Cheap The Present Age: Progress and Anarchy in Modern America (Book) (Robert Nisbet) Price

Related Products

Customer Reviews of The Present Age: Progress and Anarchy in Modern America

Vintage Nisbet
Commemorating, so to speak, the 200th anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, Robert Nisbet (1913-1996) asked what would strike the founders as the major surprises from the time of the founding to today. According to Nisbet, these are: the importance of war for America; the growth of government; and the "loose" (rootless) individual.

Nibset analyzes these changes from 1914-1989, providing a rapid historical and sociological overview of that time period. In discussing the growth of government, Nisbet shows that Burnham was correct that the U.S. government was in fact taken over by the "managerial elite" at the time of Wilson. America has adopted a Wilsonian foreign policy that has far outlasted any usefulness it may have had in the cold war. Nisbet is quite prescient in his prediction that this foreign policy would outlast the fall of Communism. "Take away the Soviet Union as a crucial, and . . . content of some kind will expand to relentlessly fill the time and space left." [p. 29.] This describes the motivation for the neocon New World Order perfectly.

I generally agree with Nisbet and found this working provoking. I don't quite understand why Nisbet was so hostile to Reagan; although Reagan wasn't the conservative or libertarian some hoped him to be. For example, Nisbet isn't correct in asserting that Reagan did not want "mandatory" prayer in the public schools, nor do I understand Nisbet's assertion that SDI was "utopian."

---

The Wilsonian Revolution
Commemorating, so to speak, the 200th anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, Robert Nisbet (1913-1996) asked what would strike the founders as the major surprises from the time of the founding to today. According to Nisbet, these are: the importance of war for America; the growth of government; and the "loose" (rootless) individual.

Nibset analyzes these changes from 1914-1989, providing a rapid historical and sociological overview of that time period. In discussing the growth of government, Nisbet shows that Burnham was correct that the U.S. government was in fact taken over by the "managerial elite" at the time of Wilson. America has adopted a Wilsonian foreign policy that has far outlasted any usefulness it may have had in the cold war. Nisbet is quite prescient in his prediction that this foreign policy would outlast the fall of Communism. "Take away the Soviet Union as a crucial, and . . . content of some kind will expand to relentlessly fill the time and space left." [p. 29.] This describes the motivation for the neocon New World Order perfectly.

I generally agree with Nisbet and found this working provoking. I don't quite understand why Nisbet was so hostile to Reagan; although Reagan wasn't the conservative or libertarian some hoped him to be. For example, Nisbet isn't correct in asserting that Reagan did not want "mandatory" prayer in the public schools, nor do I understand Nisbet's assertion that SDI was "utopian."

---

Reckoning
What would the Framers think of their United States today? asked Robert Nisbet in a speech to the NEH on the bicentennial of the U. S. Constitution. People of all races, creeds, and shirt sizes are sure to find something in Nisbet's book-length response to make them miserable.

Three characteristics stood out in Nisbet's mind: one, the prevalence of war and the size of the military establishment; two, the dominance of the federal government in the local activities of states, cities, towns, and in the lives of citizens; three, the rise of nomadic individuals, the unaffiliated free agents whose lives are ruled more by the cash nexus than by allegiance to family, local community, property, or ethical principle.

It takes only a few seconds of observation to prove that Nisbet is correct in seeing the U. S. as a lumbering giant, crippled by corruption, bureaucracy, and incompetence, as paralyzed as Gulliver pinned down by Lilliputians. One of Nisbet's more interesting targets is enthusiasm for the military. Nisbet saw with disgust the transformation of the U. S. from a country with the "most nonmilitary constitution imaginable," into the sort of imperial, centralized power that the Framers despised.

It was the liberal-progressive Woodrow Wilson who took us into war in 1914 after campaigning on the slogan "He kept us out of war." War and the expansion of the state have always gone hand in hand, so it should come as no surprise that liberal Democrats have taken us into the major wars of the last century. Wilson saw himself as a Redeemer, and his expansionist policies attempted to transform America into the redeemer-nation. Wilsonian moralism, rather than self-protection, has fueled American arrogance and inserted U. S. troops into hundreds of countries throughout the world, on many dubious missions, leading to horrible loss of life and a great deal of resentment in foreign lands. Wilson had Machiavellian reasons for portraying America as the indispensable nation, but it seems to me that it is possible to love one's country without disparaging others.

It was Eisenhower, a Republican and former general, who in his farewell address warned against the military-industrial-complex: the fusion of public and private, government and the defense industry. Although the government has failed at its primary task of protecting the country and its borders from attack, its huge military Leviathan continues to be fed billions by politicians, particularly Republicans, who insist they are against bureaucracy and Big Government. Even more significant, the proposed solution to security and intelligence failures (government failures) has been the creation of another Department, which is like trying to put out fire with gasoline.

This part should not surprise us because there is no substantive difference between the parties today. The only question is whose lobbyists will be most successful this week at buying votes.

Despite some qualifying remarks in the epilogue, Nisbet saw more anarchy than progress. I would contrast this splenetic with his other books, such as Twilight of Authority and History of the Idea of Progress, where there is still some hope poking through the gloom. It may have been enough for Nisbet's generation to utter jeremiads, or for the generation after Nisbet's to attempt to stand athwart history and yell, "Stop," but the corrosive criticism which has been the daily dread for my generation has run its course. I have to question the usefulness of all the poisonous commentary that fills our air, even if it is true. Especially if it is true.