Great list! I'm just finishing "Albion's Seed" right now and read "The Cousins' Wars" a couple of years ago -- both do exactly what you say they do: "operate with a broader theoretical framework, and aren’t just a telescope putting a spotlight on a sequence of facts." Next up for me is "Battle Cry of Freedom" which many consider the best one volume work on the Civil War ever written (it is also part of Oxford's series on American History, which include "What Hath God Wrought"). Looking over your list again, it seems like you need a good book or two focused more on the Revolution. I know you want a theoretical framework, but I don't think you should ignore the great Founders and their thinking/writing. So for example, a book like "Founding Brothers" by Joseph Ellis would be a good addition to get a sense of some of those key players and their ideas. Also, I know it is sort of cliched at this point for a conservative like me to reference Tocqueville, but it is amazing how well "Democracy in America" holds up, especially for its theoretical framework.

John, 
 
I went to that link you provided and discovered that at least Reagan's Administration was more "corrupt" than Bush's! Seriously though, the article claims there was only one Clinton Administration criminal conviction, Webster Hubbell. But a quick Google search lead me to this link which tells a different story: 
 
http://www.prorev.com/legacy.htm  
 
Just a quick excerpt: 
 
"47 individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes with 33 of these occurring during the Clinton administration itself. There were in addition 61 indictments or misdemeanor charges. 14 persons were imprisoned. A key difference between the Clinton story and earlier ones was the number of criminals with whom he was associated before entering the White House." 
 
As I say, I think the default position of people in power is corruption and historically in America, there isn't much difference at the federal level between Democratic and Republican administrations.

I have to read Bramwell's piece, so perhaps he addresses these concerns and you can slap me for commenting before I know what I'm talking about. However, that definition of conservatism seems woefully inadequate. How do institutions ever change and by what criteria would a conservative judge the change? It seems like a receipe for moral relativism. One of my favorite stories of the British Empire comes by way of Roger Kimball, who tells us how 
 
"in the 19th century by General Charles Napier when dealing with sutte, the Indian custom of burning a widow on her husband?s funeral pyre: ?You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.? 
 
I think Emerson is spot on with his description of American conservatism being very different from how most of the rest of the world, especially continental Europe. Since England decided to ditch Catholicism, the Anglo-American tradition of conservatism has always been friendly to change (Burke, who people forget was a Whig, supported the American revolution), although it has also been deeply religious and nationalistic. 
 
I do have to stand up for my homeboy President Bush...it is silly to describe his Administration as some sort of "old-boy network glued together by graft." That sounds like the default position of government, unless policed by republican checks and balances. Do you have any data that indicates more federal bureaucrats and/or contractors were indicted for fraud in the Bush Administration than previous Administrations? 
 
I just want to end by saying Razib is one of the most interesting bloggers I have ever read and I urge you to keep up the good work.