Those interested in history and American studies will find Neil Jumonville's biography of Henry Steele Commager an interesting volume. Jumonville focuses on Commager and his contribution to history and American studies in the context of the major developments of the twentieth century, including a convincing dismantling of the present-minded view of midcentury "consensus" scholars as stodgy cold war reactionaries. Among the topics Jumonville covers are Commager's roots in the Midwestern dissent tradition, his career-long devotion to individual liberties, his concerns about the counter-democratic workings of the Supreme Court (when he disagreed with its decisions), his pragmatism, his commitment to a literary style of history that reaches audiences outside academe, and his steadfast defense of his core principles when it became more difficult to stay "liberal" in the American political scene. Jumonville gives his subject sympathetic treatment but does not shy away from warranted criticism.

In consideration of the origin and development of American studies and Commager's book The American Mind, Jumonville addresses the problems scholars faced in attempting to determine whether there is a distinctive American culture. The presence of such a culture raises questions about how to avoid stereotyping; the absence of such a culture raises questions about the wisdom of attempting to study a non-entity. This consideration is especially important today in the context of debates about "multiculturalism." Commager embraced the "pluralist" vision that saw individuals having "overlapping and offsetting allegiances to a mix of ethnic, religious, political, economic and interest groups" (223). Jumonville argues that "as Lincoln had worried about southern nationalism leading to secession, so Commager and other liberals worried about ethnic multiculturalism leading to subcultural secession" (265). Jumonville's extended consideration of this issue merits the attention of concerned scholars in American culture.

A major theme of the biography is what role academics and intellectuals play in public debate. He distinguishes between scholars who primarily write books based on archival research with some detachment from their subjects, and intellectuals who engage the issues of the day frequently in reviews or essays and with some partisan purpose. Jumonville's judicious consideration of Commager leads the reader to the conclusion that Commager succeeded more as an intellectual than a scholar.

A few examples illustrate the extent to which partisanship can undermine a scholar's credibility. A strong proponent of an activist president until Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon turned such activism toward ends he disliked, Commager tried with little success to articulate a coherent explanation of why the activist presidency had become a bad idea. Jumonville notes Commager's argument that contemporary presidents "were motivated by ideological instead of practical concerns, an interesting distinction that would be so impossible to demonstrate Commager did not even try" (182). Commager later argued that impeachment of Nixon was justified because of "specific crimes" that a contemporary critic noted also "could have been applied with equal validity to John F. Kennedy," leaving that critic suspecting that Commager "is not so much a historian as he is a pamphleteer" (191192). Jumonville criticizes Commager's "intellectual hypocrisy" in denouncing Reagan's ties to the Religious Right: "never would he have criticized the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. for bringing together religion, public morality and politics .... Nor, for that matter had he opposed the involvement of the churches in the politics of the 1960s peace movement . . . Commager tried to have it both ways, criticizing Reagan and the conservatives for the same traits he admired in liberals" (275).

Additionally, Jumonville points out some weaknesses in Commager's thinking that became a problem not only for him, but also for American liberalism. While courageously defending individual liberties in the McCarthy era, Commager never addressed the question of what problems Communists in the American government might actually pose. Since the Ku Klux Klan was "formed to destroy our institutions of liberty," Commager earlier questioned whether it "should be tolerated on the plea of their right to those very freedoms they seek to destroy" (121). He was unwilling, however, to raise the same question about Communists. Jumonville's work reads like an exhortation to the historian to remain involved in public life and to write for a broader audience than fellow professional historians do. While this remains a lofty aim, this biography shows how difficult it can be to attempt to balance the combination of professional scholarship and public political involvement.

John A. Soares, Jr.
George Washington University