Blood of the Liberals

by George Packer

Book Overview

An acclaimed journalist and novelist explores the legacy and future of American liberalism through the history of his family's politically active history

George Packer's maternal grandfather, George Huddleston, was a populist congressman from Alabama in the early part of the century--an agrarian liberal in the Jacksonian mold who opposed the New Deal. Packer's father was a Kennedy-era liberal, a law professor and dean at Stanford...

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0374527784
• ISBN13: 9780374527785
• Release Date: August 2001
• Publisher: Farrar, Strauss & Giroux-3pl
• Length: 416 Pages
• Weight: 1.25 lbs.
• Dimensions: 1.1" x 5.5" x 8.2"

Customer Reviews

If you want to understand why liberals lose elections, read Packer

Blood of the Liberals is a near-perfect blend of the personal and the political. Packer's grandfather was George Huddleston, a Congressman from Birmingham, Alabama who represents for Packer a lot of the contradictions in modern liberalism: desegregation versus states' rights, support for the common man against bigness (whether corporate, governmental, or otherwise), and at the same time a belief that government is sometimes necessary. Packer's father, by contrast, was a pointy-headed academic. He grew up as a shy Jewish boy and moved into the ivory-tower life after some time spent in World War II; Packer paints the war years as rather uneventful for the senior Packer -- indeed little more than a pause from his books. I felt a lot of empathy with the dad; I was the same way when I was a kid, and I'm sure that if I went off to fight a war I'd be mailing home to ask for books and magazines just as much as Packer Sr. was. I also drew a lot from Packer's portrait of his father, because in that portrait Packer seems to have discovered why liberals keep losing elections. Packer Sr. was an Adlai Stevenson man -- Stevenson, the charismatic, brilliant loser. In a better world, Stevenson would have been our president, but in this world he lost the race twice. The term egghead became popular because one of the Alsops tagged Stevenson with it. And ever since Stevenson, says Packer, liberalism has been dominated by rather bloodless intellectuals who can't argue persuasively against the bread-and-butter issues that let Republicans win. The common thread among these intellectuals, says Packer, is a love of abstract debate, and the belief that human problems can be solved by the judicious application of reason -- that we can all get along and solve our issues without yelling or fighting. That's fine and good, and as far as it goes it's no more modern than Jefferson. The Jeffersonian strain is one of the key strands that Packer identifies in liberal thought. Where it starts losing elections, he says, is when the intellectuals start to take it over. Discussions shift from individual people -- this man lost his land, this man's family is starving because of government policies -- to larger universal themes like freedom, equality, justice, and the rule of law. This adherence to principles loses us elections. It lost Stevenson the election against Eisenhower when he stood up for fairness and impartiality in the anti-Communist witchhunts; he himself was a strong anti-Communist, but he framed his beliefs in terms that Nixon could tear apart. This doesn't play with the public. The public is more concerned with outcomes than with processes. If the public doesn't feel safe, it will not vote for abstract principles that seem to help their enemies. We could argue for civil liberties all we want, but Republicans will always come back with the argument that they're helping protect us from terrorists. When it comes to a battle between safety and our Constitutional freedom

A voice in the wilderness

How did such a basic, rational notion as liberalism turn into the favorite epithet of talk-show hosts? What happened to social justice? Where is the freewheeling spirit of the Sixties? These, and other questions, have haunted me for years. Not being well versed in American history, the seemingly abrupt annhiliation of everything "liberal" has caused me great puzzlement and distress.Packer, in a beautiful amalgam of memoir and history, has written a book that has almost singlehandedly restored my relationship with the past and pointed my way to the future. While as a historical account it is spotty, and as a memoir it is sometimes dry, the heartfelt combination of these two styles has a vitality and immediacy I've never seen anywhere else.His conclusions, while expansive, are also poignant, with a touch of desperation. In his consideration of the prospects of liberalism in this country, I am reminded of the Monty Python sketch about the parrot - "It's just resting!" - while at the same time I'm stirred by its undercurrent of optimism. His last few words ring in my ears: "We will have a more just society as soon as we want one."If you sense that, like myself, you are a lost liberal that is trying to find your way in the world, this book is for you. If you are a Rush Limbaugh dittohead who needs a clue as to what "liberal" really means, this book is for you as well.

