Political Ideology Books

I was looking forward to reading Mike's latest book for weeks before it finally came out, and when I finally got my copy I wasn't disappointed. Michael Moore is in true form in this fast, funny and insightful read. I couldn't put it down and it felt healthy to have such a good laugh while never losing sight of how serious this election will be. It's worth the price just to read the first chapter, a humorous question and answer session entitled "Ask Mike".

What's the point of even reading this? Let me save you the trouble - I can summarize the whole thing for you: Republicans suck and Democrats are the only truly intelligent people on earth. Voting for a Republican makes you inhuman, and worthless.

This is the kind of horribly drivel that is ruining America. I wish Moore and Ann Coulter would both find a new home in Zanzibar or something. Just go away with the hate-filled rhetoric.

Whatever happened to cordial disagreements?

Don't buy, read or touch this book and feed the machine that ruins us all. Remember: united we stand, divided we fall.

The book is a sad attempt at getting back into the headlines. It is not worth the money.

Once again, Michael Moore exposes the truth of this election, and throws the punches many Democrats are afraid to throw. Every American concerned about the future of the country needs to read this book before November 4th.

I am a huge fan of Moore's writing and his ability to use humor to address issues that, to be blunt, can be very dry. This book was a little bit of a mixed bag for me. It had some humorous parts and some useful information but it seemed to lack the depth that previous books held. Some of the questions in the Q&A Section were just plain silly. Overall, it was a quick and worthwile read but not his best.

I was disappointed in this book. It has good references for the research that has been done by the author, but it was not excatly what I thought it would be about. But I would recommend it to any one who would like to have more insite about Barack Obama's background and experiences that have lead him to believe he could be the next President of the United States.

The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite CandidateThis is an amazingly detailed and well documented book that traces Obama's history. The author relies on direct quotes and largely verifiable facts from publicly available sources. Contrary to the impression the title might convey, it is not a pure polemic against Obama, but a challenge to examine more closely this presidential candidate's life history, associations, influences, activities and political philosophy. Anyone considering voting for Obama should read this book before they cast their ballot and ask themselves about this man who has suddenly appeared on the national scene seeking the most powerful political office in the world: "Barack, how well do we really know ye?"

The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate
The Author notes his bias, but since I had previously read Dreams from my Father, I knew that the description of this Man's prejudices and hatreds were true.

Read, Read, Read, and our next President with not be prejudiced.

After all the excess from both parties, I thought this could be a fact finding guide to help me reflect on the Obama phenomenom. This isn't it. Instead it's just another biased report from yet another pundit. While both the left and the right manipulate for our vote, the book does offer some interesting background on the rise of the Senator often ignored by mainstream reporters. Senator Obama may be a brilliant orator for those hungry for a messiah like personality, but in truth, he's more a well marketed mouthpiece for special interests who always followed along party line. The book link the Senator to a few corrupt associates who made their fortune building affordable housing for the needy. Sounds all too familiar if you examine the history of the Daly political machine. I wish the book would have ignited greater insights but it just wasn't written that well and read more like a magazine piece.

The book is a must read for anyone wanting to know the true facts about Barack Obama. The author has done a commendable job in researching the background of Barack Obama, particularly his time spent in South Chicago, his questionable friends, his padding the pockets of real estate developers, his voting record in the Illinois state Senate, and radical comments the Senator has made both in his writings and in speeches. Barack Obama's campaign rhetoric is much different than his "record", as David Freddoso brilliantly details in his book, "The case Against Barack Obama." If there is a negative side to the book, it is that Freddoso spends a little too much time with Obama's South Chicago experience, which drags the narrative and adds to boredom. Overall, it is a factual hard-hitting book.

Our country will never be able to live up to the lofty ideals of our founding documents unless we come to grips with the truth of how we got where we are. This book tells the truth about how the people on top have butchered and suppressed others in order to STAY on top. The first 10 pages are absolutely shocking - WHY do we celebrate Columbus Day?
Every American school student should be required to read this, if only to counterbalance the glorious, whitewashed history that is in our textbooks.

The sad part is the ideas Zinn is so passionate about deserve to be expressed well and read by an even larger audience than he currently enjoys.

Had Zinn hooked up with a good writer this may well have been a good book. As it stands I can't help feel I am browsing wily nilly through stacks of index cards filled with quotes, facts, and observations from original and secondary sources pertaining to a particular view of U.S. history.

Now all someone has to do is organize all these cards into a book with, if we are lucky, a compelling narrative flow. That is a separate art from the collection of the index cards, something Zinn is very good at.

Currently the material is mind numbingly unorganized, repetitive, and verbose, which is a shame. Zinn's view of the primary forces that have shaped, and continue to shape our country deserve a better showing.

It's obvious this cat knew the kind of book he wanted to write before he started. He just needed the facts and data to back it up. A lot of this guy's opinions and conclusions are probably right. But it's hard to lend much credibility to a historian who grabs at so many straws. One thing I remember was he wrote about a riot in New York during the Civil War and stated that no actual number of deaths were ever recorded, but that this was the largest number of deaths ever in a case of domestic violence in America. Is that a guess then? I think that's around pg. 236, though I don't have it in front of me. One thing I do know is on pg. 193 he talks about the massacre at Fort Pillow, Kentucky. Dude, Fort Pillow is in Tennessee. If you can't even get a fact like that straight, how can I trust all the other less clear-cut things you present? Go ahead and read this if you want a non-typical book that doesn't rave about how great America's past was. Just don't put much stock in everything this guy tries to feed you.

This is a book that everyone should read & should be a requirement in all schools.

Wow! Just superb. It gave me the real, true perspective of the US. It was an eye opener for me. One of my top 3 reads of all time.

