Scan barcode
A review by mikesmith
The Good Fight: A Life in Liberal Politics by David Hage, Walter F. Mondale
4.0
I really enjoyed reading Mondale's memoirs. I learned a lot about Hubert H. Humphrey and Mondale, two larger than life figures that helped shape the Minnesota I know. But I had known little more than Humphrey had the Dome named after him and Mondale lost to Reagan. Mondale and Hage clearely explain the values these two men held and how they both shaped the world and grew from the political and social environment in Minnesota. I certainly experienced the benefits of this atmosphere during my early childhood in Minnesota, as the opportunities provided to us were certainly enhanced by the bi-partisan government focus on early childhood and education.
Mondale advocates a disciplined liberalism securing equal opportunity and investing in the important resource of youth education, but without ignoring fiscal responsibilities. He recognizes that government must be limited and does not have infinite resources, even though deficit spending often makes politicians think this is the case. He calls for streamlining government so that priorities can be accomplished without impoverishing the future. He does stand firm that government must provide the people what they cannot achieve on their own, largely enforcement of justice, public education, and military protection. He would like to add equal access to health care to this list but also sees the barriers to implementation, explaining that society cannot add too much at one time.
Mondale at times appears simplistic in the way he views the world, but its probably most balanced in the way he sees his political allies and closest friends. He defends Humphrey and President Carter, but does acknowledge their failings. He often seems to paint himself as the person always at hand with the perfect word of advice, but does usually credit others who had the same ideas. He never apologizes for his convictions, but does admit the limitations of how he approached certain issues. Essentially, he regrets losing elections, but does not believe he should have lost.
Mondale's insights into his opponents tend to be his most biased moments. While he acknowledges most of them are decent gentlemen, he does imply they are usually wrong. He advocates civilized debate and seems to have a record of bi-partisan cooperation. But he seems especially harsh with his characterization of Reagan and George W. Bush. He is gentler with Reagan, cognizant but critical of his failing mental capabilities. But he does admit that Reagan had a strong sense of the pulse of the nation and captured that momentum, the desire for peace, strength and personal economic growth. But he is less kind with Bush and Cheney's handling of the post-9/11 world. He asserts the administration was deceptive, not just wrong about some issues. I'm not convinced of this, but some of his arguments against the tone taken by Bush are fair.
Mondale's best and most important criticism of Reagan indicates his presidency as the time when the very wealthy separated from the average American, with responsibility given to Reagan's economic policy. He believes this led to the golden parachutes we now see as so patently unfair. The widening distribution of wealth and its role in political campaigns does seem to be the biggest threat to American democracy. Mondale does offer solutions of increasing taxes and strict budgets that actually account for the real money flowing in and out of government, but does not show how either party can accomplish this politically. He does say both parties need to recognize the issue and fight for solutions, not political wins.
My favorite part of Mondale's memoirs was his refusal to give up his position as the position of values, family values and Christian values. He explains that his views of equal opportunity and justice stem from his upbringing as a preacher's son in hard-working small town Minnesota and refuses to cede his values to Republicans. He explains that the widespread acceptance of Republican claim of a monopoly on values had eroded the ability of the parties to work together. I wish he would take this further and add blame to Democrats, Obama included, who fail to explain their choices based on values that often come from the same background as Republicans. Mondale's actual beliefs could just as easily be characterized as compassionate conservatism with an emphasis on the compassion. It's this middle between disciplined liberalism and compassionate conservatism that I believe best represents America.
Mondale advocates a disciplined liberalism securing equal opportunity and investing in the important resource of youth education, but without ignoring fiscal responsibilities. He recognizes that government must be limited and does not have infinite resources, even though deficit spending often makes politicians think this is the case. He calls for streamlining government so that priorities can be accomplished without impoverishing the future. He does stand firm that government must provide the people what they cannot achieve on their own, largely enforcement of justice, public education, and military protection. He would like to add equal access to health care to this list but also sees the barriers to implementation, explaining that society cannot add too much at one time.
Mondale at times appears simplistic in the way he views the world, but its probably most balanced in the way he sees his political allies and closest friends. He defends Humphrey and President Carter, but does acknowledge their failings. He often seems to paint himself as the person always at hand with the perfect word of advice, but does usually credit others who had the same ideas. He never apologizes for his convictions, but does admit the limitations of how he approached certain issues. Essentially, he regrets losing elections, but does not believe he should have lost.
Mondale's insights into his opponents tend to be his most biased moments. While he acknowledges most of them are decent gentlemen, he does imply they are usually wrong. He advocates civilized debate and seems to have a record of bi-partisan cooperation. But he seems especially harsh with his characterization of Reagan and George W. Bush. He is gentler with Reagan, cognizant but critical of his failing mental capabilities. But he does admit that Reagan had a strong sense of the pulse of the nation and captured that momentum, the desire for peace, strength and personal economic growth. But he is less kind with Bush and Cheney's handling of the post-9/11 world. He asserts the administration was deceptive, not just wrong about some issues. I'm not convinced of this, but some of his arguments against the tone taken by Bush are fair.
Mondale's best and most important criticism of Reagan indicates his presidency as the time when the very wealthy separated from the average American, with responsibility given to Reagan's economic policy. He believes this led to the golden parachutes we now see as so patently unfair. The widening distribution of wealth and its role in political campaigns does seem to be the biggest threat to American democracy. Mondale does offer solutions of increasing taxes and strict budgets that actually account for the real money flowing in and out of government, but does not show how either party can accomplish this politically. He does say both parties need to recognize the issue and fight for solutions, not political wins.
My favorite part of Mondale's memoirs was his refusal to give up his position as the position of values, family values and Christian values. He explains that his views of equal opportunity and justice stem from his upbringing as a preacher's son in hard-working small town Minnesota and refuses to cede his values to Republicans. He explains that the widespread acceptance of Republican claim of a monopoly on values had eroded the ability of the parties to work together. I wish he would take this further and add blame to Democrats, Obama included, who fail to explain their choices based on values that often come from the same background as Republicans. Mondale's actual beliefs could just as easily be characterized as compassionate conservatism with an emphasis on the compassion. It's this middle between disciplined liberalism and compassionate conservatism that I believe best represents America.