The Civic Deal: Re-Empowering Our Great Republic

by Richard Striner

Book Overview

No Synopsis Available.

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0967546214
• ISBN13: 9780967546216
• Release Date: January 2000
• Publisher: Pericles Institute
• Length: 228 Pages
• Weight: 0.83 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.6" x 5.9" x 8.9"

Customer Reviews

Political ideologies from a historical perspective

In the vein of Theodore Roosevelt's Square Deal, Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, and Harry Truman's Fair Deal, historian Richard Striner proffers the Civic Deal. The book's subtitle, "Re-empowering Our Great Republic", suggests Striner's yearnings for a nation that expresses its ambitiousness in great public projects. The Civic Deal offers "training and jobs in exchange for safer streets: a venture in enlightened economic and civic self-interest that is worthy of a great nation". Striner lauds the contributions of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt to notions of national greatness. He reminds us of the notable successes of government, specifically our system of national parks, the G.I. Bill and its far-ranging educational and economic benefits, and the national highway system. Striner recognizes that national greatness and cohesion are more than matters of prosperity or military strength."The Civic Deal" can serve to remind us how underutilized historians are in American society. Richard Striner lends historical perspective to political issues that have fermented in America for decades. He traces the history of political parties in America and the influence of various political ideologies upon them.Striner's approach transcends the polarities of conservatism and liberalism. He seeks to meld the best insights of both political ideologies along with other insights. He criticizes both conservatives and liberals for errors, oversimplifications, and fruitless false alternatives. For example, he criticizes conservatives for their lack of effort in conserving the nation's historical and natural heritage. He criticizes liberals for their recurring naivete and their inattention to public security.Striner also takes on libertarians and other free-market theorists, challenging them explain to the American people whether they would support government intervention in the economy in the case of a serious depression. Would American workers be told to fend for themselves come hell or high water or would exceptions be made to the doctrine if enough people were suffering? If the latter, at what point would that be? "Either way, the laissez-faire people have some tall explaining to do," Striner notes. Financial panics and depressions occurred more frequently before the United States government played a larger role in the economy, in the form of the Federal Reserve, the SEC, the Social Security Administration, etc. The laissez-faire doctrine could "be applied, if anywhere at all, only in a primitive community under primitive conditions," Striner quotes Theodore Roosevelt. Striner faults libertarians for encouraging us to regard our government as some sort of alien force. He dismisses the simplistic notion that government inherently tends toward bureaucracy and repression. Jefferson, who is often quoted by libertarians as a champion of minimal government, is cited for urging the expenditure of federal funds for "the improvement of roads, canals,

Striner's "Civic Deal"

Richard Striner's book, "The Civic Deal," is a bipartisan look at both Liberalism and Conservatism in the United States. It views these concepts from their births in ancient Athens with the struggles between the many and the privileged few to "the ambiguous age of Clinton." Along the way, close up views are given on the strengths and weaknesses of several administrations' use or misuse of their ideology, in particular: Thomas Jefferson's laissez-faire, Abraham Lincoln's abolishment of slavery, Theodore Roosevelt's "Square Deal," and Franklin Roosevelt's "New Deal." The book shows through the use of concise and thorough examples how using ideas and practices of both Liberalism and Conservatism could lead to a better way of life in the future.Striner's chapter on the Clinton era shows how a liberal Democratic president and a conservative Republican congress were unable to find common ground on most issues with a few exceptions. The revamping of America's welfare system and the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill that limited the power of insurers to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions were two such exceptions sited by Striner.It is rare to find political leaders who are willing to leave straight party policy to do what is the civic best intrest, "but we deserve to see a politican try it," say Striner. According to Striner, "We deserve to see a leader tell conservatives to stop their attacks on Uncle Sam, to remind them that business cannot do it all, and that public works can benefit everyone. We deserve to see a leader tell the liberals to concentrate on what we have in common, a leader to convince them that violent criminals deserve to be kept far away from our communities if every effort has been made to have society's safety coincide with their self-fulfillment." The bipartisan way takes both the "Square Deal" and the "New Deal" and makes yet another deal, Striner's "Civic Deal.""The Civic Deal" is a must read for anyone with an intrest in politial science. I look forward to reading Striner's next book on Abraham Lincoln.

