Rating: 
Summary: Superb and thoughtful
Review: Americans are lucky to have Gore Vidal. Few of our historians (or writers for that matter) have his education, his critical abilities, or his prose. This book is not a history of the early American republic, or postage stamp biographies of the principle players. Instead it's a look at how, pretty much from thin air, a functioning American government was created after the first attempt failed so miserably. From the horse trading at the Constitutional convention to John Marshall's Federalist Supreme Court (which gave us judicial review and saved us from a good deal of Jeffersonian excess), Vidal tells the story of the compromises and conflicts that turned the theoretical government of the Constitutional convention into a living entity.The not so subtle underlying theme of this book is how perverted those institutions have become. Vidal is on record (and has been for more than 30 years) as believing that by 1950, five years after WW II, our generally evolving to a better version of the original republic was being hijacked by political and business forces intent on maintaining the country on a constant war footing. In the famous debate with William F. Buckley in 1968 he made almost precisely the same argument against the Vietnam war that he made against Gulf War II, the gist of which is that since neither Vietnam nor Iraq gathered armies in Mexico it is not the business of a decent republic to make mishcief inside their borders. To spotlight some of those issues, Vidal points out at length how our nascent republic survived largely by avoiding war in Europe. He makes much of Washington's constant preaching of avoiding war (and also much of his incompetence in prosecuting one), notes Hamilton's constant saber rattling, as well as Jefferson's willingness to forgive the heads flying aobut during the excesses of the French Revolution. Another reviewer mentions Founding Brothers, certainly a good book to read, as superior to this one. I think Inventing a Nation is more overtly political, more critical of its subject matter, and funnier. Many people seem to dislike Vidal because he is honest about his subjects. I think he admires Jefferson greatly but can't keep from noting his majestic hypocrisies. He admires John Adams but still spotlights his vanity, occasional shortsightedness, his monarchial tendencies, and his temper. I also think that Vidal is trying to leave crumbs for future generations to figure out just what went wrong in the second half of 20th century. Let's face it, we aren't likely to get 30 more books out of him, and this is one that shows how undemocratic our early republic was and by doing so offers many insights into how undemocratic it is becoming once again.
Rating:
Summary: Americans are better than their government
Review: Everyone knows George Washington is "the father of his country" who refused a salary as commander-in-chief of the revolutionary armies; the first paragraph of this delightful book points out he collected $100,000 in "expenses." Gore Vidal has an incisive way of cutting through hypocrisy, and in this book he takes aim at the often very bitter and scorched-earth politics that accompanied the founding of the United States of America. His portrayal of just three founders make today's politicians look as wimpy as a babble of Girl Scouts quibbling about their last box of broken peppermint cookies. Pardon me, I don't mean to insult any Girl Scouts; given their ability to sell cookies, they could probably do better than today's "polluticians." He links many pecadilloes of the men who created America to modern times; I think, but I'm not sure, that he wants to contrast the founding idealism of the birth of a new democracy to the banal and petty politics which now infect public life. In reality, this book gives me hope that Americans are far better than their politicians -- in 1787, when they were writing the Constitution, and today when so many politicians are trashing it. Vidal is witty, incisive and a delight to read. One of the warm fuzzy images of Washington shows him wrapped in warm winter clothes as he kneels in prayer in the snow at Valley Forge. Why was Washington praying? Perhaps, as Vidal explains, because he was "dealing with a crooked Congress that was allowing food and supplies to be sold to the British army while embezzling for themselves money appropriated for 'the naked and distressed soldiers,' as Washington referred to his troops." In other words, this isn't your usual history. Washington describes Congress as a place with "venality, corruption, prostitution of office for selfish ends, abuse of trust, perversion of funds from a national to a private use, and speculations upon the necessities of times pervade all interests." It explains why today's so-called conservatives want to go back to the values of the Founding Fathers.
He may be too cynical. For example, how competent was Washington? Vidal quotes one British observer who wrote, "Any general in the world other than General Howe would have beaten General Washington; and any general in the world other than George Washington would have beaten General Howe." These are the people who created America. Vidal fails to understand the world in general is run by mediocrity. He should know; he was once a friend of President John Kennedy, a brilliant showman with little substance. It is how the world functions, including the birth of the American system of government from 1775 to 1815. Some politicians are all image and no ideas; great politicians dress noble ideas with inspiring images. Vidal's weakness is that he understands little of England of the era; if he had, he'd understand the American Revolution as a major reform effort of a basically good system rather than the invention of something new. On this basis, reform (Jefferson called it revolution) is a permanent patriotic duty of all. Setting these quibbles aside, Vidal does what every good journalist should do -- he afflicts the comfortable, comforts the afflicted. He makes you think about today's politics in terms of the idealism and pettiness of the founding fathers. In 1789, with the new Constitution ratified, the business of governing meant "the days of discussing Hume and Montesquieu were over." In its place came back-room deals and log rolling for special interests. He offers a refreshing reminder that America was founded on a mixture of idealism and the venality of opportunist politicians. Little has changed. Americans have always been better than their government, as Vidal makes abundantly clear in this inspiring book.
