.

But in his biography of founding father James Madison, Richard Brookhiser argues that politics is the working out of our ideals; that for freedom, democracy and republican government to function in the real world requires politics and all the baggage that entails.

We pay much less attention to James Madison, Father of Politics, than we do James Madison, Father of the Constitution. That is because politics embarrasses us. Politics is the spectacle on television and YouTube, the daily perp walk on the Huffington Post and the Drudge Report. Surely our founders and framers lefts us something better, more solid, more inspiring than that? They did. But they all knew - and Madison understood better than any of them – that ideals come to life in dozens of political transactions every day. Some of these transactions aren’t pretty. You can understand this and try to work with this knowledge, or you can look away. But ignoring politics will not make it stop. It will simply go on without you – and sooner or later will happen to you.

Madison is one of, if not the, smartest of the founders but he lacked the stature of Washington, or the eloquence of a Thomas Jefferson or a Patrick Henry, and so his intelligence is sometimes overlooked. Madison may not have been an eloquent speaker – he often spoke so quietly that the audience couldn’t hear him – or writer but he learned to master many of the important skills necessary to move public opinion, pass legislation and build coalitions.

In fact, he developed a conception of political action that modern readers will recognize.  At a time when most people understood the role of the public as cyclical (citizens vote, let their leaders lead and then either vote them out or return them to power based on the results) Madison began to develop a view of public opinion as a necessary part of leadership and governing.

Madison also realized that in order to succeed long-term, he needed another tool: a political party. And so with the help of Thomas Jefferson he built the Republican Party – which rather confusingly eventually changed its name and became today’s Democratic Party. Where parties, often known as factions, were once looked down upon Madison played a big role in making them a standard part of elections and governance.

And in many ways Madison’s story is the story of how that party triumphed while the party of Washington and Hamilton faded away. This led to the Virginia Dynasty; two terms each for Jefferson, Madison and Monroe. And it ended the long friendship and partnership between Madison and George Washington.

Madison also sought to use public opinion as part of coalition building and governing; while seeking to mold that opinion to his ends. This included journalism, public speaking, lobbying and more – in other words what we call politics.

As a result, Brookhiser gives a tour of the development of American politics from the battles over the Constitution to the War of 1812 and the battles that prefigured the Civil War.  This included the nature of federal power versus state’s rights; trade and economic development; international relations and military strategy; and a number of important constitutional questions.

Madison played a central role in every major debate of this period and served in government at every level; from state and local bodies and conventions to Congress, the cabinet and eventually the presidency.  His life is a great window into this time period and the issues, ideas and personalities involved.

And this is where Brookhiser shines. His writing is crisp and clear.  He is not afraid to make judgments and offer assessments. He doesn’t feel the need to drown the reader in detail, but rather offers an overview and quick sketches of important events and characters.

The story is full of one line descriptions and aphorisms; of memorable opinion and useful insights.

On John Adams:

If Adams had had to make a living as a journalist, he would have starved; he hid diamonds of psychological insight in dunghills of pedantry.

On John Randolph of Roanoke:

All his life, his voice never broke and he never used a razor. He kept the world in awe with his quick tongue and quicker temper. In his twenties and thirties, he was not as crazy as he would later become, after alcohol, opium, and disappointment had done their work. But he was always willful and domineering.

On Thomas Jefferson:

Jefferson had a gift of seeing views and making leaps. He was a prophet; he was also a bluejay, snatching at every shiny idea that caught his eye. He expressed his thoughts in crystal-clear words; the words in turn brightened the thoughts.

On Madison’s relationship with Jefferson:

Madison was like a box in which Jefferson could deposit his savvy, on occasions when it conflicted with his other impulses or emotions. But Jefferson always remembered how to find it again.

Brookhiser writes popular history as it should be: learned and insightful but not exhausting; with sharp writing not afraid to offer an opinion but not polemical for the sake of scoring points; with prose that is clear and a joy to read.

If you are interested in the founders and framers, the politics of the immediate post constitution era, or just good and engaging history you should check out Richard Brookhiser’s books.

