The United States of Ambition

by Alan Ehrenhalt

Book Overview

The acclaimed and provocative book that explains why America's politicians are continually disappointing. This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Hardcover
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0812918940
• ISBN13: 9780812918946
• Release Date: April 1991
• Publisher: Crown Publishing Group (NY)
• Length: 309 Pages
• Weight: 1.40 lbs.
• Dimensions: 1.3" x 6.6" x 9.5"

Customer Reviews

A fascinating analysis...

This book was written over fifteen years ago. I found it because a newspaper columnist quoted it. Although the examples cited in the book are now dated, it still provides a fascinating, valid analysis of the interplay between electorate interests and legislative actions, from local to national level. The book also describes the enormous changes, since about the 1970s, in how legislators come to be elected. And it touches on how these changes have often added to the disfunctionality of legislative bodies. Even if you read nothing else, don't miss Chapeter 13, "Self-nomination." Still accurate, and quite timely in this 2008 presidential primary season in which I write. Just a very fine book - interesting, well-written, and a must-read for anyone fascinated by politics.

The Professionalization of Political Life

The book is a good introduction to a larger topic that deserves a more thorough treatment than a single volume could do. It examines how and why the political process has devolved since the Republic was founded, and in so doing, sheds light on the Supreme Law, the Constitution, and the kind of country and citizenry it contemplated in its design. The key idea is that liberty and the rule of law depend ultimately on a certain kind of civic virtue. If that civic virtue fails, tyranny will prevail, and no written constitution can prevent it.To understand where we are today, we need to return to the way things worked with the country was founded, and the presumptions made about that by the design of the Constitution. The main thing was that almost all civic functions were performed not by government employees, but by amateur citizen volunteers. Most government that affected people's lives was local, and often consisted only of an elected county judge and an elected county sheriff, who often served only part-time and had other sources of income. Most decisions were made by town meetings and juries, and most law enforcement was conducted by militia, few if any of whom were paid.One might think that what happened then was that the demand and supply of civic functions increased to the point where it was no longer feasible to have the work done solely by unpaid volunteers, that the core of civic work needed to be done by full-time paid professionals. That is part of what happened, of course, beginning with downplaying of the militia and enlargement of the role of the standing military. But there is another factor that is often overlooked, and to understand it, we need to look at elections.Today it seems incredible, but in the early years of the Republic most candidates for public office won office without great expenditures of money or the need to raise the money to pay for the campaign. Most candidates had developed reputations in other fields, and had only to announce their candidacy, and make speeches. People would flock to hear those speeches, which were often fairly thoughtful and erudite, and newspaper reporters would transcribe and publish every word. People bought the newspapers that provided the most complete coverage of campaigns, and the most complete, accurate transcriptions.In those times, there was not even a /Congressional record/ of the proceedings of Congress. Newspapers sent reporters to record the proceedings, and published complete records for public sessions. The same was true of major trials, which were often reported verbatim. They could afford to do it because there was a demand for political information of all kinds.But that changed. First, newspapers became partisan, and their messages more predictable, and therefore, less interesting. At the same time, candidates began making speeches that were less policy analysis and more appeals to emotion, which also made them less interesting. People bought fewer newspapers filled with polit