested analysis of the issue.

Third, Dr. Gould's portraits of Senators are one-sided. Southern senators are simply bigots; liberals dedicated champions of social justice. Dr. Gould should read Master of the Senate by Robert Carro, who also is a liberal, to see how a good historian presents the virtues and vices of both his heroes and his villains, and in doings so gives his readers a sense of how the Senate's operations are governed largely by the personal relationships of its members.

Finally, the most surprising thing about this book is that Dr. Gould is the Eugene C. Barker Centennial Professor Emeritus of History at the University of Texas. Our academies have certainly reached a low point when persons of such nominal stature no longer produce works of profound reasoning and serious scholarship and instead opt to produce breezy, partisan works consisting primarily of recitations of events one could have easily cut from newspapers. If you want to find a good history of the Senate, one most go outside our academies to such writers as Carro and Robert C. Byrd. If Dr. Gould wants to examine an institution that is really broken may be he should examine our universities.