Thank you!

An eye opener from an insider non politician. Enjoyed reading the book and learnt more about how far our politicians have digressed from taking care of the people who elect them.

I've been following Ron Paul for about a year now and even I learned some new things reading this book. I think it lays out the case real well for local government and self government versus the large intrusive Federal government we now have. Our country needs to right the ship now while we still can

They both are "revolutionists" who are trying to overthrow governments. I see no difference between this book and Mao's Red Diary. I guess you can say this is the Mao's diary for infowarriors and conspiracy nuts. Worst read ever and there's a reason he only got 0.5% of Republican Delegates. Don't be persuaded by nut job and jobies Alex Jones, his propaganda is the only reason why there was so much internet hype (we all see where that went), think outside of the box and be independent...

Ron Paul is certainly the most interesting politician of his time. I am behind his domestic policy 95% of the time, but his foreign policy is very naïve. Yes the founding fathers did not want us going abroad...but they also lived in a time where the United States could free ride off the security the Brittish Empire brought to the Western World. Geopolitical changes have also brought an end to the days of noninterventionsism because our oceans can not longer protect us from planes, missiles and terrorists. And no, I don't buy into the naïve argument that "they" would just leave us alone if we left them alone. Our enemies abroad do not seek peace with us any more than our enemies here at home really want equality and multiculturalism. What they both want is the destruction of the West.
However, Congressman Paul makes an excellent argument that if we don't trust big government here at home to fix problems, why should we expect the same government to go abroad and fix the societies of the Middle East? The answer is we shouldn't. Just because we break it, doesn't mean we have to fix it. Interventionism can occur for strategic reasons without it becoming the Wilsonian foreign policy of George Bush.

You know that feeling you get right before a big election? The total and complete indifference that is akin to having tea or coffee with your meal perhaps? The apathy that I was once accustomed to experience when the conversation turned towards politics has since been replaced with a burning and intense passion and desire for real change. As we all know far too well that nothing of substance really changes within our federal government. Ron Paul proposes real change, and his source of inspiration is our Constitution.

In his famous book What's the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America, Thomas Frank made the argument many liberals were reluctant to make. He argued that citizens of red states were being duped by the right into voting against their economic interests. Frank received not only the usual charges from the right of being an elitist, but also criticism from the left such as Larry Bartels in Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age (Russell Sage Foundation Co-Pub). Bartels showed that rich rather than the poor were more likely to vote on cultural issues and that the poor voted not only Democratic but more on economic issues.

In this new book, Frank takes his battle with conservatives to the Beltway. He examines what government becomes when it is run by those who think government is the problem. The fact that there have been so many corruption cases - Delay, Abramoff, etc. - during the Republican years was no accident, rather it is a direct result of the conservative attitude towards public service. Conservatives, in Frank's view, see the liberal state as obstructive and public service as a joke. It was their goal to downsize and outsource public agencies to the point were they became ineffective and incompetent, thereby validating the conservative philosophy of government. FEMA's response to Hurricane Katrina under the leadership of Bush's political crony, "Brownie," was a classic example.

The generation of conservative idealists that came to Washington during the Reagan administration, Frank concedes, came with goods intention. They came to reform a system that was by the late 1970's dysfunctional. But after they achieved power they proceeded, not to reform, but to neuter government agencies. They did this by opening the door to the so-called market forces. Government was now for sale to the highest bidder, and corporations and their ubiquitous lobbyists became the key movers and shakers. Robert Reich in Supercapitalism: The Transformation of Business, Democracy, and Everyday Life (Vintage) estimated that there are now around 37,000 registered lobbyists in Washington engaged in an "arms race of spending". This lavish spending by corporations to influence policy has transformed not only the politics but also the economy of the Beltway. It is no surprise that Loudoun County, a suburb of DC, is now the richest county in America. The second richest is Fairfax, right next to Loudoun. The third, sixth, and seventh richest are also in the greater DC area. The wages of lobbying have been good and show no sign of decline. It is the preferred career path of retired politicians.

The shortcomings of this book should be obvious: it is a liberal diatribe in which the liberals can do no wrong and the conservatives no right. But as far as these kinds of diatribes go, Thomas Frank's is of the highest caliber.

Frank shows that the last 30 years of economic and banking public policy in the USA has resulted in a disasterous wave of privatization and deregulation that has resulted in the USA reverting to the type of boom-bust speculator economy dominant in the 1880's-early 1890's and 1920's. President Carter started the dismantling of the regulatory apparatus set up in the mid 1930's to contain and prevent the speculator type of economy that had resulted from the deregulation and privatization carried out during the Harding-Coolidge administration during the 1920's.The result was the creation in the mid 1920's of housing and stock market bubbles financed by new balloon payment loans(read subprime and Alt-A loans) and margin account financing.The result was the perfectly predictable and inevitable banker financed bubble- mania-panic-crash-recession or depression pattern that has been repeating for about 450 years throughout the world

However,Frank has incorrectly identified the political affiliation of the individuals who view government as the problem .It is not conservatives who seek to do away or eliminate or have a g-string sized government.It is the libertarians ,masquarding as conservatives,who are responsible for the current near collapse of the financial and banking system in the USA.These libertarians identify themselves,not as libertatians,but as " supply side " or " public choice " or " University of Chicago " economists.None of these anti-government groups are conservative in the sense of Adam Smith,Edmund Burke, George Washington,Alexander Hamilton,Franklin,Madison,Jay,the Adams brothers,Monroe,Lincoln,Theodore Roosevelt,Douglas MacArthur, Dwight D Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford.These anti -government groups hark back to the empty rhetoric of Paine ,Henry ,Mason,Randolph,Shay's Rebellion of 1786-87,the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791-1794,and the Confederacy of 1861-65.

