Customer Reviews

William McKinley: The American Presidents Series: The 25th President, 1897-1901 (American Presidents (Times))

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(6)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

Phillips is a political commentator, not a historian or biographer. His goal with this book isn't to sketch in McKinley's life but to argue a thesis. His thesis is that McKinley was a important president, and the thing that makes him important is that he illustrates Phillips' career-making mega-theory about realignment politics. It's a campaign strategist's view of history.

Phillips doesn't seem to have consulted any primary sources at all. We get a lot of "he must have reflected" stuff, and assertions that McKinley deliberately wore a mask of conventionality, and that his blandness was a conscious strategy, etc., with no attempt to demonstrate the historical validity of any of it.

Still, there is some good stuff about Ohio's political centrality in the post-Civil War era, and a very good summary of the gold-silver debate, which was a matter of passionate interest in the 1880s and 1890s but is so baffling to modern Americans.

I have tremendously enjoyed the volumes that have appeared so far in Arthur Schlesinger Jr.'s The American Presidents, but this is the first volume to have appeared so far that managed to transcend the limitations inherent in a series such as this. Most of the other volumes consist of a chronological recounting of the relevant president's life and career, with some assessment of his significance and achievements. Kevin Phillips, in a comparable number of pages, manages to present a case for a complete revision of the popular understanding of William McKinley, our 25th President. Although many of McKinley's biographers have argued some of the same things that Phillips does here, he does so in a much more vigorous fashion.

The stereotype of McKinley is that he was a somewhat dimwitted puppet under the control of Big Business, a man of little imagination, no culture, and a nonprogressive who was eclipsed by the ascendance of Teddy Roosevelt following his assassination. Phillips, on the other hand, wants to argue that he was a self-confident reformer who masked his goals under a congenial exterior, possessed a highly cultivated knack for maneuvering others to his own position, was vastly more concerned with protecting laborers and wages than the desires of business, and laid the foundations for progressive reforms that he himself would have begun had his life not ended so suddenly. Phillips shows that McKinley's obsession with tariffs had little to do with a desire to reward the rich, but with a desire to increase the wages of American workers.

Though but lightly stated, much of Phillips's book is intended as a polemic against contemporary misuses of McKinley, such as Karl Rove, George W. Bush's chief aide. Many conservatives envision turning government back to a time before the unquestionably Progressive Roosevelt, to a mythical William McKinley who is assumed to share many of the values of contemporary supporters of Bush. Phillips shows over and over, however, that McKinley in fact shared almost no basic political goals or values with contemporary conservatives. Continually throughout the book, Phillips shows that McKinley had deep ties to labor, and was concerned with the needs of business primarily to the degree that healthy business meant higher wages for workers. He was quite sympathetic to organized labor, to a degree unusual in his time, and even the right of workers to strike. On the other hand, he, like all 19th century American presidents, found the accumulation of excessive amounts of wealth to be repugnant and a little obscene, hardly a quality he holds with contemporary conservatives. Even further destroying the parallels between current conservativism and McKinley, Phillips refers to McKinley's concerns with tax fairness, which did not mean lessening the tax burden on the wealthy and business, but the demand for a progressive tax structure that required those best off paying more than those less well off. McKinley's progressivism in the book comes out also in his strong support for women being given the right to vote, for blacks to be allow to vote unimpeded, and for senators to be voted by direct vote by the people, and not by selection by state legislatures.

Phillips notes that many give McKinley more credit for achievements in foreign policy, but brings the credit he deserves into sharper focus, noting that during the crisis with Spain he essentially took on the jobs of Secretary of State (due to the unexpected rapid aging of John Sherman) and Secretary of War.

Lest one imagine that these are all creative rereadings of McKinley's career based on playing lose with the facts, Phillips shows that the essential assessment he makes was borne out by the evaluations of the illustrious individuals who served in his cabinet. He also displays the causes for the unflattering portrait of McKinley that grew up after the onset of the New Deal.