And this biography of James Madison has much to teach us today as we engage in politics:

Politics can be low, sometimes sordid. Much of that has to be endured, because that is the way men are. “If men were angels,” as Madison wrote, “no government would be necessary.”  But some of the shortcomings of politics may be capable of improvement. So say why and do better.  As Madison also wrote, “The censorial power is in the people over the government, and not in the government over the people.” Both of those remarks were addressed to government, but they also apply to politics.

Madison at his best, and worst, belongs not just to his family, but to every citizen. We have been working together for a long time.

Worth thinking about this primary season and heading into 2012.

Related articles

• Is James Madison an under-appreciated founding father? (collectedmiscellany.com)

For this week’s Coffee & Markets podcast Pejman Yousefzadeh and I spoke with Michael Bowen author of The Roots of Modern Conservatism: Dewey, Taft, and the Battle for the Soul of the Republican Party.

We discussed how the split between Thomas Dewey and Robert Taft led to the transformation of the Republican party as a party of conservatives, which began with Barry Goldwater’s nomination in 1964.

Oxford’s Very Short Introductions series offers concise and original introductions to a wide range of subjects–from Islam to Sociology, Politics to Classics, Literary Theory to History, and Archaeology to the Bible. Not simply a textbook of definitions, each volume in this series provides trenchant and provocative–yet always balanced and complete–discussions of the central issues in a given discipline or field. Every Very Short Introduction gives a readable evolution of the subject in question, demonstrating how the subject has developed and how it has influenced society.

But alas, I am not, so I must simply read as many books as I am able to fit into my schedule.  I started with The History of Protestantism by Mark A. Noll:

Mark A. Noll, named one of America’s most influential evangelicals by Time Magazine, provides a fresh and accessible history of Protestantism from the era of Martin Luther to the present day. Noll begins with the founding of Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, and Anabaptist churches in the sixteenth-century Reformation, and considers the rise of other important Christian movements like Methodism and Pentecostalism.

But rather than focusing on just the familiar European and American histories, he discusses the recent expansion of Protestant movements in Africa, China, India, and Latin America, emphasizing the on-going and rapidly expanding story of Protestants worldwide. The book highlights the contributions of well-known figures ranging from Martin Luther and John Calvin to Karl Barth, Dora Yu, Samuel Ajayi Crowther, and Pandita Ramabai, and it sheds light on why Protestant energies have flagged recently in the Western world while expanding dramatically elsewhere. Detailing the key points of Protestant commonality–including the message of Christian salvation, reliance on the Bible, and organization through personal initiative–he illuminates the reasons for Protestantism’s extraordinary diversity.

And it was exactly what I was hoping for from this series: a short and succinct yet informative and insightful overview of a topic.  Noll gives you a great overview of the history of Protestantism from the Reformation to the global church of today and he sprinkles in enough details and interesting conclusions that it is more thought provoking than you might expect for a survey of this type.

As an example, here is Noll summing up the era of Protestant Christendom:

The era that stretched from the first Reformation generation to the renewal movements of the late 17th century was the Protestants the best of times and the worst of times. It was the best of times because the release of Protestant energies allowed Lutherans, the Reformed, and Anglicans to create local Christian civilizations that produced brilliant achievements with world-historic significance. It was the worst of times because these Protestant civilizations were continually embroiled in warfare, which opened the door to a godless secularism that was damaging for Christian convictions of all varieties.

What a great summary; informative but also a bit provocative and thought provoking. The book is full of this sort of breakdown. It gives you the big picture – points you to important people, ideas, and events – but also offers turning points and key takeaways for further thought and study. In short, this is how introductions should be done.

Highly recommended for those interested in Christian or religious history.

The Battle of Ball’s Bluff (more action took place there than at Edwards Ferry) grew out of an order for Union General Charles P. Stone to make a “demonstration” in front of Confederate positions near Ball’s Bluff. This demonstration turned into a twelve-hour battle where hundreds of men were killed and wounded, a prominent friend of President Lincoln’s (Col. Edward D. Baker) was killed, and the promising career of Stone was ruined (Morgan succinctly and clearly explains how Stone was pointed out as a scapegoat by his detractors). As Morgan shows, if anyone was to blame, it was Baker for his lack of leadership and control of the battle.