Rating:
Summary: Witty, intelligent, insightful
Review: Gore Vidal has a field day re-examining the political (and personal) lives of Washington, Adams and Jefferson. Overall, a very knowledgeable (if sometimes a bit far-fetched) portrait of these 3 men, their strengths and their foibles. Vidal writes with a keen awareness of the present as he delves through the past of this great nation. Almost every line has some sort of resonance with the current disastrous political situation our Republic finds itself in and also gives us some clues as to perhaps why we are in the mess we are in. Despite all the partisan issues some other reviewers may gripe about, I found Vidal's work to be fair and very moderate in tone. He calls them as he sees them, and if there are jabs at our current presiding government thrown in, they are all by virtue of historical truth. Sometimes, as much as you try, you can not deny what is staring you in the face.
Rating: 
Summary: The real story of our nation's beginning
Review: Gore Vidal makes the same erroneous assumption that our country's beginning somehow magically started with Washington, Adams and Jefferson. The truth of the matter is that the foundations for the nation were laid in place before any of these three great men came into power as Presidents under the Constitution. Although Washington, Adams and Jefferson were largely responsible for the implementation of the Constitution, they were only part of a larger mosaic of leaders who were the true founders of this nation. If you want an account of the visionaries and originators of our ideas of government, and the leadership that actualized these ideas into being, then I suggest that you read my book entitled "The First Executives: Lives and Events in the Shadow of the American Revolution."
Rating:
Summary: An entertaining essay about our amazing vulnerable nation
Review: Gore Vidal's witty, snide, snobby, sarcastic style of writing is very entertaining and even his critics have to admit he knows his history.
In this short, quickly read book, he demonstrates beyond doubt that our nation was founded, not by saints, but by a vast array of men with mutiple interests, visions, egos, and agendas. The miracle is that a flexible system of government was forged from this complex interplay of lofty enlightement philosophy with base ego centered self interests.
Vidal brings historic characters to life with tiny details, for example Abigail Adams becomes disqusted when Benjamin Franklin's mistress feeds her lap dog from the dinner table. While Washington is urging that the flimsy Articles of Confederation be replaced with a Constitution, he and his mother have a falling out. The book is full of these personal touches that bring the historic characters alive in the mind of the reader.
The team work of these early founders, despite their disagreements, was fantastic. Adams charmed the Dutch while Jefferson and Franklin charmed the French. The genius of Hamilton and Madison is balanced with the exceptional political skills of Washington.
I am always amazed when conservatives attack Gore Vidal, since he is an advocate of maximum liberty of the individual, and he will viciously criticise FDR with the same venom he would use against George W Bush.
The reader is left with a feeling of wonder and amazement that our principals of government have survived despite the folly of many a generation of politicians. Vidal would have us recognize that we must remain vigilant and skeptical regarding our nation's leadership and direction.
Rating: 
Summary: Thought provoking and ascerbic
Review: Gore Vidal, in his _Inventing a Nation_, turns his attention to the first three Presidents and the politics of the young United States. The in-fighting, back-stabbing, manipulation (and in some cases, outright treason, as in the case of Alexander Hamilton) between the emerging political parties are discussed in great detail as are the personalities of the "founding fathers." Wih this panoramic background Vidal has several points to make. That the nation was have today is not at all what the creators of the Constitution would have imagined, that we Americans have surrendered many of the liberties given us by the founding fathers (to the courts and corporations), and that the "democracy" we imagine we have has, in fact, never been so. I assume this is intended to provoke thought and reflection by readers, which it does. But Vidal also has an ascerbic side, bordering on contempt for the common American when he asserts that most Americans have no idea what the "electoral college" is, that the nation has gravely erred by attempting to "export" democracy (beginning with our enterance into WWI and continuing to our current "war on terror"). Vidal also bitterly (perhaps justly so) decries the relequeshing of Congressional power to declare war to the executive. At the Constitutional Convention, an elderly Ben Franklin remarked that we have a democracy, if we can keep it. Vidal argues that contrary to the intentions of our founding fathers, (who also battled similar issues) we have been unable to keep it. Certainly a thought-provoking read, but it is sure to anger some.
Rating: 
Summary: washington..or bush?
