|
The one star is for AMAZON and/or the publisher for recently doubling the price of this book.Being a good book worthy of reading I placed this in my wish list only to discover that the price had nearly doubled. I was presented with the following when logging on to Amazon today. "the price of Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism (American Intellectual Culture) has increased from $17.37 to $30.17 since you placed it in your Shopping Cart."
He let Mr Wilson do that. It is not my place, or even my intent, to psycho-analyse Woodrow Wilson, all dead as he is (though so doing is the province of many writers, to-day), but what leaps out at one is the ineluctable fact that Wilson, almost from the cradle, was burthened with a large and inconvenient ego which kept him from using his not inconsiderable intellectual gifts as wisely and fruitfully as he might otherwise have done. Conservatives, on the other hand - those who love the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and appreciate liberty - might do well to learn from him, however much they may yearn to see him hanged, for if one knows the plans of one's foes one is far better equipped to foil them.Five stars are all that are allowed; I would give ten, and more if asked.Now, I shall doubtless meander a good deal, in this review, for I am old and a fool, and rambling is one of the compensations God grants old fools. This was not uncommon in Wilson's time, amongst those with pretensions to intellectuality. Progressives owe Dr Wilson an immense debt of gratitude, and should erect a statue in his honour. If they did not agree, with appropriate shouts and gestures, the Leader would give it them anyway, cramming it down their throats if need be. The People were sovereign and all-knowing, perhaps, but at the same time did not know their own will, what was Good For Them, the Greatest Good for the Greatest Number, so wanted a Leader, a Great Orator, who would with bombast and bull-dust tell them what they wanted.
He does allude to the animosity between Wilson and Roosevelt I, two men who shared many common views, and were each convinced, probably correctly, that the other was a knave. Poor Taft is hardly mentioned; he is but a cipher, anyway, caught between two such caperers on the stage of American politics.Highly recommended, if you care for such things, and don't mind drawing conclusions from evidence.And now I must apologise for rabbiting on so, though you were warned. D. They are mostly Scholars, when they are not Politicians pilfering from his political philosophy.as many, I warrant, as there are men who excoriate him as a Scoundrel or a Socialist or some other form of bad man. For the Leader, and the Leader alone, knows this will: the will of his omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient Juju, HISTORY, the Spirit of the Age, and lo.
for he pays us the immense compliment of acknowledging that we might indeed possess the blessing of ratiocination. (Johns Hopkins). He merely states that it is, and shows how it came to be in these States, largely due to the efforts of one Thomas Woodrow Wilson, Ph. There are men, even down to our time, who admire Woodrow Wilson extravagantly, and extol him as a True Visionary. Nor did he declare judgment upon Dr Wilson. K. Wilson could and often did contradict himself in the same sentence.
All his writings and pronunciamentos might well be summarized in thios wise: `I believe (or feel; there is the sense of feeling rather than thinking in much of what he wrote) that Thus-and-such is so, and since I know myself to be wise beyond the measure of men, it is indeed and in very deed So, the facts be damned, and I shall avaunt banner and lead the masses to the Truth.or force them if they will not follow.and the facts be damned.'Dr Wilson, we are told, was shocked. Dr Pestritto did not meander. He much admired Bismarck and the Prussian system, as shown by his advocacy of a vast, permanent, life-tenured, nameless, faceless bureaucracy through which the people are to be ruled; he followed Hegel as closely as he might.and lapped up the other German philosophers as a cat laps milk. Whatever your political preferences, and mine will become increasingly obvious as you read this review, you will learn from this volume how Dr Wilson's largely derivative political thought evolved, and how he influenced `progressive' politicians amongst his contemporaries, and continues so to do until this very now. If he had ever heard of Keyserling's `Führerprinzip' he would have swallowed it whole, and with loud whoops. The title of the book tells all: Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism.
Well, there's none of us perfect.Dr Pestritto wisely ends his exposition of the Woodrovian thought in 1912, and delves not into his subject's reign as President. He may have had many virtues, but he lacked two of the chiefest: humility and common sense. Wilson referred often to `the People' - almost as often as he referred to `the force of History' - but it would seem he knew nothing of the former, and precious little of the latter.As to the People, they exist only to be ruled by the State; the State is there to to rule them as shall be determined by the Leader; the Leader is there to see that it happens. So few scholars, specially Historians, do so: they are always, in volumes of a thousand pages, telling us what really happened, what X really meant, and what we ought to believe about it all if we were but be as seeming wise and virtuous as they.By compiling citations from Wilson's writings, and arranging them by broad subjects, Dr Pestritto does us all a service, not the least in sparing us from having to read all that stuff ourselves. Out of his own mouth, or from his own pen, does Wilson beatify or damn himself.