Practically all of the founding fathers were Federalists.They believed in a strong central government,a strong and independent(from both government and the private banking industry)central bank,as well as the use of large revenue tariffs and retaliatory tariffs ,as advised by A Smith in 1776 in his the Wealth of Nations on pp.434-439(Modern Library(Cannan)edition.

I have deducted one and a half stars due to Frank's failure to devote some part of his book to discussing what the historical connotation of the word " conservative " means.Conservatives are not anti government;libertarians are.Jack Abramoff is most likely a libertarian.He is certainly not a conservative

"The Wrecking Crew" starts out slowly and then builds to a steady revelation of conservative secrets and travesties. It is a "Must Read" for all those interested in good government.

Conservatives see government as meddling in the market - a force of godlike omniscience; their aim is to ensure government impotence. Liberals, on the other hand, see markets as unstable and needing control by organized intelligence.

Conservatism's recent triumphs began with the discovery of the enormous profits possible from business support for conservative activism, especially direct mail. Unfortunately, accuracy was not an issue. A second major benefit came from Howard Phillips "defund the left" doctrine, augmented by "fund the right" - faith-based organizations, private contractors with the right politics and the clients of favored lobbyists.

The tendency of government workers to join unions makes them even more detestable to conservatives. Now far more people work under contracts than are directly employed by the federal government. A favorite conservative tactic has been to shut down offices that supervise outsourced operations, or even outsourcing the activity.

Running on a platform that government is "part of the problem" does not attract good people, thus generating a self-fulfilling prophesy. This is reinforced by holding down salaries. Alternatively, private government contractors return the favor by political donations, while no-bid contracts negate the principal of competition leading to improved performance.

The "revolving door" from government worker to industry is another major problem. Republicans in 1995 discontinued record-keeping on the topic. However, one study found that 43% of Congresspeople leaving office since 1998 have become lobbyists, up from 9% in the 1970s.

Putting those opposed to a unit's mission in charge of it helps negate the intended value, without creating the clamor that abolishment would; it also makes it more more difficult for supporters to reassign its role. Ensuing actions include stripping agency worker supporters of authority, spying on them to find reason for firing, alleging "fat" in the unit, delegating enforcement to those being regulated, and reducing enforcement staff.

Lobbying, think-tank subsidies, slanted pundits and journalists have been enriched by the conservative wave. In 2004 a group of the nation's largest corporations paid a K Street firm $1.6 million for tiny modification of the tax code. The result was they saved $100 billion - about a 6 million percent ROI.

Corruption is a subject conservatives think they understand well - they simply locate it somewhere in the liberal state, in areas such as mass transit, FTC and FDA supervision, etc.

Grover Norquist, a conservative leader, asserts that wasteful earmarks are useful because they help destroy faith in government, and consequently its support. Thus, government failures (eg. Katrina) fuel conservatives, even when caused by conservative bungling. Norquist also supports undermining trial lawyers (traditional Democrat supporters) via tort reform, crushing unions with a paycheck protection measure, expanding NAFTA to force Teamsters to compete with Mexican drivers, vouchers to weaken the NEA, and privatizing Social Security.

Privatizing Social Security would also help defund government operations, propel the federal deficit into the stratosphere, and create massive Wall St. profits. In addition, this would provide strength to undermine minimum wage laws, safer food, etc. as these expenses would be seen as undermining the health of retirees' portfolios.

Increasing the federal deficit furthers spending cuts and greater privatization; this outcome is sold through the false promises of supply-side economics, and further increases cynicism vs. government.

Finally, we also learn that growing income inequality undermines democracy and the ability to reform these Republican actions.

What I like about this book and its author is that he can state a case for liberalism and government that creates a framework for intelligent discussion as to the clash between the free markets and central government. In the extreme, this is the division between Capitalism and Communism.

The book makes the case that Conservatives have conspired to destroy the government and the confidence the public has in it by beating it over the head with a set of specious and unsupported claims about market functions.

I am the kind of economist that the author would be afraid of. I admit that I do not believe that Conservatives "use" the market. I believe, on the contrary, that it is the markets that actually use conservative politicians.

I would go even further to say that what the author fails to recognize is that the markets are far more democratized than he believes. He has the very weak opinion that the markets are nothing but a "shield for the oligarchy of the rich." However, what he does not see is that the same middle class he bemoans are the same people with retirement funds and 401ks that spread the ownership of capital around to a degree that Marx and Lenin never imagined when they were opposing the czars and the kings of Europe.

The thesis of this book is greatly diminished when one sees clearly how the American consumer takes political action by complex consumption decisions. The same is true when one sees clearly that, despite a few easy to observe examples, it is not the situation in the world today that there is a "wealthy oligarchy."

Sure there are very rich people. But their wealth depends on the economic performance of the businesses they once created and in which they now own significant shares in, but no controlling interest. Those organizations are in fact "owned and managed" predominately by a wide array of small share owners who make up giant ownership positions that breathe life into and control the policy of those same companies. These companies are managed by professional managers, apart from the owners. The large block owners benefit from the combined efforts of management and the free flow of capital which oversees or "controls" the efficient allocation of the organization's resources by market-based investment decisions.

What is missing in the view of this book is a complete understanding of how wealth is created by capital markets in the modern world and how the consumer makes democratic economic/political decisions on a daily and continuous basis by simple choices such as whether (for example) to buy Dove soap or Ivory soap, etc.

What is most wrong with the left today is that they, (in the immortal words of their latest icon Barack Obama), "cling" to the historically discredited, and now just plain "stupid," Marxist/Communist idea that Capitalism cannot find a way to democracy.