One could easily disagree with much in the book, and nonetheless celebrate it for being a significant and spirited reevaluation of a significant American president. Nearly all the writers in this series have attempted to validate the claim that their subjects were underrated presidents (except Robert Remini, who though maintaining that John Quincy Adams is one of the great American public servants, concedes that he was a pretty dismal president), but Phillips wants to do more than that. In Schlesinger terminology, he wants to argue that he is a near great president, but on top of that has been horribly misunderstood in profound and important ways. Whether one agrees with his reassessment, this book performs a great service by dismantling a persistent but untenable stereotype. Of all the books in this series (I have read all but Garry Wills book on Madison), this one is by far the most invigorating one that I have read. The other volumes have deepened my knowledge of several of our presidents, but this one has actually changed my mind.

The previous reviewer is correct that Phillips has written an extended argument more than he has a traditional biography. But the argument is so cleverly advanced, and covers so much of McKinley's political life and presidency, that I found the book of compelling interest -- the best of the more than half-dozen biographies I've read in this wonderful The American Presidents series so far.

The core of Phillips's argument is that much of the credit given to Theodore Roosevelt properly belongs to his predecessor McKinley. In establishing a political realignment in 1896 based on both labor and urban-dweller votes, in greatly expanding America's world role, and in beginning the reforms to tilt the balance of economic power from capital to labor, McKinley either preceded Roosevelt, setting the pace for the latter's presidency, or outdid TR altogether.

Phillips's argument holds up fairly well, although some parts are better than others. He is very convincing in describing how McKinley created a political realignment in 1896 (and solidified it in 1900), but less so when discussing the importance of McKinley's rather circuitous route to protect labor against big capital.

Some of the most interesting parts of this book are its sidebars. Phillips should be commended for including short write-ups on the importance of Ohio to late-nineteenth century and early-twentieth century politics, as well as the importance of silver in that era. I even enjoyed the sections on McKinley and the tariff. This is not your typical biography, but its unusual approach is a strength, not a weakness.

This book about William Mckinley differs from most of the other entries in the American Presidents series in that there is less biographical information. Auhtor Kevin Phillips often cross references to other chapters of the book and he has points to make which he repeats several times over. His main point is that McKinley is a near great president and that history has overlooked him. He accomplished his political goals through his Ohio, middle American, lowkey style. Interestingly, Phillips devotes a fair amount of his analysis to Theodore Roosevelt's presidency since, to support his argument of McKinley's near greatness, he seeks to establish that TR's presidency was part of a McKinley/TR continuum. This thesis has both its strengths and weaknesses. The strength is that it shines much of the credit for TR's successes on intitiatives of the McKinley administration. The weakness is that it requires supposition, i.e., speculation that if McKinley had only lived, he would have accomplished what TR accomplished. I'm not sure "what ifs" are sufficient to secure a place in history. Of course, there were significant successes before NcKinley died, including the successful Spanish American war, the emergence of the United States as a world power, and economic initiatives which ended the depression that occured during Grover Cleveland's second administration. Adding to the argument of McKinley's near greatness is the fact that he was a popular president.

Phillips states that McKinley ushered in one of the few genuine party realignments in American history. Congress became more solidly Republican and remained so for the next generation. Furthermore, the Republican party made sufficient inroads as an urban party (a situation which would change dramatically during FDR's party realignment). In looking back at a prior string of Republican presidents (only broken up by Grover Cleveland)and at least occasional control of Congress, I think that Phillips may be overstating the strength of the realignment.

There is very little, in this book, about McKinley's early life. About all we know of his marriage is that he was devoted to his invalid wife. There is absolutely nothing (other than passing references) to his assasination. The political analysis is interesting and yes, Phillips does go into McKinley's personality, which was more genial and less bombastic than TR's, but ultimately, I ended up reading this book feeling that I did not know much about McKinley, the man. This is an interesting political biography of McKinley but, I would have liked to have gotten more of a flavor of who he really was.