- shocked. Then there are those like unto Dr Pestritto, who allow Dr Wilson or his shade to speak for himself, and thus leaving us, the readers, to draw our own conclusions. It is not Dr P's desire or intent to pass judgment on Dr W's cogitations or the value of them; all he does is track their evolution, and convolutions, and how they grew and bore something akin to fruit. What appealed most to Wilson, it seems, was the order and conformity of the Hegelian state, a state supreme over its subjects, which was assumed to represent the `popular will'. Nor does he say that it is a bad thing. If he was a scoundrel, he was a derivative scoundrel, and invented no new scoundrelry himself. Hurrah, then, for Dr P.
Chesterton called `Cheat the Prophet'. Dr Pestritto does not say that `Liberalism is a good thing'. it had been given to St Woodrow to discover and translate the golden tablets of this deity, and interpret them for the less fortunate. A few moments' clear thinking would have sufficed to show that History has the exasperating habit of seeming to go all in one direction just long enough to fool us into thinking we can figure out where it is going, then swerving off in a new and unexpected direction.the trick G. Wilson, it would appear, never had an original idea.
Or so he maintained when plumping for a system modeled upon the British Parliament, In so stating, Dr Wilson did not penetrate anything the cow could not have penetrated, nor did he discover the heart of a secret hidden away since the beginnings of the world; he merely stated the obvious, or what any sane man in possession of his five wits and seven senses could have stated, and better, namely: He who purports to rule us will lie when he can get away with it, mislead when the opportunity arises, and always act in direct opposition to his proclaimed word. At least it was to Wilson's credit that he made public, or as public as the writings of a deservedly obscure academic manqué could be, his findings, and offered a sort of answer.To deal with the evolution of Wilson's political views, as outlined by Dr Pestritto, is illuminating as a lesson for our times. It is interesting to note that as an hundred years ago, so to-day: that those who would rule us have taken to calling themselves `progressive' rather than `liberal'; as the latter has become a term of opprobrium, whilst `progress' is still thought of as a Good Thing though toward what we are progressing is left undefined. A whole separate volume would be needed, and perhaps one day we shall have one. What emerges is a portrait of Woodrow as Woodrow probably saw himself, if the warts be left out of the image in the mirror. - to find that Congress was corrupt and conniving; that laws were not made in open debate, but in secret and probably smoke-filled committee-rooms.
And if ever a prophet were cheated, it is poor Woodrow. I do hope you were entertained and perhaps edified by my remarks.
Ronald Pestritto`s book goes a long way in informing his readers concerning the actual nature of progressivism and how it figured prominently in Wilson`s thought, and he does this in a mature, dispassionate fashion without recourse to snide asides or petulant rants. DrEwgog (Croton NY)At a dinner recently, after mislabeling me in a dismissive fashion, an old adversary went on to describe his own position as "progressive." His audience responded to the word as if it conjured lullabies about puppies and colored ribbons. They had absolutely no concept of what is meant by the word, no notion of how the adherents of this movement have damaged and continue to threaten the liberty most of us cherish. While this book is a well-documented scholarly work, it remains eminently readable. I think you will find it well worth your time and money.
$29.13 for a Kindle version(which is the only versions I buy) is ridiculous for a hard bound copy that sells for $36.95. I would buy this book in a second if the Kindle price was half the hard copy price.
In other words, it can be tiresome and dry reading. In addition, Wilson was also a strong centralizer who believed in empowering administrative bureaucracies while keeping them insulated from the dirtiness of elected politics.
He was also the only president we've had so far who was a career academic before becoming a politician. Love him or hate him (for me it's definitely the latter), Woodrow Wilson is an extremely important figure in American history.
Pestritto looks at that scholarly work in an effort to better understand Wilson's thinking as well as, by extension, the thought of the Progressive movement, of which Wilson became a leading light.In short, Pestritto portrays Wilson as a `historicist' who believed that institutions and constitutions should evolve with the times, and that it was up to skilled elite leaders to make sure their government was in step with the spirit of the age and embodied some mystical `general will.' By rejecting a constant, universal view of liberty or natural rights or human nature, Wilson was in direct contrast to the American founders. He's the only president who has held a PhD (Wilson's was in political science), and was a professor and university president before becoming Governor of New Jersey and, just a few years later, president.
So in contrast to other presidents, Wilson left us a large body of academic books, essays, and lectures which provide a detailed window into his ideology.In this book, R.J. Last, he was contemptuous of those who wanted to use the constitution to thwart the exercise of power.Be forewarned - this is very much an academic work of intellectual history.
But it's important, not only to understand Wilson and the original, turn-of-the-twentieth century Progressive movement, but also to understand the intellectual and political foundations of today's Progressives, too.
|