A very silly and transparent attempt to smear Republicans in a completely non-intellectual way. He actually says things like, "the free market is not wonderful ,...in my opinion". As a liberal it does not even occur to him to explain why Communist China and the USSR have switched to the free market or why most recent Nobel Prize winners prefer the free market. He delights in the Bush scandals and explains them in great detail but merely assumes they are the result of Republican philosophy.
When asked about the scandals of Bill Clinton, Elliot Spitzer, John Edwards and William Jefferson he is absolutely silent. When asked about all the big city Democratic machines the have long been plagued by corruption, he acknowledges that it occurs but insists, for no reason whatsoever, that it is different from the Bush Scandals. When asked about the best period of Democratic dominance he sites the 1930's seemingly not aware of FDR's 10 year long Great Depression, which featured 20% unemployment rates and led to WW 2. When asked what he is for, if not Republican freedom , he says, "democracy". Then he explains that some people now earn so much money while others are struggling. You assume he wants to take the money from the rich and give it to the less rich and poor, but he does even suggest how to do socialism without getting the socialist results that the USSR and Communist China are trying so hard and so successfully to avoid. Of course there is the obligatory sadness about the undemocratic decline of organized labor but he does not suggest how Ford and GM could avoid bankruptcy and compete on the world stage while paying higher union wages. He insists that Bush's outsourcing and privatizing is a dastardly deed and perhaps the symbol of Republicanism, but does not even allude to why a bureaucratic government monopoly, of all things on earth, would be more efficient or less corrupt. In the end, there is not one word in this book that would make a Republican think. If someone wanted to learn to think about political philosophy he would be very familiar with "Free to Choose," "Freedom and Capitalism", and "Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal." Democrats must try to grasp and respond to the arguments in these books, not completely ignore them out of an amazing and perhaps justified fear, if they want to make a contribution to our democracy.

I was genuinely interested in reading this, but he was so caught up with his fervor, talking points, and preconceived notions of reality that I couldn't get to the wonderfully researched history.

His thesis relies on his own (rather uninteresting, though mildly creative) manipulation of semantics. At best his arguments are eye-rolling. More disgracefully, he completely discounts general historic attitudes that were pervasive across party lines.

All in all, rather than being an informative piece, he just comes across as a condescending jerk who only loves the sound of his voice. The kind of guy that clears the room at a party.

I touch on the connection between historical European liberal facism and our own political left in the United States in my newest book, Reason For Life; Further Social and Political Reflections of an American Conservative Atheist. I encourage you to read it, not for the meager revenue it generates, but because it could appeal to many of you on either side of the aisle.

Reason For Life. Further Social and Political Reflections of an American Conservative Atheist

Frank Cress

First of all, allow me to say that I have purchased and read this book -- something I believe few, if any, of the negative reviewers have done.

This is an important work, tracing the intellectual development of the idea that the all-powerful people's State should always trump the individual and be in firm control of all aspects of the population's culture, education, defense or military expansion, information, health and economy, from its modern beginnings under Wilson to the currently epoused nanny state. One could go further back to the French Revolution or further to Thomas More, of course, but given the deplorable state of history knowledge in the US, this might well be counter-productive. Monarchies need not be considered as they are not states that derive their legitimacy from the people -- but rather from God and inheritance.

The most negative aspect of this book is its title, "Liberal Fascism." A careful reader will learn what is meant by the author, but the vast majority will simply see the juxtaposition of the two words, "Liberal" and "Fascism" and read into this anything their pre-conceived ideas suggest. Actually, the author meant to describe something like "Benevolent Fascism", "Soft Fascism", "Smiley-Face Fascism", or my favorite, "Fuzzy Fascism" (e.g. Fascism that will not hurt you.) The word "Liberal" is used to put a more moderate or liberal face on Fascism, something more appropriate to nanny-state fascism. If the reader misinterprets the title, then little rational discussion can ensue.

The strengths of the book are in its rediscovery of the truly disturbing policies of the Wilson administration in 1917 and 1918 whereby opponents of his administration and policies were brutally suppressed. One should review the repressive Alien and Sedition Act and the Espionage Acts that Wilson promulgated. Nor did he shrink from meddling in other countries' affairs and supporting leaders he favored. The reader is advised to study his backing of Carranza and his Vera Cruz expedition in Mexico. At any rate, the Progressive movement in the US really did bring many ideas into the mainstream of American political thought that were later used as cornerstones of fascist ideology.

The author traces the support of communist and fascist states by American progressives until World War II -- an historical fact that should not be denied today as an inconvenient truth.

He also argues succinctly that Fascism replaces a religion based on a supreme being (God) with a religion based on a supreme State. So does communism as a matter of fact. The new God becomes the will of the people as interpreted and enforced by the State's elite for the people's benefit. Hence the development of the nanny-state political philosophy is a direct descendent of Fascism and features many of its evils. Bill O'Reilly has coined the name "Secular-Progressive" to describe thie political philosophy, although I wonder if he realized the historical accuracy of his term. The missing part is the militarism and genocide associated today with Fascism, which were outgrowths of the core ideas of Fascism and may well yet develop in the nanny state. After all, what would there be to stop such a development? It should be remembered that one of Hitler's early steps was to introduce full gun control in Germany to reduce any possibility of internal resistance to his regime.

The argument that "it can't happen here" should be revisited in light of Wilson's actions, Roosevelt's creation of concentration camps for Japanese during World War II, and the more recent Patriot Act. Unfortunately, many turn to the ACLU for solace, but it must be remembered that this organization was founded to foster the spread of communist ideology, and consistently supports the all-powerful leftist and secular state against the individual and religion.

