|
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Don't believe the hype, April 29, 2002
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!
|