The crux of Kevin Phillips' argument for elevating McKinley's legacy to the second tier of US Presidents is that McKinley was the architect of three major realignments. The first was in creating an enduring Republican populism, the second was in domestic economic reform, and the third was in America's role globally. Phillips explains that Teddy Roosevelt gets credit for much that is, upon objective hindsight, more appropriately due to McKinley. The prime examples of this are the Panama Canal, and trust-busting, which projects were set in motion well before TR's name became irrevocably integrated with them. If you accept that the McKinley cabinet which TR kept intact throughout his first term essentially carried out McKinley's policies, then TR's first term was essentially McKinley's second. Even the growth of the navy, for which TR gets so much credit, was possible only with the running start provided by McKinley. In point of fact, the case that Phillips makes would justify elevating McKinley to the first tier of US Presidents, but since some of that assessment rests on extrapolation, Phillips contents himself with a pitch for the second tier. In the process we learn a great deal about William Jennings Bryan, the gold standard and bimetalism, the economics of tarrifs, women's sufferage, the emerging political role of blacks, and the emerging essence of Republicanism. We see McKinley as a pensive and self-effacing builder of consensus, driving his brand of Midwestern populism with canny political acumen. So why is McKinley so misunderstood? Phillips makes the case that it is his modesty, his generosity, his willingness to compromise, and his focus on concrete outcomes rather than on political grandstanding, and particularly his fundamental desire to be liked which has been interpreted as weakness. Mr. Phillips writing is scholarly, and is supported by extensive footnotes and bibliography. He is himself an under-appreciated historian, whose earlier books, The Cousins' Wars, Wealth and Democracy, and The Emerging Republican Majority deserve more visibility. I unequivocably endorse this book, and I second Mr. Phillips' motion for a taller pedestal for William McKinley.

I was very disappointed by this book. As someone who didn't know much about McKinley, I read it with the aim of finding out all the basics about him - who he was, what he did, how he died. Yet after reading it I feel like I know little more than before.

The entire book seems to be written as a rebuttal of other biographers' lackluster opinions of McKinley. Liberally interspersed throughout the narrative are refutations of supposedly popular beliefs about McKinley, from his education to his influence on his successor, Teddy Roosevelt. This would probably appeal to someone who has read several books on the topic, but it is a strange pick for the American Presidents series, which should be a basic primer for the uninitiated. The book says little about what specifics McKinley accomplished in his presidency, says little about the Spanish American War, and says nothing about his assassination, except for where it happened. I feel like I now have to go and look him up on Wikipedia to find the information that was not included in this book. If you are not already quite familiar with the topic, I'd recommend reading something else on the subject first.

I have read 18 of the books in this series, and this one is by far the least satisfying. Most of the other volumes maintain a balance between the personal life of the president, and his administration and policies. Phillips leans so heavily in the latter direction that I hardly felt I knew anything about the man himself. And can you imagine a book about an assassinated president that contains NO ACCOUNT of the actual crime, and not even a mention of the assassin? Phillips was too busy trying to raise McKinley's sagging reputation (especially in relation to his successor, TR) to give us more details about his life, family, and untimely death. I learned a lot about tariffs, the gold standard, and our relationship with Britain, but not much about McKinley.

This is yet another entry into The American Presidents series of brief biographies, under the general editorship of Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. One of the more intriguing facets of this series is the sometime use of eminent authors. Here, Kevin Phillips, a political commentator who once projected a Republican majority, writes an interesting work on McKinley, to some extent a political essay as much as a biography. His contention is that McKinley was one of the few really top notch presidents from Lincoln's assassination to FDR's service.

The book argues that McKinley's rise in politics--from the Ohio state political world to president--was largely self-orchestrated. That he took control over his political ambitions (and was not a mere puppet of Mark Hanna, his key political operative later in his political career).

Earlier in the book, his family background is described as is his solid service in the Union Army during the Civil War (indeed, he served with Rutherford Hayes, another American president--and another Ohioan).

As his political career developed, Phillips argues that his political views were more "enlightened," for want of a better term, than many of his Republican peers. He had some sympathy and provided some support for workers; he seemed to have recognized the value of blacks and women having political rights; he exhibited a much more nuanced view of tariffs than standard pro-capitalist Republicans.

When he became president there was one new aspect to his administration--no owing political bosses Cabinet positions and so on; some predecessors were hamstrung by deals made with party leaders in order to gain the office. His defeat of Bryan in the critical 1896 election helped realign politics. Phillips argues that there was another realignment--of America's international role after 1896, presided over by McKinley.