The book bogs down somewhat in the argument that fascism is a product of the left and not of the right (politically.) The author is correct here, but he is swimming upstream against a powerful current from the mainstream American media which is firmly leftist and committed to the creation of a nanny state. In addition, he is trumped by the educational industry, both in public schools and in universities which has consistently taught socialist ideology since World War Two under the rubric of liberal teaching. As of this date, we have had a steady diet of socialist propaganda in our schools and universities for so long than no national or local figure has escaped its pernicious effects. What was thought to be "far-left" in 1960 is now centrist -- so far have we gone down the road towards a fascist state.

Nevertheless, the use of terms that everyone interprets in their own fashion by the author colors this discussion so markedly that constructive dialog between liberals and conservatives over this work is highly improbable. That is a great loss to our democracy.

So what is the solution? There probably isn't one. Politicians eloquently espousing "change" and "hope" have already very effectively learned how to evade issues in favor of vacuous but thrilling demogogy to rise to power. It must be remembered that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama studied Saul Alinsky thoroughly, making him possibly the most important individual in the background of the 2008 election. Senator Clinton even did double duty traveling to California to study under an unrepentant Stalinist. Perhaps they do not understand the road on which they are traveling -- after all, they've never been taught anything different. (That's why home schooling and even charter schools are such threats.) I suspect that the US will survive anything they do in the short term, but they are harbingers of things to come. The trend is there from the days of Wilson, and the ultimate denouement is in sight with Europe cheering us on out of envy every day. Even the mass demonstrations so loved by fascism to demonstrate the power and popularity of the State and its leaders are now being copied.

Before I receive thousands of hate comments from Obama supporters, allow me to state that the epithet "Fascist" does not fit Barack Obama in any way, shape or form. But the parallels I noted should not be overlooked in a study of the historical sweep of events and the acceptance of ideas. There is no question that the US has taken many steps on the road to the author's fascist nanny state, and opposition to this trend is fast being suppressed.

Liberal fascism?

It's understandable why liberals get angry when they see this book displayed. When I saw its cover and title, my first reaction to Jonah Goldberg's LIBERAL FASCISM was to disregard it. It looked like another partisan hatchet job on liberal/progressive politics, and a tacky one at that. That impression soon disappeared, however, once I started browsing its pages. Don't let Hitler Smiley Face on the cover or its ostensibly oxymoronic title (which was actually coined by H.G. Wells back in the 1930s) fool you: LIBERAL FASCISM undoubtedly is a polemic, and not without flaws, but it's also a good book, with a startling and provocative perspective.

To give a short version to the long story behind this controversial book, Los Angeles Times columnist and National Review contributing editor Jonah Goldberg argues that much of modern liberalism is actually the offspring of 20th century progressivism, which in turn shares intellectual roots with both Marxism and European fascism. Throughout much of Europe the communitarian impulse expressed itself in socio-political movements that were militarist, nationalist, and often racist. In the United States this same impulse took the form of progressivism which was better suited to American culture, but no less militant in its crusading spirit, and at times just as nationalist and as racist in expression, as its fascist counterpart. The ultimate goal of American progressivism was holistic society, similar to what the writer and social critic H.G. Wells approvingly dubbed "liberal fascism." (People interested to further explore Wells' fascist/totalitarian tendencies, should read his THE SHAPE Of THINGS To COME, which speculates on a future course of world history from the 20th to the 22nd century.)

Like I mentioned, the book does have its flaws, most of them due to Goldberg's static and often deliberately simplistic ideas for what constitutes "liberal" and "conservative," and his refusal to consider these terms ever as relative signifiers, or to use them outside a 21st century American context.

Such a point brings me to Goldberg's habit of grouping all communitarianism/collectivism exclusively in the left corner. It's just not true. Goldberg ignores, for example, the fact that collectivism was at the heart of traditional Russian society, long predating Marxist and other forms of modern socialism. He makes no mention of the communistic aspirations at the heart of Christian millennialist sects like the Levellers and Diggers of mid-seventeenth century England, both groups being offshoots of Oliver Cromwell's Puritan New Model Army. Such historical phenomena don't fall neatly within the clearly drawn lines of contemporary America's liberal vs. conservative dichotomy. Neither does neopaganism, the occult or ethically-based vegetarianism, anti-vivisectionism or a host of other things which fascinated nineteenth and early twentieth century European society as a whole. Occult and neopagan beliefs, in fact, were prominent within certain elements of Europe's Right, not its Left.

Closer to home, Goldberg does better work with the incipient fascism in 1930s American populism; correctly exposing, for instance, the left-wing roots of Louisiana governor Huey Long and radio commentator Fr. Charles Coughlin. On the other hand, the omission of William Dudley Pelley, George Lincoln Rockwell, or movements like the Silver Shirts and the Black Legion from a book focusing on fascist tendencies in American politics makes one suspicious. The aforementioned names and groups all were openly and proudly fascist--and all also shared origins in traditional American conservatism. By not mentioning any of these individuals or organizations it makes Goldberg look like he was cherry picking facts; ultimately this is more detrimental to the book's worth than either the title or the Smiley Hitler graphics of the cover.

Nevertheless, Goldberg still would've been better off, in the long run, choosing Orwell's "Oligarchical Collectivism" for the title.

So many people, to include certain friends of mine, are all too willing to write this book off as just one more salvo from the Republican noise machine without ever bothering to read it. Goldberg's title is perhaps unfortunate in this regard, as it leaves one with the impression that it is another rightist screed targeting the usual suspects--"feminazis," militant environmentalists, and the like.

