Why Are Most Political Books/Memoirs So Quickly Forgotten?

[Free Bird]

I'm not the only one that notices this, right? Nobody talks about books by or about politics/politicians a year or two after they come out, not even autobiographies. Nobody holds up An American Life, My Life, Decision Points, or Square Peg (same thing for Senators) as great works of literature or even talks about them anymore, and nobody will talk about Shattered, What Happened, Let Trump be Trump, or anything like that in a year or two. It seems only occasionally that books written about a subject long after they die are persistently respected, such as American Lion, and that's only because they're historical figures by that point.

Why is this? Why don't even presidential autobiographies stay relevant? I can understand quickly churned out stuff written at the moment falling out of relevance, but one would think that the personal memoirs and autobiographies of a President wouldn't so quickly be forgotten. Is politics and its people that are still alive just not gripping material?

[Koharu]

Being relevant to the public is very different from being relevant to historians. While you and I may never even think of it, Gen. Grant's autobiography is still part of debates about Grant, Native affairs, slavery and reconstruction, etc. The same can be said of almost any book, even the classics. Classic fiction is usually not discussed by the general public, but academia happily discusses it.

Anyway, if you would like discussions to continue, check out some academic journals and go to events where papers are discussed. You'll find them being discussed there.

Biographies are a different issue and for them it depends on how close to the source both in time and location the book was written.

Now I'm missing all my lovely college days. God, history is amazing.

[KingSweden]

Politicians are not naturally talented writers, for the most part.

I own and have read “41: A Portrait of my Father.” It’s interesting, sure, but it is not particularly well written.

[Mr. Smith]

Uh, All the Presidents Men is still a bit of a hallmark.  The Johnson Years by Robert Caro are still reasonably iconic.

And what about Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72?

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

I'm not the only one that notices this, right? Nobody talks about books by or about politics/politicians a year or two after they come out, not even autobiographies. Nobody holds up An American Life, My Life, Decision Points, or Square Peg (same thing for Senators) as great works of literature or even talks about them anymore, and nobody will talk about Shattered, What Happened, Let Trump be Trump, or anything like that in a year or two. It seems only occasionally that books written about a subject long after they die are persistently respected, such as American Lion, and that's only because they're historical figures by that point.

Why is this? Why don't even presidential autobiographies stay relevant? I can understand quickly churned out stuff written at the moment falling out of relevance, but one would think that the personal memoirs and autobiographies of a President wouldn't so quickly be forgotten. Is politics and its people that are still alive just not gripping material?

The primary reason is that they are not intended to be long-lasting in the first place.

The primary purpose of 99% of contemporary political "books" (to the extent that they can be called such a thing) is to enable the "author" to go on a book tour. And now we get to the real purpose of writing a political "book" - enabling the "author" to be invited to television interviews and radio interviews so that they can "talk about their book," and thereby get free publicity and also get some money. The best part of this is that the author can throw in a few finger wagging bits and then also cast themselves as a "public intellectual" and a very serious person.

By contrast, in the olden days of Ulysses S. Grant's memoirs and the like, authors wrote for a different purpose - for history, because mass media television/radio book interviews did not exist.

[Free Bird]

Have you ever read one? Even the genre's exemplars are disposable vehicles for self-promotion.

In some cases the advances amount to outright influence-peddling, granted with no expectation that anyone will ever purchase enough copies to justify the expense in terms of sales.

In other cases, politicians buy thousands of copies of their own books to gin up attention. Sometimes they are distributed to supporters; in other cases, they sit in a warehouse until they are pulped. Incidentally, this is also a good way of converting campaign contributions into personal wealth.

Just step in to your nearest thrift store and count the obviously untouched copies of Decision Points or The Audacity of Hope on the shelves. These books are written - usually poorly, and by someone who spends minimal time with the politician - for the moment. They're not meant to have relevance for more than a couple of years.

This makes sense. Do you think the subject matter has the potential at all to gain wider recognition other than a cheap cash-in, or is politics just not something the public cares too much about to have that sort of success a la Hunger Games or Harry Potter, even if it's a fictionalized account?

