This is a book of limited interest and utility. Though fascinating in its details, it has a misleading title and the author conveys an unusually open bias towards his primary subject, President Warren G. Harding. This is not so much a book about general governmental theory as it is about the particulars of the personality of President Harding, and how that affected his methods while president. Similarly, it can only be by a broad stretch of the imagination considered as a book about the Harding-Coolidge era as a whole. This book is actually an adjunct to the author's earlier biography of President Harding. Written in the early 1970s as part of the Norton 'Essays in American History' series edited by Rice University professor Harold Hyman, this was a solicited book from the outset. At the time of the writing, Murray was a professor at Penn State. In 1969 he published The Harding Era: Warren G. Harding and His Administration based upon his archival research into the then newly opened Harding Papers that were released here in Columbus in 1964. This made him the subject matter expert in a rather narrow topic, and probably served as the basis for this book offer. This book suffers from several of the flaws that sometimes affect a work awarded on contract. The author, a specialist on the subject, wrote what amounts to a conservative defense of a President that he feels strongly about. Murray openly admits that he has the agenda to counter, 'the standard interpretation that the era was devoid of political accomplishment, barren of public benefit, and riddled with government scandals.' (pp. ix) He failed.
Although the book is well written from a stylistic point of view, it is difficult to get past the authors bias towards his subject matter. Murray states right up front that he sees the Harding story as a 'Greek-like tragedy,' and this spills out on every page. (pp. x) Take this book at face value and you will believe that Harding never did anything wrong, that all of his actions were noble and intelligent, that his political maneuverings were efficient and his administrative efforts sadly misconstrued by his political opponents, a sensationalist press and later historians harboring a liberal agenda. He goes too far.
All of this is not to say that the book is without any redeeming qualities. Murray describes the Harding biography as more analytic, while he intends this work to be primarily interpretive and analytic. He succeeds, to a degree, in this effort. There is a substantial amount of interpretation between the covers here. Despite the limited size of the work, it is well documented and tied to a broad range of primary source research. It is probably the better book for the reader that needs only a light understanding of the Harding presidency because it manages in a few pages to associate the personality and circumstances to the actions of President Harding.
The book contains only six chapters, five of which deal with the Harding presidency. Harding is dead by the end of the fourth chapter, the fifth chapter deals with the various scandals that tarnished his presidential reputation. The sixth chapter is the only one to mention Coolidge, and that is almost in passing and appears to have been reluctantly tacked on at the request of the editor or publisher. Harding started out as a rather nondescript senator from Marion, Ohio. Even Murray concedes that there is nothing particularly spectacular about Harding or his behavior during his time as a senator. However, it is here in the early chapters that half of the value of the book exists. Murray does not effectively add shine to the lackluster reputation of Harding in his personality profile of a man that many consider as one of our most forgettable presidents, but he does add depth. Harding was a consensus builder, a conciliator and mediator, an affable 'normal' guy, that just happened to become a U.S. Senator and later president. Yet for all that, Murray is convincing in his contention that Harding was nobody's fool. He had his own mind and made his own decisions. Ironically, though Murray probably did not intend it, this tends to indicate that the scandals that later wracked the administration fall squarely upon Harding. This runs counter to the then (1973) current historical interpretation that the cabinet appointees that later brought discredit were the result of the political machinery of the Republican Party. In this interpretive work, Harding comes across as a man torn between his ideals and the practicalities of his position. ... The book is at its best here, well documented and supplemented with observations gleaned from Murray's research into the personal papers Harding's contemporaries, especially those of Robert LaFollette.
Murray describes the 'normalcy' platform as, 'a conservative approach to national problems and politics, embracing traditionally understandable and historically acceptable methods for dealing with the nations ills.' He does not prove this well. Rather than stand back from the legislature, this president assaults it. Rather than disengage the nation from international affairs not relating to economic issues, Harding is in the thick of them. Harding ardently works towards normalization with former enemies, the series of Washington naval treaties and various debt restructuring plans for both former allies loans and former enemy reparations. This is not a president following the 'normal' line of international non-involvement. Yet Murray tries to erase this dichotomy between platform and actions through interpretation. Writing in 1973, it might be possible that Murray was letting a few of his misgivings on the current state of the nation leak into his historical writings.
True, in many ways Harding did adopt 'a policy of normalcy.' By the time the contentious 67th Congress retired both Congress and the president could point towards lower taxes, a budget plan, farm relief and restricted immigration as evidence of 'normalcy.' But this is belied by much of the other material that Murray presented. Harding was no progressive, but neither was he quite what he claimed to be.

