Our Divided Political Heart: The Battle for the American Idea in an Age of Discontent

The only reason this book received a mediocre rating was that it was repetitive, and its brute force approach to proving a point thro This book contains valuable and copious information on the political history of the United States. The only reason this book received a mediocre rating was that it was repetitive, and its brute force approach to proving a point through information overload was suffocating for large chunks of the text.

It seemed to me, initially, that the book was intended for a lay audience, but I quickly realized that it is actually better suited for an academic conversation; how many -isms can an average person take?? I see it as a relatively concise book of references indexed by key debates in U. Still, I found the book useful in elucidating several historical events. The author was at his best when explaining the ideology and origin of the Tea Party movement, especially with respect to the right's dissatisfaction with Bush 43's "compassionate conservatism. It was less interesting when the author delved into the gritty details of s politics.

Further, I wish he had problematized the term "community" a bit more--it's romantic to say that the Founders were duly invested in community, but one has to acknowledge that most of the population was excluded from the "community.

1. Our Divided Political Heart: The Battle for the American Idea in an Age of Discontent;
2. .
3. Songs For A Blind Date: Josephine Burden?
4. Psychopath (Crimescape Book 9).
5. Die letzte Wahrheit: Roman (German Edition).

People might feel that they are their brother's keepers, but the altruism of that sentiment depends on how they define "brother. However, unless voters hold their representatives accountable to those facts, why would politicians bother with a truthful account of U. If rational, balanced thought ultimately loses in the marketplace of ideas for America's future, E. Dionne's disappointing "Our Divided Political Heart" may serve as an object lesson into why.

Dionne confronts the passion and the historical fiction excesses of the Tea Party and recent conservative radicalism with such a cool, emotionally inert equanimity that one's nodding agreement quickly turns into nodding off. Dionne's central frame -- that we Americans have been struggling with the twin If rational, balanced thought ultimately loses in the marketplace of ideas for America's future, E. Dionne's central frame -- that we Americans have been struggling with the twin Angels of individuality and community since before our founding -- is not only accurate but is also the font of our unique strength.

The historical antecedent to the current Tea Party period is not, as they would enshrine, our revolutionary period but rather the 30 year aberration of high-individualism and robber-barons know as the Guilded Age that ended in the early 's during the presidency of Republican Teddy Roosevelt.

Dionne says all the right things, but in such a pedantic and erudite-to-the-point-of-obfuscation manner that the reader is left either to assume that no winning idea would be this obtuse or that community could never match the red meat entertainment of conservatism: Mencken, who observed the balance-seeking nature of the american electorate when they abandoned the Democrats of Wilson to embrace the Republicans of Warren G.

I like reading Mr. It is a well-written discourse on what is happening at this moment in our history. I enjoyed his reading of history and what really happened versus some peoples interpretations of what happened. He likes to call himself a Communitarian liberal, which means his views revolve around the community in a liberal sense. Although written by a liberal, I felt that he gave equal time to many political beliefs. He made an interesting point about George W. President Bush had pushed for a compassionate conservative party.

I enjoyed this book and the views expressed in it. I will continue to read Mr. Jul 20, Karen Kolus rated it really liked it. It was super hard with long, complex sentences and lots of history I didn't really learn. Anyway it does explain that the root of our dilemma partially rests with Glen Beck and his incorrect portrayal of American history -- easy to read and sensational.

Dionne also points a finger at the Tea Party's inaccurate understanding of the philosophy of our founding fathers and the framers of the Constitution. The Tea Party's philosophy of a hands off government hearkens back to the Gilded Age, and not to the ideals of the framers of the Constitution who were looking to create a strong central government. Dionne talks about a baffling current form of populism that defends the elite. He also says that conservatives currently support radical individualism as was popular during the Gilded Age and not individualism balanced by communitarianism as our founding fathers did.

The Battle for the American Idea in an Age of Discontent

Dionne points out that some periods of radical individualism were followed by financial instability and then a turning to communitarianism as the economy strengthened. Jul 22, Katie rated it it was amazing Shelves: Dionne does an outstanding job of debunking the myth of America's rugged individualist past. While he readily acknowledges the individualist inclinations of Americans from our founding to the present, he interweaves that element of our history with its important balance: Dionne's overarching the Dionne does an outstanding job of debunking the myth of America's rugged individualist past.

Dionne's overarching thesis is that these two principles--individuality and community--have shaped our nation and culture, and that we should resist the extreme forces of individuality dragging us away from our traditions in the 21st Century the Tea Party. Dionne's writing is superb. He approaches the topic with a compelling narrative style that makes it easy to simply dive into the book. May 15, Judy Alter marked it as to-read.

Interested in this because it is praised as a truly bipartisan look at the deep political divisions in this country and a plea for a return to what the author calls the "Long Concensus," a period that covers most of the 20th Century in which Americans balanced two core values--love of individualism and love of community. Jun 10, Savannah Williams rated it liked it Shelves: I do wish he would write a whole book about the Tea Party and how they get history wrong.