Although Ball’s Bluff did not seem to have any tactical or strategic consequences, but it did have political repercussions way beyond the Battle. As a result of the Union’s bungling of this battle and the First Battle of Bull Run, Congress created the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War – which proved to be a major hindrance for Lincoln throughout the war.

Morgan clearly lays out how the battle progressed and the different units that participated on both sides. He equally criticizes and praises both sides. The Confederates were generally better led (overall command was under Brig. Gen. Nathaniel Evans) and organized than the Union – there was total confusion prior to Baker’s entrance on the battlefield. Morgan supports most of his arguments with diaries and official reports. However, when his opinion is not based on either source, he bases it on sound reason.

Scattered throughout the text, Morgan includes numerous maps and photographs of the participants. The maps are helpful in following the action depicted in the text. The reader gets a better understanding of the tactical situation as well.

Finally, Morgan includes seven appendices on various aspects surrounding the battles. The topics covered include the details surrounding Baker’s death and an interesting discussion on why the Battle of Ball’s Bluff even occurred.

This book is an excellent short, concise history of the Battle of Ball’s Bluff.

Listen below.

In explaining why the Americans won the war, Sears writes about the American pilots who became aces and developed the air tactics that helped defeat the vaunted Zero.  These pilots include John “Jimmie” Thach who invented the fighter and wingman tactics still used today and Edward “Butch” O’Hare, the Navy’s first combat ace.  Although the stories about these pilots are somewhat disjointed, they are very engaging.

Not only does Sears write about American pilots, but he also includes the perspective of Japanese pilots via Imperial Japanese Navy pilot Saburo Sakai – a highly decorated pilot who survived the war with the loss of vision in one eye.  Sears describes, through the words of Sakai,  the Japanese pilots’ elation in dominating the Allies at the beginning of the war and, conversely, their total dismay when the tables were turned at the end of the war.

In addition to the pilots, Sears touches on the development of a few Navy fighters, especially the F4F Wildcat.  The writing on the development of the F2F, F3F, and F4F is very interesting.  Sears writes how Grumman (a small start-up company in the 1930s) was able to beat Boeing for the Navy’s first solely designed carrier-based aircraft.

As with many popular histories, accuracy is somewhat sacrificed.  There is more than one inaccurate statement in the book.  For example, Sears writes about the armored decking of U.S. aircraft carriers when in actuality the decks were made of wood planking (pine).  Many of the misstatements are minor, but they add up to be an annoyance.

Overall, this book is very entertaining.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher.  I was not required to write a positive review.  The opinions expressed herein are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with Federal Trade Commision regulations.

I took me awhile even then to get around to reading it. Having done so I can say that it lived up to its billing.  It really is a wonderfully little survey of history written for young readers but with plenty to enjoy for older ones.

In forty concise chapters, Gombrich tells the story of man from the stone age to the atomic bomb. In between emerges a colorful picture of wars and conquests, grand works of art, and the spread and limitations of science. This is a text dominated not by dates and facts, but by the sweep of mankind’s experience across the centuries, a guide to humanity’s achievements and an acute witness to its frailties.

For those unfamiliar, the book itself has an interesting history:

In 1935, with a doctorate in art history and no prospect of a job, the 26-year-old Ernst Gombrich was invited by a publishing acquaintance to attempt a history of the world for younger readers. Amazingly, he completed the task in an intense six weeks, and Eine kurze Weltgeschichte für junge Leser was published in Vienna to immediate success, and is now available in seventeen languages across the world.

Toward the end of his long life, Gombrich embarked upon a revision and, at last, an English translation. A Little History of the World presents his lively and involving history to English-language readers for the first time.

Two things to keep in mind when reading: this is not in any way an academic history, nor is it a particularly detailed one, and the story is told from European perspective.

What it provides is a great bird’s eye view of the sweep of history; the story of history across the ages. For young readers, and anyone seeking to get a grasp of the arc of history, this is a valuable thing.  And it is done with a simple yet engaging style that makes it not only readable but enjoyable – which is the very thing which inspires learning.