Goldberg had me right away, though, when he discussed the ways in which the word "fascism" (in contemporary discourse) has become pretty much emptied of all real meaning. It has become a sort of floating signifier onto which people project various meanings as they see fit. In the last forty years, "fascism" has been served as a sort of stand-in for "extreme conservative" or "Christian fundamentalist." One strain of this goes back to the protests of the sixties and continues in protest discourse today (a la Chris Hedges' book, for example). Yet, as Goldberg shows in his detailed historical analysis, "fascism" has never really been synonymous with conservatism in any significant way. Fascism is in fact a form of radicalism, as is Christian fundamentalism, whereas conservatism is a movement that is focused essentially on the preservation of tradition and the moderation of the impulse to institute reforms.

One of the great ironies of sixties-era radicals bandying about the word "fascist" to describe Richard Nixon and his ilk is that many of those radical groups who trafficked in such talk (Weathermen, the Black Panthers) employed many of the classic brownshirt tactics of fascist agitators.

This is a great book for anyone who has been perplexed by all the shifting alliances and labels of our times, and anyone who realizes how slippery and meaningless terms like "liberal" or "conservative" or "progressive" are when you try to pin them down. What it really leads the reader to do is rethink the way we think of the political spectrum, in terms of Right, Center, and Left. The radical Right and the radical Left, for example, have much more in common with each other than the radical Left does with traditional liberalism or the radical Right has with conservatism.

Goldberg's working definition of "fascism" is pretty much this: Total worship of the state, state control of all activities and expression, and state ownership of everything. Fascism is always more and more government. The classic example of Fascism, Mussolini's Italy, is exactly this when you examine the historical record. True conservatism, on the other hand, always seeks to lessen the influence of government.

Certainly, the Franco regime in Spain was heavily Catholic and at the same time in political sympathy with Germany and Italy (but ultimately neutral during WWII), but it is important not to confuse "theocracy" with true Fascism. It had Fascist allies (Italy and Nazi Germany) during the 1930s, but was not a true fascist state itself--it was a theocratic dictatorship. Likewise, the Shah's regime in Iran and certain dictatorial regimes in Latin America (allied with the U.S. for strategic reasons) were very authoritarian, but that doesn't mean they were fascist in the true sense of the word. Authoritarian regimes can of course be very brutal and oppressive, but that does not necessarily make them fascist because they are often not premised on the notion that government should control every single aspect of a citizen's life. The Shah, for example, was fairly hands-off unless you happened to be openly critical of him or invovled in subversive activities (of course, it must be said, if either of those applied you ended up in the hands of the feared SAVAK).

Goldberg's readings of Rousseau, Robespierre, Sorel, Mussolini, Hitler, Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, William Jennings Bryan, and many other figures are lively and very perceptive. Many of his revelations are shocking and surprising. Woodrow Wilson, for example, has gone down DRASTICALLY in my estimation after reading Goldberg's interpretation of some of his major writings.

If Hillary Clinton-style liberalism and fascism have anything at all in common, Goldberg says, it's the notion that the state is the supreme arbiter and caretaker for all and of all. This is not a book which seeks to make a point that "liberals are fascists." It is a book, rather, which seeks to enlighten those individuals who casually throw a word (one that has a very precise meaning) around with little regard for its properly historical definition.

This is an excellent book explained with humor. Every American should read it and at least every politician on Capitol Hill!

I am utterly fascinated and bewildered by the information contained in this book. While I have no way of knowing if the statistics used are valid--I presume they are--this creates a feeling in me that I may have done the wrong thing in bringing 3 children into the world, which will clearly be a different place before they leave it. This book is humorous and enlightening and should be required reading for everyone in America, especially the attendees at the Democrat Convention. Of course, they wouldn't believe it. A goodly number would probably welcome Mr. Steyn's description of the world at the end of the century. God help them!

Facts have a way of enlightening how we examine the past, and this book is written in a fascinating manner that weaves facts in between some very humorous passages, yet does not miss the point of warning the West and free market democracies everywhere that culture matters; population momentum is shifting in ways that will and are shrinking the world's centers of positive improvement for humans on this planet, and all you need to prove this point is to look at who is breeding and who isn't.

Mr. Steyn's view points concerning the dangers of Islam are shared by a large number of my Indian national colleagues. India is a secular religious-tolerant country with a rising Muslim poplulation of over 130 million.

It appears many in the educated Hindu, Jain and Sikh populations share Mr. Steyn's views of Islam as a 7th century religious and political system bent on enforcing its archaic dictums upon democratic societies. Two major concerns here are the birth rate of Muslim families substanially exceeding the birth rate of other groups, and the silent moderate Muslim majority's failure to publically denounce Islamic extremist atrocities. These are also Mr. Steyn's concerns on a global basis.

Mr. Steyn provides compelling arguements concerning the exportation of Western Popular Culture being ineffective in combating the Islamic menance, but rather the exportation of the benefits of American culture concerning self-reliance and independence from what Mr. Steyn calls "Nanny Governments," as effective means to defeat Islamic radicals.

From a literary point of view, Mr. Steyn is second to none in his ability to turn a phase. I found myself laughing out loud reading his verbiage about this serious and dark subject. Whether or not a reader agrees with Mr. Steyn's opinions, this book provides splendid and entertaining arguements which make an interesting and provocative read for all.

I don't recommend reading this book as a night time reader - it is too scary! Unlike most books that use statistics to justify their point, Mr. Steyn presents numbers from various nations and demographic subsets that are revealing for the future of Western Europe and America. When in brief conversations on airplanes, airports, restaurants, etc. (all anecdotal) the stories are backed up by real people's real experiences. Don't believe what the media tell you, backup your arguments with the facts. I would recommend a companion book to read by Thomas Sowell, Advanced Economics - Thinking Beyond Stage one.