[Indy Texas]

I'm not the only one that notices this, right? Nobody talks about books by or about politics/politicians a year or two after they come out, not even autobiographies. Nobody holds up An American Life, My Life, Decision Points, or Square Peg (same thing for Senators) as great works of literature or even talks about them anymore, and nobody will talk about Shattered, What Happened, Let Trump be Trump, or anything like that in a year or two. It seems only occasionally that books written about a subject long after they die are persistently respected, such as American Lion, and that's only because they're historical figures by that point.

Why is this? Why don't even presidential autobiographies stay relevant? I can understand quickly churned out stuff written at the moment falling out of relevance, but one would think that the personal memoirs and autobiographies of a President wouldn't so quickly be forgotten. Is politics and its people that are still alive just not gripping material?

The primary reason is that they are not intended to be long-lasting in the first place.

The primary purpose of 99% of contemporary political "books" (to the extent that they can be called such a thing) is to enable the "author" to go on a book tour. And now we get to the real purpose of writing a political "book" - enabling the "author" to be invited to television interviews and radio interviews so that they can "talk about their book," and thereby get free publicity and also get some money. The best part of this is that the author can throw in a few finger wagging bits and then also cast themselves as a "public intellectual" and a very serious person.

By contrast, in the olden days of Ulysses S. Grant's memoirs and the like, authors wrote for a different purpose - for history, because mass media television/radio book interviews did not exist.

^^^

Most books politicians write are quickly forgotten precisely because they're so forgettable.

(1) The politicians don't write them. They are ghostwritten, hence the "with so-and-so" byline below the "author's" name. Writing a book is a full-time job in and of itself, which is why you have people like Ben Sasse magically able to churn out books while serving as a US Senator.

(2) The subject matter is mostly drivel. It's either a retelling of a recent phase of one's worklife (serving in Congress, serving as a Cabinet secretary, etc) or a wordier version of whatever their political platform is.

The original point of a memoir was that it was written near the end of one's life, after retiring for good from public life, to serve as a recollection at a suitable distance and remove from current events so as to be more circumspect and reflective. Ulysses S. Grant's memoirs are considered the best of any American politician for that reason.

I've never bought or read any book by a current elected official/political figure for that reason. Reading it is going to be a waste of time. Any salacious tidbits will be covered by the media anyway. The books serve no purpose other than to be a free giveaway when you go to a paid speech they give, and for politically-connected groups to buy bulk orders of to pump up the sales numbers.

[Indy Texas]

You could make a compelling case that the last US politician who wrote any book that was actually useful was Herbert Hoover.

Principles of Mining was commonly used in college courses.

His translation of On the Nature of Metals is still the standard English language translation of that book.

[Free Bird]

I'm not the only one that notices this, right? Nobody talks about books by or about politics/politicians a year or two after they come out, not even autobiographies. Nobody holds up An American Life, My Life, Decision Points, or Square Peg (same thing for Senators) as great works of literature or even talks about them anymore, and nobody will talk about Shattered, What Happened, Let Trump be Trump, or anything like that in a year or two. It seems only occasionally that books written about a subject long after they die are persistently respected, such as American Lion, and that's only because they're historical figures by that point.

Why is this? Why don't even presidential autobiographies stay relevant? I can understand quickly churned out stuff written at the moment falling out of relevance, but one would think that the personal memoirs and autobiographies of a President wouldn't so quickly be forgotten. Is politics and its people that are still alive just not gripping material?

The primary reason is that they are not intended to be long-lasting in the first place.

The primary purpose of 99% of contemporary political "books" (to the extent that they can be called such a thing) is to enable the "author" to go on a book tour. And now we get to the real purpose of writing a political "book" - enabling the "author" to be invited to television interviews and radio interviews so that they can "talk about their book," and thereby get free publicity and also get some money. The best part of this is that the author can throw in a few finger wagging bits and then also cast themselves as a "public intellectual" and a very serious person.

By contrast, in the olden days of Ulysses S. Grant's memoirs and the like, authors wrote for a different purpose - for history, because mass media television/radio book interviews did not exist.

^^^

Most books politicians write are quickly forgotten precisely because they're so forgettable.