Of course, it goes without saying that anyone with a strong multiculturalist, Marxist or other type of anti-Western ideology will probably not enjoy it. Grombrich brings an avowed attachment to the values and ideals of the Enlightenment and from a pre-world war perspective. He is very much of the Athens-Rome-Jerusalem view and doesn’t try to hide it.  And is possible to appreciate and be open to the insights of this worldview even as you understand that it is a worldview; and one connected to a time and place different from our own.

The final chapter, added for this edition, tries to capture the tragic  bitterness that came with the wars of the twentieth century but manages to insist on a sort of cautious optimism. Whether this is warranted it up to the reader to decide.

In my opinion, there is plenty of time later (for young readers in particular) for cynicism and the unpacking of historiography that makes up any study of history.  Getting a handle on the scope and outline of events and ideas as presented here is a valuable and enjoyable first step.  And a reminder that we should lose the joy of this type of history even if we later dig deeper and explore in a more academic way.

So I am happy I stumbled on the Kindle edition and heartily recommend this fine volume in any format to readers young and old.

The book is divided into 14 parts which generally cover his childhood, Navy career, Congressional terms, various roles in the Nixon and Ford Administrations, private sector career, and stint as Secretary of Defense in the Bush Administration.  A majority of the book (close to 500 pages) covers his years in the Bush Administration.

One word describes Rumsfeld’s political life – fascinating.  He was obviously an important player in the Bush Administration, but I did not know how influential he was in his earlier political career - especially in the Nixon and Ford Administrations. He had relatively minor roles in the Nixon Administration until he was appointed U.S. Ambassador to NATO.  Under Ford, he was the Whitehouse Chief of Staff and then the Secretary of Defense.  In each of these roles, he brought his own style of leadership – allowing his subordinates to do their jobs without much interference from him unless they screwed up.

I normally stay away from political books because of my aversion to the subject, but I found this book interesting and engaging because of Rumsfeld’s unique personality – abrasive and a straight shooter.

I won’t dissect his political career in detail, but I will give my general thoughts on his time in the Bush Administration (I am most comfortable analyzing this era).  For instance, I think he was a key person in helping Bush to decide to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq – he was key not just because of his position as Defense Secretary, but also because of his beliefs in eliminating the Taliban and Saddam Hussein.

With regard to Afghanistan (and for that matter all of the Middle East), he argues that the Afghan form of Democracy will be much different from our or Europe’s form of Democracy.  The West has a deep history in democratic principles, but the Middle East does not have that same history.  So, Rumsfeld argues (fairly convincingly) that we should not have high expectations for a pure democratic government in Afghanistan.

Regarding Iraq, Rumsfeld explains his thoughts on the war.  He firmly believes in not directing military commanders on how to fight the war.  He rarely questioned decisions made by the Joint Chiefs of Staff with the exception of the general who replaced General Tommy Franks after the invasion.

Rumsfeld tries to address some of the most controversial issues of the Iraq War.  For instance, his stance on the charge that there were not enough troops on the ground to handle the Iraqi insurgency is that he depended on the military commanders (CENTCOM and Iraq) to tell him when more troops were needed – he contends that he asked several times whether send more troops and each time he was told that there were sufficient numbers.

Another controversial issue is the handling of Iraq after the end of hostilities following the invasion.  Rumsfeld argues that the Coalition Provisional Authority botched the transition from Coalition military rule to the Iraqi civil government.  Their ineptitude led to the insurgency.  I commend Rumsfeld for defending the Department of Defense, but I think he should take some responsibility – after all, one of his subordinates Paul Wolfowitz argued that we should attack Iraq while we were still engaged in Afghanistan.  I think this was a mistake because our military was stretched too thin.

Rumsfeld does not shy away from taking shots at the major foreign policy figures in the Bush Administration.  Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of State Colin Powell are poorly portrayed at times.  Rice is accused of trying to make decisions based on consensus and Powell is accused of being influenced by the career diplomats rather than influencing the career diplomats.  Rumsfeld does not hold back his scorn for the State Department bureaucracy – he claims they were more interested in serving their own agendas rather than the agenda of Bush.

I think you will find Known and Unknown an enlightening and interesting read.