The other reviews cover the content, but as for the format (at least in the elder edition this reviewer has), the pages are stubby and short given the length of the binding. Increasing the width by another 1.5'' would have reduced the somewhat crammed text, but Norton must have needed the paper to print other books at the time.

Works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Includes Capital (Das Kapital) and Communist Manifesto. FREE Authors' biographies and essays in the trial version.

This ebook contains essential works of Marx & Engels. Great digital item!

then this is really the volume to get. Besides it's Norton: headnotes, footnotes, delicious paper, quality binding, good selections, a good look at Marx as far I can see.

This is an excellent compilation of Marx and Engels's works. Tucker's version is one of the foremost used by scholars and educators in the academic setting and is considered one of the best. Although I admittedly have not read all of the works in the reader, I was consistently impressed with the classics such as Capital, Crisis Theory, and the Communist Manifesto (most of which were actually written by Engels, not Marx).

The Marxist legacy lies not in his theories, but in the questions and concerns that he raises regarding other Enlightenment theorists. Indeed, Marx continues in the Enlightenment tradition in that he is deeply committed to science and rationality as a basis for legitimating a certain governmental regime and he has an intense regard for individual rights, which he believes can only be ensured if class differences are eradicated through the elimination of exploitation. Marxists believe that the role of government is to prevent exploitation, although more contemporary theorists such as Roemer have argued that exploitation theory is little more than a distraction from what they should actually worry about--which Roemer believes is domination. Anyone interested in exploitation theory should read Marx and Engels alongside Roemer's "Why should Marxists be interested in exploitation theory?" which is a great companion in helping you scrutinize Marx and Engels's argument.

Although the communist utopia where distributive justice is defined as, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" (as opposed to the transition state between capitalism and communism, socialism, has distributive justice defined as "From each according to his ability, to each according to his work") never does emerge as Marx predicts, Marx and Engels do raise some interesting arguments that everyone interested in political philosophy should be familiar with. Although their belief in their own infallibility and the failure of their theories--notably, the crisis theory--to hold up empirically have been used to downplay their relevance, Marx and Engels left behind several important tools with which to critically analyze all other political theories. The concerns they have with the existing system are not altogether irrelevant.

This book was used in one of the classes I took as an undergraduate. It seems to be a thorough and well chosen collection of the writings of Marx and Engels, with some insightful commentary by the editor, Robert Tucker. I'm not a scholar of the work of these two men, but reading through this again I'm struck with the notion that their ideas are still very much alive and relevant today. Marx is much maligned in the United States, but in many ways he was a humanitarian who wanted to change the world into a better place. And, as he argued, capitalism (including how it is practiced today) is deeply flawed in many ways. Author of Adjust Your Brain: A Practical Theory for Maximizing Mental Health.

This book is something of a classic of sociology but not a light read. Very briefly, the thesis of "Imagined Communities" is that political nations are the creation of modern communication networks (definition of modern: post-Gutenberg). When one stops to think about it, this insight seems intuitive. After all, how can people relate to other people unless there is first communication among them? In a world in which most people are illiterate and never travel beyond their villages, of course they would not think of themselves as belonging to a great nation of people since they would most likely be unable to imagine such a concept. With widespread literacy, the possibility exists of having communities of people who are not in direct contact with one another. Benedict Anderson takes this insight about nationhood and discusses how these imagined communities of people not directly in contact with one another may be formed. It is not surprising that the nations of Europe have formed around linguistic communities since having a common language facilitates communication. However, a sense of alienation from a ruling class may also facilitate a sense of nationhood, as it did in the Americas in the late 18th century when our founding fathers (and those of Latin America)felt themselves excluded from the political lives of their mother countries. Having the means to communicate throughout their colonies made possible the recognition of common feelings among these colonials. Futhermore, a sense of nationhood may be fostered by a state that creates through its educational system and its media a sense of shared experiences (eg, national holidays, national heroes, and national myths). Prof Anderson also describes how the predecessors of today's European nations "created" their national languages as well as their myths. This is a very sketchy overview of what I believe to be the major points of this book. "Imagined Communities" is not a book which flows easily. I believe that Prof Anderson might have made life a bit easier for his readers had he been able to express himself a bit more clearly. For example, he is describing how a sense of history is essential for the concept of nationhood. In order to think of oneself as belonging to a nation, one must think of oneself as being related to others who share only the circumstance of living at the same time. Furthermore, it is necessary to imagine a different relationship with those who have gone before. Here is a passage describing this idea: "What has come to take the place of the medieval conception of simultaneity-along-time is, to borrow again from Benjamin, an idea of 'homogeneous, empty time,' in which simultaneity is, as it were, transverse, cross-time, marked not be prefiguring and fulfillment, but by temporal coincidence and measured by clock and calendar." I think that this should give some idea of the flavor of Prof Anderson's prose. Is it all worth the effort? I think that anyone who is trying to understand the problems created by 20th (and 21st) century nationalism will not find much help here. A better book for understanding the lunatic-type nationalism which causes so much trouble would be Eric Hoffer's classic book, "The True Believer." However, as a primer for understanding how the modern nation came to exist in the first place, this book does offer some thought-provoking ideas.

Though some interesting and provocative ideas are presented shedding some light on the idea of the rise of nationalism, this was largely a poorly written book that will not add an iota of understanding to what motivates human behavior.