All in all, an interesting take on McKinley as a person and as president. I think that Phillips does make a case that McKinley, while not a great president, might well be ranked as near great. One can be critical of McKinley's imperialism, illustrated by the Philippines and Hawaii. But he laid the groundwork for Teddy Roosevelt's presidency (indeed, Phillips says that Roosevelt's presidency needs to be coupled with McKinley's for something like a McKinley-Roosevelt extended administration from 1897-1909). At any rate, a useful short biography of William McKinley. A strong addition to the series.

Kevin Phillips has, over the years, made some terrific contributions to the American political discourse. While there is something to be said in his approach to William McKinley, this offering is more of an attempt to raise our 25th president's stature in comparison to other presidents.

Ratings of U. S. presidents have more or less evened out over decades but William McKinley hasn't fared too well. Phillips tends to explain McKinley's kindness, piety and duty to his invalid wife as excuses for weakness as seen by others, meanwhile promoting the realignment of the political landscape of 1896 and the GOP successes that occurred in following years as a direct result of McKinley's skill and ingenuity. That's a stretch. While President McKinley had some notable successes he was also the product of a lot of luck. The depression of the 1890s and the highly unsuccessful candidacy of William Jennings Bryan created a perfect storm for his elevation to the presidency and the quick victory in the Spanish-American War helped promote his popularity.

A near great president as Phillips suggests? I don't think McKinley qualifies. However, he was a hinge president in the sense that American life began to turn towards prosperity in the industrial age during his tenure in the White House as Americans entered the twentieth century. That McKinley did not survive to see the end of his second term will always keep the door open on his legacy.

This love letter to McKinley is not a particularly detailed personal biography; for example, it completely omits all details of his assassination. Rather, it seeks to rehabilitate McKinley the politician- to show his ability and his political instincts. McKinley was kind of an American equivalent of a British "one Nation Tory", seeking to reconcile the competing forces of capital and labor.

Phillips is best at discussing the 1896 realignment. Before 1896, the Republican and Democratic parties competed on an almost equal footing; although most Presidents were Republicans, elections were razor-tight, and Republicans typically lost control of Congress in midterm elections. Republican dominance of the rural North and West was balanced closely against Democratic dominance of big cities.

But McKinley's substantial 1896 victory was the first of four substantial Republican victories in a row. Democratic nominee Williams Jennings Bryan, a populist, evangelical Protestant, won the WASP-heavy southern and western states that form today's Republican base; by my count, 16 out of 22 Bryan states voted for McCain this year. By contrast, McKinley was the candidate of multicultural America, clobbering Bryan in immigrant-heavy areas and in the urban, industrial Northeast. For example, in the previous election (1892) the Republican nominee got 51% in Massachusetts. McKinley turned that narrow edge into a 69% landslide. Phillips elaborates on this shift by addressing county-by-county detail (though not as much detail as I would have liked; I would have preferred lots and lots of charts!) However, Phillips doesn't (and maybe can't) answer one key question: was this realignment the result of McKinley's strength or of Bryan's weaknesses?

Phillips also discusses McKinley's economic views. He seeks to show that McKinley was basically a moderate progressive, favoring corporate capitalism but also favoring generous treatment of labor, a moderately expansive monetary supply, and gradual reduction of protective tariffs (then an issue dividing pro-tariff Republicans from anti-tariff Democrats). However, a better analysis would have shown in more detail where McKinley disagreed with more conservative Republicans.

I liked Phillips' discussion of the 1896 depression. The basic problem was this: the U.S. was laboring under the gold standard, which (because gold was scarce) caused a tightening of the money supply and thus the depression. Bryan sought to inflate the money supply by using silver coins as well as gold. But this proved unnecessary after McKinley's election, when new overseas discoveries of gold made gold cheaper and thus allowed the money supply to rise by 80 perecent without any major policy changes. This fact suggests (contrary to Phillips's analysis) that McKinley was more lucky than good.

Phillips also discusses foreign affairs, pointing out that the Spanish-American war was the beginning of America's rise as an overseas power- but it may still be too early to tell whether this is a good thing.