Sunday, April 14, 2013
America has spoken, and they demand more Strom Thurmond!
I get the feeling that Crespino is carefully navigating the tricky historical waters which arise while writing about a polarizing figure in recent history (George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and Mikael Gorbachev suffer an equal fate). He is straightforward about how most people either treat Thurmond as a misunderstood political relic or as America's answer to Adolph Hitler. Though he states that he does not want to write another book which falls into one of these camps, it leaves one to wonder what his argument actually is. Am I wrong in interpreting his goal as much loftier than mere biography? Is he trying to write a Southern history, an American history, or a mere biography. Though it could be all three, it seems as though he wants to present something new about the oft-chronicled Thurmond. Is Thurmond really just a narrative concierge of a larger Dickensian fable, a la Robert Caro's multi-volume doorstop about Lyndon Johnson? I guess I should have just written this in one sentence and ask what the author feels his new angle accomplishes in the larger historiography. Please Help! I may write a review and I hear Dr. Baker does not suffer fools lightly.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Perhaps the time has passed to comment on this book, but here goes: I was thinking that Crespino's (biography?) seems to be similar to others that I've read in that the objective seems to be to problematize the subject with regard to the "mutable" (to quote Ovell) factors that influenced popular sentiment, politics, etc. As any academic would, it seems, he wants to move away from simplistic, dichotomized thinking. I thought it interesting that he also applies this approach to the brief analysis of Essie Mae Washington-Williams.
ReplyDeleteI read another book that takes a similar approach to biography titled "Henry Kissinger and The American Century."
ReplyDeleteOops, I meant to write more before sending that. Anyway, I feel this is a great approach to biography as it tries to navigate the tricky waters of defining a man's life within the world he lives, while at the Sam stine not sticking strictly to the binaries which are so easily available when writing a biography of such a polarizing figure.
ReplyDeleteI liked the book specifically because it uses Thurmond's life to demonstrate so many themes/ideas/histories about the US. As for his overall argument, I am not sure what the central argument is. Perhaps that politics and politicians are ever changing and adapting and that the US public is sometimes willing to similarly adapt? Thurmond is amazingly tactical and pragmatic in his approach to politics. I also see a history of Southern politics and its place within national politics. So I think your question as to what this is a history has multiple answers that could be effectively supported. I too appreciate, like you Ryan, that Crespino makes it more complex than binaries.
DeleteI also like that he seems to like his subject, while still recognizing the issues that make Thurmond unlikable to many people. I have thought about this as I have done oral history with people I respect and admire, as well as with people I dislike intensely. I think Crespino does an admirable job of being even handed in his portrayal of Thurmond where he could have been effusive in praise or criticism.