If you want a scholarly introduction to nationalism and its history, this is an excellent book to start with. Anderson begins with a discussion of how the concept of the nation first came into being, with emphasis on the factors that enabled people to imagine communities beyond their immediate surroundings. He then brings in more abstract concepts such as spatial/temporal relations and its relation to maps and museums... well, you'll have to read the book, since he explains it much better than me.

My only complaint is that he did focus much more on Western nationalism than on Eastern- two very different topics. Nonetheless, this is a wonderful introductory text.

Great book! I am using it for academic research and have found it great from a theoretical perspective. That said, it is a bloody brillant read for anyone who is just simply interested in understanding what the big deal is about nations or wanting to just have a more general understanding behind the more everyday realities of what nation and national identity, like pretty much any other kind of social grouping mean.

This short book/long essay offers some interesting insights on nationalism, but is limited by its Marxist-materialist perspective. Anderson obviously knows his history and his typology of three essential nationalisms (the new republics of the Americas in the late 18th-early 19th centuries, popular national revival movements in 19th-century Europe, and suffocating official nationalisms such as the British and Russian empires) is based on the history of capitalism, the development of printing, mass communication, class conflicts, and world trade. Anderson argues that these models were adapted in one form or another in the newly independent nations of Africa and Asia after World War II.
Psychology is the unmentioned elephant in the drawing room. There is no consideration of group/crowd psychology or built-in human aggressiveness and territoriality, the human need to define oneself in a group in opposition to others, or the way that nations are felt by many people to be a kind of family, with rulers as parent figures. The absence of psychology causes Anderson's argument to run out of steam toward the end, when he offers only a few pages about patriotism and racism, and here becomes shallow and unconvincing.
Some nation-states are no doubt very artificial (as Anderson's "imagined" title suggests), and borders between countries are often artificial. But cultural and linguistic differences between groups are very real. Anderson recognizes the importance of language differences. At one point he quotes a distinguished Indonesian author, leaving the quote untranslated. (Are we supposed to be impressed because Anderson reads Indonesian and we, presumably, don't?) However, Anderson does not give much consideration to cultural (including religious) differences, other than some mention of this issue in his discussion of Japan and Indonesia.
There are other curious omissions. Anderson does not note that people often have multiple and conflicting loyalties (allegiance to a nation, but also to a region, or to a religion). He never mentions the Roman Empire, says little or nothing about the Arab world, diaspora populations or stateless peoples.
Anderson is an academic writing for other academics. He wants to be quoted and to be considered clever, hence the catchy title. Readers outside academia may become irritated with his gassy, excessively precious and self-indulgent style (phrases like "discontinuity-in-connectedness"). Anderson's references to trendy authors (Foucault, Bakhtin) do not really contribute to his argument and the authors in question are no longer as trendy now as they were in the early 1980s.
This book can certainly stimulate your thinking on this important topic, but will leave many questions unanswered.

I wanted to see what inspired Oprah to say this was one of the most outstanding books she ever read. It was the biggest bunch of fluff I have ever read. It says we need to work together to accomplish goals and to end partisan bickering. Then it says unlike Republicans who cut student loans or spent millions to defeat Democarts. It is the life of a man who had not even been in the U.S. Senate yet. How does someone with no background win an election and the next month get a three book deal for 1.9 million and it go unnoticed? This was a novice who got paid to write whatever popped into his head for the sake of money.

If you want to know THE REAL Senator Obama, this book will tell you. Don't listen to the media talking heads. Read this book. You will be impressed by a man of integrity and strength. His views are mixed, both liberal, in the middle, and conservative.

Barack Obama is an inspiration to everyone, regardless of your political affiliation. This should be required reading in schools across America.

It so happens that I'm finally getting around to writing this review just after the conclusion of the Democratic National Convention and just before Hurricane Gustav is about to make landfall at New Orleans. Both events underscore the importance of Barack Obama's book, The Audacity of Hope, in the public discourse of the early 21st Century. I think it's irresponsible for any American--and especially anyone who plans to vote in November--not to read it.

The next election for President of the United States is a contest between reason and emotion. At last week's convention, some of the greatest minds in the world today appeared in support of the most highly educated group of office-seekers in history (including both members of the Democratic ticket and their wives). From the euphoria evident in television broadcasts, a casual observer could get the impression that the entire event was about feelings. But it wasn't. It was about justice and poverty, nuclear proliferation and terrorism, the state of the planet and the state of humanity. Thoughtful speeches were made by brilliant people who have devoted decades of their lives to understanding these complex issues and struggling to make the world a safer, happier place.

Then Senator McCain made the astonishing choice of Sarah Palin--a woman who apparently believes in creationism but not global warming--to be his vice-presidential running mate. I believe that history will show that this was not a shrewd political move; it was an impulsive act by a famously impulsive man.

I first read a book about global warming in the 1970s. Even then, scientists knew that unchecked human expansion and the increasing burden of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would bring about dramatic changes in weather patterns, resulting in much greater variations of temperature and more violent storms than the earth has experienced in the brief period of human habitation. Hundred-year events would become annual events, and five-hundred-year storms would begin to be seen with some regularity. So why are some people still surprised that it's happening?

We are decades behind making the changes we should have been making to preserve the planet in a habitable condition for our children and grandchildren (much less generations beyond those of this century). In my opinion, we can no longer afford the luxury of political correctness or the laissez-faire attitude that one opinion is as good as another. We need someone leading the most powerful country on earth who is extremely well-informed, clear-headed, skilled in communication and consensus making, and concerned about the things we all should be concerned about. As this book makes abundantly clear, that person is Barack Obama.

Just pure, from the heart, quality work from a true patriot of the United States. Don't judge this man until you read what he believes. I was a diehard Republican until giving him a chance. I'm so glad I made the decision to read this fine work. Go Obama!