(1) The politicians don't write them. They are ghostwritten, hence the "with so-and-so" byline below the "author's" name. Writing a book is a full-time job in and of itself, which is why you have people like Ben Sasse magically able to churn out books while serving as a US Senator.

Were My Life and Decision Points ghostwritten? I don't think they were, no? If that's the case, they must've been forgettable for your other reasons.

[The Mikado]

I think Dreams From My Father, Obama's first book, might be a bit of an exception, in that that book and its popularity was a lot of people's first glimpse of Obama before he was a national icon. Of course, he wrote it long before he was running for President.

Campaign books are universally garbage, and memoirs are useful but inherently problematic because a memoir is designed to make you look good and take a sledgehammer to your critics. Also, most Presidential memoirs aren't written like Grant's, which is incredibly honest, reflective, and a fine piece of literature (maybe the first and last Presidential memoir to be worth reading).

Pretty much the only things Presidential memoirs are cited for are for quotes for the actual, real, professional biographies of Presidents. (Or, in the case of Jefferson Davis' memoir, as a favorite text for Southern apologists)

[Beet]

Averrroes is correct. They are not intended to be timeless. Their purpose is to further the career of the purported author. That's it.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

In British politics, some of the best memoirs come from backbench MPs with nothing else to lose. For example, the diaries that are most popular to describe the New Labour years are not from Blair, Brown, Mandelson or Campbell, but Chris Mullin, a Sunderland MP who explicitly states that he thinks he failed to apply himself and dedicates a lot of his writing to quite bizarre legislative pursuits like his obsession with Freemasonry. Helps of course that Mullin started out a writer, penning the classic "A Very British Coup", and it definitely helped that he regarded his political career as completely dead, so he could happily be frank and honest about people, the public and himself.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Because it's politics.

It's like pop music with a 48 hour recycle rate. Hence politicians are educated salesmen (and women) who for the most part are interested in themselves primarily.

My family only buy my autobiographies of Australian sports stars.

I would like Leo Fenders autobiography if there is one. Maybe Les Paul as well. Two guys who put the USA at the forefront for genius.

If one of my family bought me an Australian politicians' biography, i would ring them up and ask them if they were mentally ill.
 

[136or142]

Kevin Phillips 'The Emerging Republican Majority' is correctly regarded as a fairly seminal book as is Joe McGinnis' 'The Selling of the President, 1968.'

Theodore White's series on the Presidential elections "The Making of the President" are fairly well remembered, but they tend to be very badly written.

The unofficial follow up book to 'All the President's Men,' 'The Final Days' seems to be largely forgotten as well even though at the time it sold more copies than 'All the President's Men' (at least in its initial printing.)

As far as I'm concerned the forever classic political book, even though it's written as fiction is Anthony Jay's and Jonathan Lynn's 'Yes, Minister.'

[KingSweden]

In British politics, some of the best memoirs come from backbench MPs with nothing else to lose. For example, the diaries that are most popular to describe the New Labour years are not from Blair, Brown, Mandelson or Campbell, but Chris Mullin, a Sunderland MP who explicitly states that he thinks he failed to apply himself and dedicates a lot of his writing to quite bizarre legislative pursuits like his obsession with Freemasonry. Helps of course that Mullin started out a writer, penning the classic "A Very British Coup", and it definitely helped that he regarded his political career as completely dead, so he could happily be frank and honest about people, the public and himself.

This sounds like a pretty interesting book

[136or142]

In British politics, some of the best memoirs come from backbench MPs with nothing else to lose. For example, the diaries that are most popular to describe the New Labour years are not from Blair, Brown, Mandelson or Campbell, but Chris Mullin, a Sunderland MP who explicitly states that he thinks he failed to apply himself and dedicates a lot of his writing to quite bizarre legislative pursuits like his obsession with Freemasonry. Helps of course that Mullin started out a writer, penning the classic "A Very British Coup", and it definitely helped that he regarded his political career as completely dead, so he could happily be frank and honest about people, the public and himself.

This sounds like a pretty interesting book

A Very British Coup is also an excellent t.v miniseries.

[Indy Texas]

I think Dreams From My Father, Obama's first book, might be a bit of an exception, in that that book and its popularity was a lot of people's first glimpse of Obama before he was a national icon. Of course, he wrote it long before he was running for President.