That was the main thing I took away from this book. I'm an advanced reader and had issues soaking up the words off the page. I plan on tackling this book again here soon and I still recommend it. Dionne has always been a favorite of mine. Jun 07, Monte Lamb rated it it was ok Shelves: I liked the premise of this book and the historical thread that supports it. I tend to agree with most of the author's ideas. However, I found the book difficult to get into.

It seemed to slow for me and I am not sure why. It is useful material, but I would have found it to be just as useful if I had skimmed it. Jul 23, Tim rated it it was amazing.

Dionne exploration of how American's disagree politically is fascinating. He focuses on how different interpretations of history impact the story of America today. He elegantly argues against the Tea Party and deconstructs their created history of the U. A really great read for political and history buffs! Aug 14, David Chou rated it it was ok Shelves: A doggedly rigorous critique of our pliant political leanings which meanders through a slew of tepid anecdotes.

It struggles to hold the casual reader's interest and blessedly closes with a succinct appeal to embracing the community spirit. Oct 08, Steve rated it really liked it. The difference between E. Dionne and myself is that when explaining our divided political heart, he is extremely intelligent while I am a basket case.

This book went a long way to help me put things in perspective. Read my review of E. Jun 17, David Mcphee marked it as to-read. Using the first word in the US Constituion "We" and how today the US political culture has brutally diminished this defining chacteristic of what made the country such a powerful force for freedon, social and economic progress globally. I look forward to reading it. Sep 23, Cynthia rated it it was amazing.

I came back to the US after 30 years abroad and found myself utterly mystified by the assumptions and attitudes in economics and politics. Dionne explained so much. I may go back and read it again. Sep 20, Aaron Bouw rated it liked it.

About Our Divided Political Heart

Interesting take on the importance of traditional American individualism vs the need for a stronger sense of sacrifice for the community and society as a whole. Written from the perspective of a progressive. Then came the devastation of the worst financial crisis in eighty years. This was happening as not just China but also India and Brazil were widely seen as challenging American preeminence. Obama's campaign was well calibrated to respond to the nation's longing for reassurance.

Consider the emphasis in his posters featuring the "Hope" and "Change we can believe in" slogans. Whether by design or luck, the words hope and believe were pointed responses to a spiritual crisis engendered by fears of lost supremacy.

• Croc-Blanc (French Edition);
• ReadThisPlease Volume 2 Edition 7 (Read This Please).
• Forced Perspective.
• ;
• Tormenta de fuego. Bombardeo estratégico en la Segunda Guerra Mundial (Spanish Edition)!

They help explain why the Obama campaign so often felt like a religious crusade. Still, the election of a young, bold, and uplifting president so different in background from all of our earlier leaders — and so different in temperament from his immediate predecessor — was not an elixir. Obama alone could not instantly cure what ailed us or heal all of our wounds. The difficulty in producing a sustainable economic upturn even if the hopes for a miraculous recovery were always unrealistic only deepened the nation's sense that something was badly wrong. Obama himself could not fully grasp the opportunity the sense of crisis presented, and he failed, particularly in the first part of his term, to understand how the depth of the nation's political polarization would inevitably foil his pledge to bring the country together across the lines of party and ideology.

The same fears of decline that bolstered his campaign quickly gave force to a rebellion on the right that looked back to the nation's Revolutionary origins in calling itself the Tea Party. Embracing the Tea Party, Republicans swept to victory in the elections, seizing control of the House and expanding their blocking power in the Senate. Whatever Obama was for, whatever he undertook, whatever he proposed — all of it was seen as undermining traditional American liberties and moving the country toward some ill-defined socialism.

Whatever else they did, Republicans would make sure they prevented Obama from accomplishing anything more. Over and over, they vowed to make him a one-term president. The result was an ugliness in Washington typified by the debilitating debt ceiling fight in the summer of It fed a worldwide sense that the United States could no longer govern itself. Late in Obama's term, the Occupy Wall Street movement rose up in rebellion against abuses in the financial world that had caused the meltdown. The new wave of protest focused the country's attention on the extent to which the nation's economic gains over the previous three decades had been concentrated among the very wealthiest Americans — the top 1 percent of earners, and especially the top sliver of that 1 percent.

Decline was not simply an abstract fear; many Americans sensed its effects in their own lives. This book is an effort to make sense of our current political unhappiness, to offer an explanation for why divisions in our politics run so deep, and to reflect on why we are arguing so much about our nation's history and what it means. I believe that Americans are more frustrated with politics and with ourselves than we have to be, more fearful of national decline than our actual position in the world or our difficulties would justify, and less confident than our history suggests we should be.

The American past provides us with the resources we need to move beyond a lost decade and the anger that seems to engulf us all. But Americans are right to sense that the country confronts a time of decision. We are right to feel that that the old ways of compromise have become irrelevant to the way we govern ourselves now. We are right to feel that traditional paths to upward mobility have been blocked, that inequalities have grown, and that the old social contract — written in the wake of World War II and based on shared prosperity — has been torn up.

Musty bromides about centrism and moderation will do nothing to quell our anxieties and our fears.

At moments of this sort, bookshelves and reading devices quickly fill with political cookbooks and repair kits. They offer recipes for national renewal and carefully wrought step-by-step suggestions for national renovation. Many of these offerings are thoughtful and well conceived.