American Empire: The Rise of a Global Power, the Democratic Revolution at Home, 1945-2000 (The Penguin History of the United States)

Thia book fills a needed niche in US history; a narrative description of the evolution of cultural, political, financial, military, international, etc etc thoughts and trends from 1945-2000. A look at the table of contents in the 'look inside' feature of amazon will give the reader an idea of the scope of the coverageAmerican Empire is very similar to the works of Frederick Lewis Allen who similarly wrote about the evolving cultural history of the 20's and 30's in "Only Yesterday" amd "Since Yesterday" respectively. Author Joshua Freeman does not have the engaging touch or way with words as does Allen, who was a master of telling a story. Allen subtitles his book "an informal history...", and indeed Freeman's work is more historically derived (lots of detailed information), which in part accounts for the different tone.The book does a very good job of helping any reader understand how the US got from 1945, with all its pluses (financial and military power, e.g) and its negatives (racial/ethnic/gender discrimination e.g) to the current state. While not a 'literary gem', the book is comfortable to read and the author does a very good job in outlining the transitional state of events.Now to the bias part...definitely left/liberal leaning in description of most topics (although not distressingly so), but so very pro labor union that the descriptions of its activities and results are strongly carried by emotion at the price of history. The unions' stridently claimed high wages and benefits, rigid work rules, anti business rhetoric and strikes are not given anywhere near sufficient attention, much alone emphasis by Freeman as a strong causative factor in the decline of industrialization, which is a core feature of that period This is not to be unexpected as Freeman's other works (see his page) are works laudatory of the union effort. No need to go deeply into this bias here; the amazon review of Freeman's "Working Class New York.." by 'jsb-chicago' discusses the bias in detail and very well.That union/financial bias gives it the 3 1/2 to 4 stars. If you understand the other liberal/left biases (to which an author is entitled) and are not such a die hard conservative, you will not be enraged by the overall tone. Given that, it's definitely worth reading as an excellent overview of the times, and if a reader disagrees with the at times controversial statements and conclusions it will encourage more research into the primary materials and sources -- all to the good.

Joshua Freeman's history of the second half of America's 20th century is a superb general history. It is gracefully written and admirably clear throughout. Freeman has organized the text chronologically but given each of the four periods he has divided the years from '45 to 2000 into a thematic title and focus. Within each of the 19 chapters Freeman divided among the four themes, he has chosen specific subtopics that range in length from one to perhaps six pages. The organization, choice of topics, and readable nature of Freeman's book make it an excellent choice for teachers/professors and their upper high school or undergraduate students.I purchased Freeman's text, in part, because I have been dissatisfied with other accounts of the recent history of the U.S. I have purchased nearly all of the various American history 'series' texts from major publishers,(Oxford; Norton; Hill and Wang, etc.), and I got Freeman's book because I have read and used Penguin's first volume in its (still to be completed) series, "American Colonies" by Alan Taylor. which is the best general history on colonial American history I have ever read. Freeman's book bodes well for future volumes in its series.Some here seem to think Freeman's treatment "biased," but it is not. His point of view is clear enough but his presentation of information and his interpretations are judicious and fair. This is not a nationalistic hagiography of the U.S. Freeman presents this period of American history as changeable and he is not trying to paper over the differences Americans have had, and continue to have, with each other. Here are two quotations from his narrative taken from among many similar candidates. From his section on the sit-ins: "Both parties adopted strong civil rights planks in their platforms, with the Republican position, pushed forward by New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller, notable for its support for the sit-ins." (160). Or, on page 362: "Perhaps Reagan's strongest card was his self-assurance, his seeming resolve and willingness to take clear, bold action. His firing of the striking air traffic controllers brought him admiration, even among some voters who did not share antilabor views, for taking a strong stand and sticking with it. His graceful behavior after being shot (in the hospital waiting for surgery he quipped to his wife, 'Sorry,honey,I forgot to duck') cemented his image as calm and self-assured, even, literally, under fire."This is a thoughtful and honest appraisal of the post-war period and has a place on the shelf of any student of American history.Very highly recommended.

freeman is right on how US has declined from its great position of strength after WWII until now esp economically although it is unrealistic to think US could have remained as strong as it was after the war that devastated so many of its potential rivals for the near future; he is rightfully critical of both republican & democrat presidents who failed to deal effectively with long term issues just to serve short term goals to keep themselves in power/office; he is especially critical, & i agree 100% with this position, of reagan who i feel 50 or so years from now will go down as a mediocre or poor president instead of being thought of like he is today by many people; our leaders, congress as well as presidents, will not or maybe cannot communicate our true issues & deal with them because the american people just do not want to believe where we are & are headed if we do not changei recomend this book very strongly for those that want to face reality vs the myths that are perpetrated by many in the media

This book is a useful survey of the Postwar period. As an outsider to the US I fould it valuable as a reminder of the key events and personalities of the period. That said, the book lacked analysis and at times read like a summary of events gleaned from newspapers of the times. Where there was some analysis or judgement expressed, it tended to be left-leaning eg Reagan's accomplishments tend to be downplayed while Clinton is admonished for pursuing economic orthodoxy under the influence of financial market pressures. In summary, the book is very useful as an overview of the more important developments within a political/economic context but its judgements about the pros and cons of the various trends need to be approached with a degree of scepticism.

Book looks like old & used one. Dusty and dirty..

As an American and a millennial, much of the facts presented up to the 60's and 70's enriched and refreshed much of what I knew from my school days; howere, I became aware of how little I knew about the American history I lived through. I found this book very informative, but it is by no means a one stop shop. Instead, it gives you a foundation for further reading, research, and questioning.