Review: I bought this book to learn more about Washington, Jefferson, and Adams, and their efforts at "inventing a nation." However, what history I did learn (which was informative), was discredited by a liberal agenda and hatred for President Bush. There is no place in the history books for modern politics. History should not be changed by these politically-correct liberal historians. It "was as it was" and should not be viewed in the context of 2004. For future generations, history is going to be what historians say it is, not what it actually was, and that is unfortunate. Further, it is unfortunate that a talented and bright historian such as Vidal has trampled his integrity. He allowed his research and hard work to go down the tubes because he couldn't separate his agenda from what should be an objective view of history. I enjoyed much of what was said in the book, but I am hesitant to believe much of it because I have a hard time separating the "true" history, and Vidal's "recount" of what happened. Maybe he could split this material into two books: "inventing a nation" and "Why Bush and Scalia have Ruined the World."
Rating: 
Summary: Creating history in his own image.
Review: I concede that history is written with some bias as to the opinion of the Author, but historians are, or should be, purveyors of those opinions, not the manufacturers of them. Historians are not writing history, they are in a manner of speaking, collecting and reporting on history as it was written. I would not recommend this book as a basis for understanding this period of time (Try Benson Bobricks - Angel in the Whirlwind, or McCullough's - John Adams). This book is history according to Mr. Vidal. His references to modern day events and persons are more an indication of his political leanings, than his connection of current events with events of the past. You can not understand the present by making moral judgements on historical individuals since they did not have benefit of your understanding of the past, conversely, they had no understanding of what was to come. History is becoming a victim of politics; when it should be an accounting of the past. Skip-it.
Rating:
Summary: He's liberal, but it's an engaging read
Review: I enjoyed Vidal's writing. Other people have complained that it felt jumpy, and at times, he did leap from one time period to another without an explanation. It wasn't until I reached the last few pages that I figured out why he was writing this book at all. I kept waiting for some mass summarization of what he was trying to convey with all of these anecdotes. It finally came in the last chapter: he's trying to delve into what made these people such great men. But he doesn't do it with the usual swift stroke that many authors take when they're trying to glorify historic figures. Instead, he shows that these people were flawed and had their own personalities and agendas and egos. But they did some great things, and he conveys that through a series of anecdotes.
Overall, I enjoyed the book. It didn't feel like any type of propoganda, just a patchwork of stories. It gave me insights into those characters of the early history of the Republic. I would recommend it to anybody who would like a conveniently sized, easy-to-read book about the characters in American history.
Rating:
Summary: Well written, but not worth it
Review: I have been thoroughly disappointed with everything that Gore Vidal has published since "The Golden Age" (and that was not him at his best). I have enjoyed his novels, chiefly "Julian," "Creation," "Burr," "Lincoln," "1876," and even "Empire" and Hollywood." I still recommend these books because of their wit, their invention, and their iconoclasm. I would also recommend his large collection of essays. However, when it comes to this book praise is difficult. First of all, although it does cover much the same ground as "Burr," but a great deal of this work is spent dispensing gossip half truths and obscure quotations which really do not seem to amount to much other than iconoclasm for iconoclasm's sake. It seems that the only people who come off reasonably well in this book are Adams and Franklin (which is odd since they represented different views on life and future of America). The other "founding fathers" are disparaged through and through. While I believe there is a place for these sorts of evaluations, I do believe that Vidal goes too far at times. The characterization of Hamilton as a "British agent" which he expresses in a somewhat peculiar fashion really is too much. Personally I dislike Hamilton, believing him to have been a positive menace after he left government service at the age of 40. However, I do not know of a reputatable historian who would support this claim by Vidal. The reason that Franklin comes off so well is that Vidal has found a rather picquant and pessimistic quotation from "the sage of Philadelphia" expressing fear of the degeneration of the American republic. This obscure quotation is raked over throughout the book. For this service Franklin is praised, though I am not sure he would welcome it. One gets the impression that there is a part of Gore Vidal who seems to believe that the US invented political corruption and this has been with us from the beginning. While the second part is true, this is a phenomenon which the US can not claim exclusive ownership. I think the failings that he delights in are failings that exist in politics and politicians regardless of the age and that one might have to grade these people on the curve or be left with no one worth considering "praise worthy" other than failures and nonentities for the simple reason that they never had the opportunity to be corrupt since they never held office or did anything important to begin with. His main concern is a continuing sense of outrage over the election of 2000 and the "Bush Junta." I think that this has colored his ability to address issues related to the founding fathers in the book and it has has resulted in a greatly inferior product. To be sure, the writing, the wit is still there, but there is also an annoying audacity much to the discredit of the book and its author.
|
