Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
5 of 5 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
The Peoples Party, October 27, 2004
Most people normally read non-fiction books that interest them and if the topic of the book is the history of one political party, I would bet the reader is almost always sympathetic, if not a strong supporter, of the party the book is written about. I fall into that category so I know that I come to this review with a bit of bias toward the book. Given that I am interested in the topic and consider myself a Democrat, you would probably assume that any review of write will just be full of glowing rubber stamp comments in support of the book. You are not that far off. I did really enjoy this book. Lets face it, a coffee table book is meant to be showy, engaging and full of attractive and interesting pictures. This book fits that bill, but it was more then just 8 by 10 glossies of party men. The book has a solid overall history of the Democratic party to start with and a nice running commentary of each 20 year period of the twentieth century.
I guess what I liked most is what the book set out to deliver, which is a nice collection of positive and dramatic pictures that tell the story of the Democratic party. Or at least the story a proud Democrat would want to tell. Overall the authors did a great job of presenting the subjects in the best light possible, they even have some flattering pictures of Jimmy Carter. I do not think you could use this book at a single history of the Democratic party, but it would be a nice start, if not a bit overly positive - the authors do not go out of their way to present the bits that most Democrats would rather forget. One bit of bias on my part is that I preferred the pictures once the book got into the JFK years and color photography came into fashion. I enjoyed the book and will find myself flipping through the pages every not and them for years to come. If you are interested in the Democratic Party then I think you will enjoy this book.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.0 out of 5 stars
A nice little pictoral history., December 22, 2009
Unlike the previous reader, I consider myself a Republican. I wanted to get to know the opposition a little better, and thought this a great book. One hears of the two perennial losers-William Jennings Bryant and Adlai Stevenson. One also hears of the greats like Jackson, Jefferson, FDR, and Truman. One picture in the book intrigued me and that was one with Truman on in a background of Abe Lincoln. Both parties try to seize the heroes of the other party. Republicans emphasizing FDR and Truman, while Dems emphasizing Lincoln. There are a lot of good pictures in this book, and some summary history.
This is a great summary read about the Democratic Party. The pictures are nice, and the history is OK.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.0 out of 5 stars
"The greatest difference between the two parties lies in the fact that they back different people,not different ideas,for office, January 8, 2008
A very opportune book to read as the Primaries are just underway for the 2008 Election.
One might think it odd that the only two reviews to date on this book are from Canada. One of our past Prime Ministers once said something to the effect that one has to pay attention when he sleeps next to an elephant. There is no doubt that things are more impacted in Canada by what happens in the United States (Washington) than by anything that happens here(Ottawa). American politics is followed here,probably more than Canadian. Most Canadians prefer one party over the other and since Canada leans much further to the left,liberal and socialist;they tend to favor the Democrats over the Republicans. Our talk shows,news,papers ,etc,are filled with US politics these days. Most Americans would find it strange to hear Canadians debating American issues as if they think they have a deeper understanding of them than the Americans.I have often asked them what they would think of Californians,New Yorkers,or Texans discussing Canadian political questions like Bilingualism or Quebec separation. There response is that we know all about America,they know nothing about us. I lived in New Jersey for five years,and at the time there was a Federal Election. We hadn't heard any results ,so we called W.O R. New York to see if they had any news. "Just a minute,I'll check." A few minutes he came back with,"The Federalists Won".But we don't have a "Federalist Party";--he meant the Liberals. The point is, that it makes a whole lot more difference to Canadians what happens in the US;than it matters to Americans what happens in Canada.Kind of like what Jean Shepherd used to say on his Radio program from New York."When you leave New
York,you're out of town;no matter where you go."
Now,back to he book. It does an excellent job of tracing the history of the Democratic party,even though it weighs heavily on a Democratic point of view. Any of the dirty laundry is glossed over and there is nothing good or even important covered that the Repumlicans did. That is to be expected;and maybe a similar book on the Republican Party would make a good companion to it.
If you are interestwed in politics,and have been for many years you will find many memorable events covered, accompanied with wonderful and different photographs.You will be impressed how quickly,the people on center stage in politics,quickly fade away,once the elections are over.
What this book also brings to light is how much the agendae of the parties change over time and in many cases get totally reversed.Believe it or not,small government,low taxes,self reliance,segregation,were all once hallmarks of the Democrats.
Because the Democratic Party has been home to a much greater diverse group of factions,they by necesity seem to struggle more amongst themselves than with the opposition party. It's mentioned in the book that Democrats tend not to see the Republicans as an opposition party,nor even an alternative point of view. They are "the enemy",nothing more,nothing less. That is why,and not to be unexpected "Hate Bush" is their war cry these days,and ever since a few months after 9/11.
We all can remember the days when the radical right had hatred for JFK ,largely because he was catholic,but it was never as prevalent throughout the party as the hatred for Bush,and that is because of only one thing ,being one thing;hr's Republician or "the enemy."
There is one photo in this book that is very puzzling to me. On page 277 there is a photo of JFK in the motorcade in Dallas on November22,1963. The caption reads,",and in an open limousine with Governor Connally and his wife,JFK and Jackie led the motorcade into downtown Dallas,waving to applauding crowds(above). Sniper fire rang out a few moments later,killing the president and seriously wounding Governor Connally." The only problem with this photo is that Connally is sitting in the back seat alongside JFK and not in the seat directly ahead of the President.In the photo we see Jackie sitting ahead of Connally instead of beside JFK.Obviously,the photo doesn't lie,but these people could not have changed positions""moments before.
A very interesting and timely read if you can get it.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Adam I. P. Smith