Having just completed the GED testing in Santa Clara County, CA, I wanted to take a moment to share some observations I made while using "Barron's, How to Prepare for the GED" (11th Edition). While I did find the guide helpful, I also found a highly disturbing number of errors. Most of the errors I'm referring to go far beyond common typographical or publication errors. Considering the purpose of the publication, I expected quality but found a total lack of it.

Of particular concern, is the math section. The cover of the guide advertises "Extensively revised and updated," and "All new math review." However, is where I found the greatest number of flagrant errors.

I don't know if primary responsibility for these errors rests with the author(s), editor(s), or publisher, but I'm certain most everyone will agree that the quality of educational materials of this nature is everyone's concern.

I have sent a sample of the errors I encountered to the publisher for review. I have also forwarded a copy to the Board of Education in California. Based on the number of (obvious) errors I encountered, I think it safe to assume the actual number of errors, in this particular publication, goes far beyond the 50 "+" question and answer errors I documented.

I bought this book because I have had so many positive experiences with other Barron's series. I will be taking a general math/English exam as a part of an application process to work at my children's school. I wanted to review various subject areas that I thought mught be covered on the exam, and so I picked up Barron's GED and CBEST books. I am still making my way through the GED book, and haven't yet started on the CBEST.

I am almost through with the math portion of the GED book, and I am so angry. By the time I realized how many errors were in almost every micro-section of the math review, I had already thrown away my receipt. This book is unbelievable. Granted, the portions that are written accurately are thoughtful and mostly easy to follow, but the amount of errors (3 errors on one of the math pages) are incomprehensible. How did this happen? Error after error after error.....I think you get the picture. I am now on page 522, where the "ANSWERS" portion of a chapter review test lists the answer to problem #6 as choice "7." Well, hello, but the choices only number from 1-5. Choice Number 7 doesn't exist!

Barron's wasted my time and my money on this one. The discussion portions are extremely helpful, but need to be backed up with consistantly accurate math problems and answers. If Barron's can go back and fix these errors (and maybe offer the poor saps who bought this version an unconditional money-back return policy, with or without receipt in hand), this would actually be a great book.

The book is pretty good except of the chapter maths. Maths is lousy. There are more than a dozen real terrible mistakes! I've never seen before a book with so many mistakes.

This book is a poor piece of prose. I have my bias in favor of Rothbard. Bryant's supposedly "devastating" critique of libertarian "sell-outs" is wholly inconsistent and poorly written. He obviously has some axe to grind with them.

Rothbard's essay "Life in the Old Right" appearing in The Paleoconservatives offers an accurate picture of his views, which were consistently libertarian. There is nothing new or particularly devastating about the older libertarian scholars and economists identifying as Paleo- libertarian or conservative or even as Old Whigs. Keep in mind that they were weary of association with the hard left liberals and those wacky socialists who latched on to the libertarian word.

This booklet is nothing more than the rantings of a self-absorbed egomaniac. More than one half of the booklet is an interview with the author. When he finally does begin his critique of the libertarian movement he never dicusses any major works by Murray Rothbard; instead Bryant blathers about 3 monographs and 1 article of Rothbard`s. His vendetta against Robert Poole is a vindictive animosity over an alleged snub from the Reason Foundation. All in all this screed is totally lacking in content which most likely explains why it was self-published, as no reasonable publisher would ever want to have anything to do with something like this.

So don`t even bother reading this nonsense!

The bulk of Bryant's "book" is a personal attack on Murray Rothbard. Bryant sees Rothbard as a libertarian icon who sold out to the paleoconservative movement But Rothbard was always consistent philosophically. He didn't leave the libertarian movement; the libertarian movement left him. He merely remained true to his principles as one of the great thinkers of the late 20th century.

Mr. Bryant's little diatribe does nothing to dispel that. It is a surreal, egocentric collection of blatherings and much more incomprehensible and unreadable than anything by Rothbard he criticizes.

Avoid.