Campaign books are universally garbage, and memoirs are useful but inherently problematic because a memoir is designed to make you look good and take a sledgehammer to your critics. Also, most Presidential memoirs aren't written like Grant's, which is incredibly honest, reflective, and a fine piece of literature (maybe the first and last Presidential memoir to be worth reading).

Pretty much the only things Presidential memoirs are cited for are for quotes for the actual, real, professional biographies of Presidents. (Or, in the case of Jefferson Davis' memoir, as a favorite text for Southern apologists)

Dreams From My Father was a seriously authored autobiography. The Audacity of Hope was glossy campaign drivel.

[Indy Texas]

In British politics, some of the best memoirs come from backbench MPs with nothing else to lose. For example, the diaries that are most popular to describe the New Labour years are not from Blair, Brown, Mandelson or Campbell, but Chris Mullin, a Sunderland MP who explicitly states that he thinks he failed to apply himself and dedicates a lot of his writing to quite bizarre legislative pursuits like his obsession with Freemasonry. Helps of course that Mullin started out a writer, penning the classic "A Very British Coup", and it definitely helped that he regarded his political career as completely dead, so he could happily be frank and honest about people, the public and himself.

This is also why Cabinet secretaries who leave on bad terms can be the exception to the rule and write fairly blunt, circumspect books.

The Price of Loyalty by Paul O'Neill is a good example.

[Kleine Scheiße]

Off the Sidelines is quite good, but I had trouble finding a copy of it.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

Having read A Promised Land I can agree with this thread, they are complete drivel that are worthless too read.

[Interlocutor is just not there yet]

By contrast, in the olden days of Ulysses S. Grant's memoirs and the like, authors wrote for a different purpose - for history, because mass media television/radio book interviews did not exist.

It certainly sounds romantic and noble, but I don't know if I'd use Grant as an example of 'writing history for history's sake'. Didn't he write his memoirs because he was broke & dying and wanted to provide some funding to his family?

Not saying it's bad at all. But he had his ulterior motives not unlike someone like Harry Truman in the 1950s.

[Mr. Smith]

Jimmy Carter's works are quite well done, though I do note that the quality really only improved after he largely stopped politicking and went full-in with The Carter Center.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

By contrast, in the olden days of Ulysses S. Grant's memoirs and the like, authors wrote for a different purpose - for history, because mass media television/radio book interviews did not exist.

It certainly sounds romantic and noble, but I don't know if I'd use Grant as an example of 'writing history for history's sake'. Didn't he write his memoirs because he was broke & dying and wanted to provide some funding to his family?

Not saying it's bad at all. But he had his ulterior motives not unlike someone like Harry Truman in the 1950s.

Also he had a pretty interesting life before politics, much of the Meimors is more about his military experience then politics which probably helps. It was also very interesting, Mark Twain funded the whole thing as a personal favour but made a lot of money out of it by bascialy getting unemployed union soldiers to sell it while in uniform and guilt the populace into buying the book. "Don't you care about the saviours of the Union and his Bereveed Widow ?"

[HillGoose]

bcuz they'res always a nother one coming out once the last one did u know what i mean

[cp]

Being relevant to the public is very different from being relevant to historians. While you and I may never even think of it, Gen. Grant's autobiography is still part of debates about Grant, Native affairs, slavery and reconstruction, etc. The same can be said of almost any book, even the classics. Classic fiction is usually not discussed by the general public, but academia happily discusses it.

Anyway, if you would like discussions to continue, check out some academic journals and go to events where papers are discussed. You'll find them being discussed there.

Biographies are a different issue and for them it depends on how close to the source both in time and location the book was written.

Now I'm missing all my lovely college days. God, history is amazing.

Well, that's sort of true. As documents, political memoirs are useful up to a point. Historians do read these tombs to get a sense of the age, how the person likes to present themself, and as a mine for tidbits of evidence. But they're rarely the subject of historiographic debate or controversy in and of themselves. As a professional historian myself, I tend to use memoirs more to corroborate a point I've pieced together from primary/archival material, rather than as the thrust/basis of the argument.