Grand Expectations: The United States 1945-1974

I really enjoyed this book. The first few hours sort of drag, but maybe this is becuase i had just finished the previous book in the series, Freedom from Fear, and this was somewhat repetitive. But after that, I thought this book was really enjoyable.
First, the narration is outstanding, well paced, and well read.
There are sections that are truly outstanding. Rather then delve into tons of details and give day by day, or week by week accounts of certain time periods in history, the authors given an overview. For instance, he lays out the 4 key components to johnson's liberal agenda early in his second term, and then goes on to analyze this from a longer term perspective. Now one could argue that he does a fair bit of "interpretation", and there is a fair bit of opinion in some of these sections, but i found them pretty balanced, and he offers both positives and negatives to most historical questions, including whose fault was the cold war, the effectiveness of eisenhower, and johnson's role in both domestic and civil rights issues, as well as the war.
There are a few sections which are a little weak, where the authors gives rather dull lists of statistics to support his point, and there are a few topics which seem alittle bit over stressed where i had a little trouble paying attention, but overall a very very good read and rapid moving assessment of the period and definitely worth it. I look forward to the next book in the series.

I have listened to most of the books in the Oxford US History series and found this one to be the weakest. One problem is the difficulty in writing about recent history (this was written 20 years after the end of the period covered). It generally takes many decades for history to be discussed objectively and with the benefit of hindsight. Recent revelations conflict with the author’s conclusions in some instances. (The identity of Deep Throat, guilt of the Rosenberg’s and Alger Hiss).

Several chapters are devoted to rambling, simplistic discussions of topics such as suburbs and women’s liberation that caused my attention to drift. How long can you listen to someone lament the loss of intimacy of the city as people migrated to the sterile suburbs. This is simply someone’s idealistic viewpoint, not history.

I found it refreshing that he portrayed JFK’s presidency objectively, not as Camelot. Surprisingly, Stalin was OK; if only we had treated him better at the end of World War II we may have avoided the Cold War. He seems a bit harsh on Nixon. The man had many faults, but the author states that everything he did, from establishing relations with China to winding down the war in Vietnam was done solely for the purpose of getting re-elected. This simplistic conclusion avoids the more complex geopolitical analysis this topic deserves.

As far as books on American history go, this is fairly unbiased and is very thorough. The author did a very good job of putting a lot of complicated history into a very easy to follow chain of events.

Throughout the text the author presented the topics covered in a very unbiased fashion. I could not detect any spin or revisionism with the topics presented. That stands out throughout the book. I can't say anything was earth shattering because it has been covered i one way shape or form.

He did a good job with LBJ.

Not really. However the way this aspect of 20th history was presented I can say that I have a greater understanding of what was going on. The author did a much better job than most of my history professors at explaining the facts and making them clear and understandable.

It does start out slow in the first few chapters. It is a lot of fairly deep stuff. Trust me this book is worth your time.

This book, as with the others in the Oxford History of the United States, is a well written and very thorough account of the time period identified. I enjoyed it very much.

There's so much in this book that helps understand the arc of US history! I was quite impressed with the excellent writing and solid performance of this book. Highly recommended!

This was quite an extraordinary history book. It has been a few weeks now since I've listened to it, but it left a good impression. I remember thinking that the United States has an impressive pantheon of historians. Scholars who not only write disciplined prose, but present judicious, comprehensive and thoughtful accounts of the American past. Though I did not approach this book with grand expectations, at its conclusion I looked back at it as a grand listening experience.

The reader's authoritative voice moved the narrative along at a good pace

Generally, the available variety of good books to listen to is stunning and overwhelming.

Though one cannot expect an answer, the question suggests itself, because the contrast between the scholarly realm and the realm of politics on television is so vast. Given the existence of such a vast quantity of quality writing in so many humanistic fields, why is it that in the American political arena the variety of voices are so meager, and the discourse so base, and so awful?