Customer Reviews

Party of the People: A History of the Democrats

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

 

 

This is an excellent book on the history of the Democratic party. One marvel of American democracy is the durability of its founding principles. The same consistency doesn't apply to the nation's two major political parties. The Democratic Party, created in the factional tumult of post-revolutionary days, has changed from a predominantly rural, racist, states' rights party into an organ of urban minorities, liberals, and federal power. The one constant among Democrats was best identified by Will Rogers: "I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat."

Witcover writes at length of the key figures in Democratic annals such as Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, William Jennings Bryan, and FDR, with an eye for details that bring history to life. His description of the ailing Roosevelt's duplicitous scheming to replace Vice President Henry A. Wallace with Missouri Senator Harry S Truman in 1944 offers insight into the great Democrat's character. But Witcover also devotes space to important but lesser-known figures: Martin Van Buren, for instance, was a wily New York Senator whose skillful 1828 promotion of Andrew Jackson's war-hero image paved the way for modern electioneering.

Although Witcover, a liberal columnist, is sympathetic to the Democrats, he doesn't hesitate to condemn the party's dark moments. A particularly odious Democrat, in Witcover's mind, is 15th President James Buchanan, a virulent racist who, in the years just before the Civil War, blamed national friction on the Northern abolitionists he said were stirring up slaves with hopes of freedom.

Not a bad book, but way too focused on presidential politics. Perhaps this should not be a surprise, given the author's long history as a Washington reporter, but believe it or not, there really is a Democratic party that exists outside the beltway. You would just never know it by reading this book. Instead of plunging into excruciating detail about FDR conversations with his staff, why not spend some pages describing the role of the Democratic party at least at the regional level? For example, the role of Southern Democrats with Jim Crow laws and blocking of civil rights?

Jules Witcover's Party of the People is an impressive attempt to crunch the 200-plus year history of the Democratic Party, from its beginnings in the 18th Century to the ignominious debacle of the 2000 Presidential election, into slightly more than 800 pages of text. Such efforts are always open to objection that the author left out this or that aspect of its subject that is worth attention - here, however, I am left amazed at how successfully the author has marshaled his facts.

Witcover is no party hack. When the Democrats have disgraced themselves during their long history, he is not afraid to say so. Parts of the story that might ordinarily seem to be somewhat less than interesting (such as the long absence of the Democrats from the White House in the decades after the Civil War) are made more interesting than they otherwise might seem. Controversial matters, such as the sex scandal that engulfed President Clinton's second term and almost toppled him from power, are dispatched with both admirable objectivity and amazing concision - it's hard for me to see how such a tawdry story could be told more fairly.

Witcover's style is serviceable without being either obtrusively literary or academically pedestrian, although there is the occasional misstep - when he writes of House Speaker Newt Gingrich being compared to Darth Vader, I don't think labeling Vader as "the wicked villain of the Star Wars films" is quite necessary - besides, isn't the term "wicked villain" just a little redundant? But such stylistic gaucheries are rare - in general, this is a terrific book on a subject that all political junkies will find fascinating. In this year especially, it's probably a worthwhile thing for people to know what values the Democratic Party stand for, since this country is in need of those values now more than ever. Read this book.

Jules Witcover's _Party of the People_ traces the Democratic Party from its Jeffersonian roots, through the tumultuous Civil War period and into the modern party dominated by the four terms of Franklin Roosevelt. Witcover's well-researched tome, the companion to _Grand Old Party_, the Republican history volume, sheds light on the previously forgotten likes of Benjamin Harrison, James K. Polk, John Tyler and the notorious James Buchanan in short, 20-page chapters that take history one term at a time.

The 730+ page length of this book makes it forbidding for some casual readers, and in some parts the text is dry and overly academic, but the vasty majority of Witcover's work in _Party of the People_ is a commendable history of America's oldest political party.

A very unbiased and interesting account. This volume, which is well researched, does a good job looking at the Democratic party. From the split over the civil war to the party of racial suppression to the party of the `cross of gold' under Bryan to Wilson and FDR. The party of the New Deal and the party that exposed the `missile gap' and began the Vietnam War. The Party that took down Nixon and finally found victory in 1992. An interesting well written account that follows the Democratic party from its southern slave holding roots to its `big tent' policies of the 1930s and 1990s.