Striner's Civic Deal

Richard Striner's book, THE CIVIC DEAL: RE-EMPOWERING OUR GREAT REPUBLIC, is a bipartisan look at both Liberalism and Conservatism in the United States. It views these concepts from their births in ancient Athens with the struggles between the many and the privileged few to "the ambiguous age of Clinton." Along the way, close up views are given on the strengths and weaknesses of several administrations' use or misuse of their ideology, in particular: Thomas Jefferson's Laissez-faire, Abraham Lincoln's abolishment of slavery, Theodore Roosevelt's "Square Deal," and Franklin Roosevelt's "New Deal." The book shows through the use of concise and thorough examples how using ideas and practices of both Liberalism and Conservatism could lead to a better way of life in the future.Striner's chapter on the Clinton era shows how a liberal Democratic president and a conservative Republican congress were unable to find common ground on most issues with a few exceptions. The revamping of America's welfare system and the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill that limited the power of insurers to deny coverage to people with pre-exisiting conditions were two such exceptions sited by Striner.It is rare to find political leaders who are willing to leave straight party policy to do what is in the civic best intrest, "but we deserve to see a politician try it," says Striner. According to Stiner, "We deserve to see a leader tell conservatives to stop their attacks on Uncle Sam, to remind them that business cannot do it all, and that public works can benefit everyone. We deserve to see a leader tell the liberals to concentrate on what we have in common, a leader to convince them that violent criminals deserve to be kept far away from our communities if every effort has been made to have society's safety coincide with their self-fulfillment." The bipartisan way takes both the "Square Deal" and the "New Deal" and makes yet another deal, Striner's "Civic Deal."THE CIVIC DEAL is a must read for anyone with an intrest in political science. I look forward to reaeding Striner's next book on Abraham Lincoln.

The Civic Deal

I completed this concise thoughtful book over the Presidents' Day weekend (2000) as the din of presidential electioneering increased in decibels and the combativeness of candidates decreased in civility. Reading it soothed my nerves and cleansed my mind, enabling me to step back and turn away from the stupendous circomlocutions of intense office seekers. This volume offers no Polyannish antidotes for what ails the American body politic. But, to play off Lincoln Steffens comment on Russia made in the 1930s, Mr. Striner has seen the past and offers a prescription for the future that bodes great promise. "This is not a 'liberal' tract," he says. "It is an essay in history and policy that stands outside of the conservative-liberal feud in order to resurrect a lost milieu of statesmanship that drew from both conservative and liberal ideas. It is not an argument for over-reaching government that tries to 'do everything.' It is rather a case for governmental actions that are vital to the health of our Republic, actions that local governments and the private sector cannot be expected to provide in the manner that we need." In "The Civic Deal" Richard Striner looks at the historical record -- what James M. McPherson calls the "historical poloarities" of federalist versus local government, party politics, and conservatism versus liberalism -- and he is not baffled by it. Then he offers a template for debate and a prescription for governing that should foster a national strategy for dealing with problems on which commonsensical people across the political spectrum agree, including public safety and crime, welfare, the transportation infrastructure and more. In laying the foundation for his call for a new Civic Deal, he begins with the strict versus broad constructionist viewes of the Constitution posited by Madison and Hamilton, continues through Lincoln's and Teddy Roosevelt's (both Republicans) muscular and flexible use of the presidency, respectively, in war and in peace, through the lofty aspirations of the Democrats' Wilson, the forgotten public works response to the Depression by the Republican Hoover, the fluid pragmatism of FDR, and down through the past fifty years into the twilight of Clinton's amalgamated presidency. (Quiz: who was the president who led the charge to protect the environment? Answer: none other than Richard Nixon on whose watch and through whose initiative the Environmental Protection Agency was legislated into existence) I liked this book on several levels. First, it provides a pithy and encompassing sense of history, "encompassing" because the author looks at many sides of salient issues. He examines and interprets the historical record and acknowledges where he himself stands. In brief, he gives credence and amplification to divergent views. Second, I liked the way he frames an argument, citing specific examples and providing insightful details on the temp