George Packer is a literary and historical genius!

Words can simply not do justice to the rapturous "Eureka! I have found it" feeling I experienced when I found, read and re-read this timely, vivid and insanely insightful book. (Perhaps I should mention that I have been searching in vain for nearly two years to find material on George Huddleston Sr. written in the literary style of eminent historians Richard Hofstadter and Christopher Lasch which also serves as both a caustic critique and a dynamic defense of the very concept of American liberalism). Packer is a great writer! He surveys the modern history of the American reform movement from 1869 to 2000 in a penetrative yet highly readable style and the word pictures he creates both engage and enlighten the reader immediately and throughout. His highly personal depictions of his family lineage - including triumphs and more than a few tragedies - make the story so poignant and touching that your heart will simply melt even if you don't agree with all of his premises or conclusions. And his understanding of the broad sweep of history is astounding - anyone who reads this book will come away with a much more enlightened view of 20th century American reform efforts than they would ever get from a more traditional historical author. There are only a few flaws (which I will not detail here), but those should be arrived at only after thoroughly studying this absolutely amazing book. Blood of the Liberals is simply one of the very best books I have ever read and I recommend it highly!

A rallying cry for modern liberalism

I really enjoyed Packer's book. I'm roughly a contemporary of his, and experienced the same wrenching events that occurred in modern liberalism during the late 1960s and early 1970s.I'd just finished reading Roth's "American Pastoral", and it was great to follow it up by reading Packer's book. Like Packer, my father was an academic at an elite university, and as a traditional liberal who voted for Adlai, he was shocked by what he saw during the late 1960s. On a personal level, I liked reading a book by a writer who likes the same authors I like - Saul Bellow (Humboldt's Gift), Christopher Lasch, Irving Howe et al. There is a passage in which Packer perfectly summarizes the thesis of Lasch's "Revolt of the Elites" - gated communities like the ones that dot my hometown in Southern California. The only area where I would fault Packer's book is that he does not criticize the dogmatic, politically correct tone that liberalism took on during the late 1980s and early 1990s and which still haunts liberalism. What alarmed Packer's father was exactly that, and I'm afraid Packer only devotes one paragraph to it. Left liberalism has, I'm afraid, taken on a neo-Stalinist quality on some college campuses, viz, stealing copies of conservative campus newspapers which take politically incorrect stands on such issues as affirmative action. Liberals should decry that just as much as the depredations of the Right. David Horowitz shouldn't be the only one who claims the moral high ground on that issue. I don't know if Packer's father would be a neoconservative today, but he might have been, if he'd lived. Aside from all that, I commend Packer's book. It is a decent, humane and intelligent work that says that there's still a place at the political table for liberalism, even for disheartened liberals like me!

A liberal dose of liberalism's trials and tribulations....

Let me start by saying this is the kind of book that the reader will just fly through. The prose flows. The story is also compelling. Packer tells the story of his family and the cause of American liberalism in three parts. The first part is the life of his grandfather, a crusty Alabama congressman with a penchant for unpopular causes, who has the misfortune of seeing his Jeffersonian ideals eclipsed by the New Deal government activism of FDR. The congressman's daughter marries Packer's father, a Jewish intellectual blooded in naval combat in World War II who goes on to become an administrator and law professor at Stanford University. The second part details the father's woes as a rational child of Progressivism and the New Deal confronting the irrationality of late 1960's New Left protesters bent on upending society. Packer himself is the subject of the third part. It is particularly saddening to read of Packer signing on for the cause of liberalism as it becomes irrelevant at best and disreputable otherwise (he analogizes joining one cause group to converting to Roman Catholicism in the Reformation). This is a great road map to the 20th century, American liberalism, and the politics of the last 25 years, and it is a great memoir in the bargain. Must read.