To begin with, Witcover is not a professional historian, but rather a veteran journalist who has covered Democratic politics for many decades. His insights are valuable in terms of the more recent history of the party. He still provides a pretty good overall history of the early Democratic Party as well, though I would have liked a little more information on the Jacksonian Era and other periods in the party's history. Most of his sources for this book are secondary ones, which are valuable, but others including some primary ones would have been useful too.

I'm always a little skeptical of including Jefferson among the early founders of the Democratic Party. Our earliest presidents, while certainly grouped into different factions, did not resemble our modern concept of political parties. Nevertheless it was an important period in the early formation of the inevitable party system that would develop over time.

While Witcover probably is a Democrat, though I don't think he stated it, he does a fairly good job of detailing the party's successes and failures. He is quite skilled in describing the differences and controversies within the party itself, especially over the issue of segregation which Southern Democrats were adament about. He certainly demonstrated his criticisms of party leaders as well, including Bill Clinton's personal failings.

In the writing of history, objectivity should be the goal of every historian, but we must also acknowledge that everybody brings a certain amount of bias into their work. Objectivity is especially hard in politics since most of us declare a preference, as I do and I'm a Democrat.

This book is mainly a study of Democratic presidents, and that can be subject to fair criticism since the party permeates all branches and levels of government. But the president is the symbolic head of the party and discussing the history of the party in all branches of government at great detail and at the state and local level would require more than a one volume book. Bottom line there are many other great books on the party if this one doesn't satisfy you.

I think Witcover is to be commended for providing a solid one volume book on the history of a party that is not always known for its cohesiveness. Witcover appropriately uses that famous quote by Will Rogers in the beginning of the book. He ends by saying that while the party has had to confront intraparty squabbling, and it looks like that will continue for quite some time, they at least share a common belief in economic and social justice and still are the party of the common man, though I think they have a lot of work to do to get back to that image.

I liked the book, but I found it very curious that Random House had to let a partisan liberal Democrat write the book on the Democrats, while allowing another partisan liberal Democrat write the book on the Republicans. (Further evidence of liberal bias in the publishing industry.)

It is interesting as well that the critical analysis ends with the middle of the twentieth century. From roughly 1930 on Party of the People is basically a puff-piece.

The problems with this book are threefold:

1. As has been pointed out by other reviewers, the author focusses almost all his attention on Democratic presidents and Democrats running for president. For a book that calls itself "The Party of the PEOPLE," the people are largely ignored.

2. There is a significant disproportionate amount of the book given over to more recent events than say those of the 19th century. Half of the book covers the years between FDR and Clinton.

3. Unfortunately the author does little to hide his own personal feelings about many politicians. It is very easy to see that he is an unabashed Democrat and while that is perfectly ok, when writing a historical piece, you do not want your own opinions/feelings to play a part. Clearly biased remarks (often snide or condescending in fact) are interjected dozens of times throughout the text. By the time the book gets to the last 30 years, it is no longer reading as a history, but rather as an opinion piece.

One also has to question the factual content. When (briefly) referring to the terrorist attack of 9/11, the author mentions that the planes departed from Boston (correct), and Washington (incorrect - the other airport was Newark). To allow such a glaring and recent error into a book that is supposed to be historically accurate has to call into question the accuracy of the rest of the volume.

I'm just one chapter into the book thusfar, but already I am irritated. If you want a surface level, what everyone thinks they know, knowledge of the Democratic Party, pick up this book.

As it has been mentioned, Witcover is not a historian, he is a political journalist. As such, his experience of putting his perspective in the best possible light is blindingly evident just from the treatment of Hamilton, Washington, Jefferson, and Madison. There is not one single instance of differing interpretations of the events, which are numerous.

Histories are allowed to contain bias, and personal opinion is inevitable, but to place opinions and skewed interpretations on level with fact is irresponsible, and frankly, not history.

If you are wanting to learn more about Americal political history, do yourself a favor and consult other sources (such as Origins of American Political Thought by John P. Roche; The Era of Good Feelings by George Dangerfield; The Jacksonian Era by Glyndon Van Deusen; The Impending Crisis by David M. Potter; etc.) If you want to learn what a biased 8th grade history book would tell you, get Part of the People.

I will post my full rating when I have completed this book.

It was very hard to put it down, I wanted to keep reading as it
was very interesting what length the Republicians will go to to
stay in office. Senator Daschle has really been put thru the mill, I admire him for his efforts in every way. It is really sad
that we can't accept each others opinions and get along. After all everyone has some good ideas and why can't they get together
and come to an agreement.