Too often the New Deal is portrayed as one coherent plan FDR and his administration had for getting the United States out of the depression. The End of Reform is a wonderful correction of this historical myth. Not only did FDR and his advisors have no set plan going in, much of what was accomplished reprisented compromises and backroom political dealing. Brinkley most interestingly details the indecision and political rangling in the FDR White House and with Congress after the beginning of the 1937 recession. Brinkley proves that really FDR didn't know what to do after the beginning of the recession and also after his National Industrial Recovery Act was declared unconstitutional. He also conclusively proves that much of the 1937 recession can be attributed to FDR's agreement with conservative Democrats to balance the budget which resulted in many cuts in social spending.
Also an interesting aspect not discussed in many other books concerns FDR's response to domestic issues after Pearl Harbor. After the beginning of WW II FDR all but ignored domestic issues, largely sitting silent as Congress rolled back many pre-war New Deal reforms. His discussion of the attitude of many people inside the adminsitration wanting to turn to more of a socialist economy with Federal intervention is also quite good.
With so many high school history courses and textbooks portraying the New Deal as a coherent plan that FDR and his advisors knew would bring the US out of the depression.

The title of this book refers to 2 famous volumes on related topics, Richard Hofstader's The Age of Reform and Theodore Lowi's The End of Liberalism. Hofstader covered the period of reforming politics from the late 19th century to FDR and Lowi analyzed the more recent disintegration of post-war liberalism. Brinkley aims to complete a trilogy of works by characterizing how the policies and political thought of the FDR period and its immediate successors became the liberal orthodoxy. Brinkley takes pains to demonstrate that the essential feature of this orthodoxy was an attempt to rescue capitalism from its irrationalities and excesses. Rather than a disguised socialist attack on the free market, as claimed hysterically by many contemporaries, the Roosevelt administrations attempted to build up a regulatory and social meliorist framework that would preserve the essential features of capitalism. This was accompanied by an interest in Keynesian macroeconomic management rather than more direct government interventions. In these respects, Brinkley distinguishes this triumphant form of liberalism from prior generations of reformers who were more skeptical of the claims of capitalim. To Brinkley, liberalism represents an interesting hybrid dedicated to taming both capitalism and radical attacks on capitalism. This book is documented well and written gracefully. Brinkley's basic thesis rings true and this book is a worthy successor to Hofstader's The Age of Reform, high praise indeed. One curious aspect is that Brinkley seems nostalgic for the earlier, and more radical (at least in principle)age of reformers. He implicitly criticizes the liberal founders and their successors for their failure to promote or discuss alternatives to capitalism. I am curious as to how he would pursue this project.

From the changes in assumptions of economists to the conception of today's miltary-industrial complex, Alan Brinkley explains in this one volume clearly and concisely what so many other authors of multi-volume tomes try but never quite put their thumb on.

These 17 essays are wonderful when read individually. All are elouqent and insightful (as you would expect from Brinkley), especially the biographical ones such as "The Passions of Oral Roberts", "Robert Penn Warren, T. Harry Williams, and Huey Long," and "The Rise of Franklin Roosevelt." "Icons of the American Establishment" features a wonderful biography of Henry Stimson and readers will enjoy the chapters about Allard Lowenstein and Richard Hofstader.

Nonetheless, readers should be aware that most of this material is not new, as Brinkley explicity states in the introduction. Most of these essays have been published before in one form or another

This is a great book, with a lot of nice historical information. I particularly enjoyed seeing and reading the different NY Times headlines and articles pertaining to the election results or throughout the campaign.

There is a wonderful blend of pictures, articles and commentaries by the authors. One thing I wish I saw more of was pictures of the actual political memorabilia used throughout the campaigns. It would have made the book stronger. Nevertheless it is a great book with very resourceful and interesting information.

A great book for any reader from a college student studying the political process to an avid historian to a collector of newspapers or americana.

While in todays political climate of extremes -wherein books celebrating America can actually cause contreversy- it is refreshing to read a collection of essays defending the constitution. Yes, I was excited when I read this collection, but the further I went, the more something just didn't feel right.

I came away convinced that the authors should have subtitled their collection "apologia for the constitution" as every essay (save for one on campaign finance), no matter if it was on the two party system, amending the constitution or state vs. federal pwer, always reached the same conclusion - "It's perfect the way it is. Don't change a thing, really!" Not only that, but it felt to me like the reasoning used was simply an instrument for arrival at this desired conclusion. In other words, the essays crossed the line from polemic to propoganda. A few examples:

In an essay written to convince us that a two-party system is the most democratic of all, the author gives one sole reason. Only in a two party system can a candidate be elected by over 50% - hence, a majority. The more parties, the more you divide the vote. Why does this seem like a strange argument? Because most people don't vote anyhow and there's much reason to believe that it is BECAUSE of the lack of choice casued by that system. (When we do the math, G.W. Bush garnered maybe 30% of all possible votes as many people didn't cast any vote) It seems plausable to me that by representing more viewponts by increasing third party viablility, we would increase voter turnout and we'd wind up with higher overall percentages in any given camp. Sound far-fetched? Too many political scientists have entertained this notion for the essayist to blindly ignore it.

Second example: In an article on state v. federal power, the essayist unqestionably (and I mean this literally, not figuratively) sides with federal power. She blithely tells us that the founders wanted the federal government to be larger than state governments but doesn't explain why, if that was the case, the ninth or tenth amendments needed to be written or why we settled on the name "the UNITED STATES" instead of just America. She didn't even ask why, if the federalists were really as federalistic as she draws them, acts on a national scale like voting was constitutionally assigned to be conducted by the seperate states.

I can't say unilaterally that these essays are wrong simply becasue I disagree with the conclusions (despite the fact that, for the most part, I do). I simply wish that the authors had went about proving their cases by arguing for the conclusions. Instead, each essay simply picks a conclusion and skates smoothly towards it. Not much substance.

This book does not approach the brilliance and eloquence of the original work by Hamilton, Madison, and Ray. While this book's essays are somewhat interesting in their own right, the authors overstep the bounds of literary license by using the title of "New Federalist Papers."

Somehow the authors have transformed the original debate between federalists and anti-federalists into a liberal-conservative one. This large leap of logic soils the otherwise informative essays. Alan Brinkley displays himself as the leader of a lynch mob against conservatives. Because of this book's obvious political bias, it does not deserve a setting at the academic table. It only belongs on the coffee table, or more accurately, beneath one.

Ambitious title, I thought, but Brinkley, Polsby, and Sullivan rescue the Constitution from common misconceptions, mostly invented by political campaign consultants and lobbyists, that have undermined civic discourse. The New Federalist, more than the original, transcends passions and interests, left and right, and fairly instructs a vastly larger audience on the historical, political, and legal fundamentals of the Constitution. The authors direct our attention to the most vital aspects of the original and help us all understand how the Consitiution rewards the peaceable and constructive expression of the human tendency toward conflict and guides the regulation of Liberty without self immolation. You will understand the Constitution's greatness and it's fragility. Read it twice. Buy copies for your friends. Threaten to leave your book club if they do not assign it and allow extra time for discussing it. The soul of the original is present in these well-written essays.