Politics Government Books

Seemingly hundreds of books have been written about Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt. Books about Franklin, written from his point of view, can be critical of Eleanor - her tendency to nag, her seriousness, her lack of personality. Similarly, books about Eleanor, written from her point of view, can be critical of Franklin - his deceptions, arrogance, and self-centeredness. "No Ordinary Time, Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt: The Home Front in World War II," written by historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, provides a unique perspective in telling the stories of both Franklin and Eleanor, incorporating each point of view into the story, describing them both as individual people and as part of a troubled yet fascinating partnership. Written in narrative form, Goodwin chronicles the war years on the home front, beginning in May of 1940 and ending in December of 1945, combining the story of the Roosevelts with that of regular Americans to demonstrate the unique relationship that was created between government and the people, making this truly "no ordinary time" in American history.

In "No Ordinary Time," Franklin Roosevelt is fleshed out as a charming and charismatic figure who comes to inspire the nation through his "ebullient energy" and unlimited confidence, not only in himself, but in the country. Although he came from a wealthy, aristocratic family, Roosevelt was able to empathize with the poor and underprivileged after a bout with polio left him crippled. Although he never allowed himself to be seen in his wheelchair, and most Americans did not realize the extent of his disability, Goodwin describes one poignant scene when the president went to visit troops in Oahu and specifically asked to be wheeled around the hospital ward slowly - to, in effect, put himself, his disability, and his vulnerability on full display, so that troops who had lost arms or legs could see "living proof of what the human spirit could do."

His unique ability to transmit his own perpetual cheerfulness and optimism to others was what defined his leadership. According to Goodwin, more than any previous president, Roosevelt studied public opinion (reading newspapers, analyzing polls, securing different points of view), allowing him to understand the national temperament. Even more than that, he wanted to connect to the American people. Prior to one of his fireside (radio) chats, he asked Americans to buy a map to have before them as they listened to his speech. Americans rushed to buy maps, and eighty percent of the audience was listening to the radio as Roosevelt explained to them the situation in each part of the world, bringing the war to life, so Americans could better understand the challenges they were facing and be more prepared for a new kind of war being fought on every continent. Not only did these fireside chats allow Americans to connect with their president, they allowed Americans to connect them with each other. Describing the scene on the Chicago Midway during a fireside chat, novelist Saul Bellow explained how all the taxi drivers were pulled over by the side of the road with their radios on, so that he didn't miss a word of the speech as he walked by their cars: "You felt joined to these unknown drivers, [. . . .] not so much considering the President's words as affirming the rightness of his tone and finding assurance from it." Through his leadership, Roosevelt inspired a country that had just been through an economic depression and that was woefully underprepared for a global war to come together and re-establish itself as the world's preeminent superpower.

Like her husband, Eleanor Roosevelt also forged a unique relationship with the American people. Although she too had grown up in a wealthy, aristocratic family, unlike her husband she suffered through an unhappy childhood, leading to a lack of confidence and various bouts with depression. She lived a conventional subservient life as Franklin's wife up until she discovered his affair with Lucy Mercer. At that point, she decided she would no longer depend on another person for fulfillment and happiness and embarked on her own independent life devoted to her own interests, including teaching, writing, and participating in various political causes. She was not a conventional first lady but rather "challenged the traditional sense of what was possible": she was the first wife of a president to hold a government job, testify before a congressional committee, hold press conferences, write a syndicated column, and earn money as a lecturer. She didn't limit her role to staying at the White House and hosting social events, believing, if she did, she "would lose touch with the rest of the world." Instead, she traveled the country, observing poverty in Appalachia and sweatshops in Puerto Rico firsthand, reporting back to her husband when she found workers making less than minimum wage in one town. She witnessed the devastation of the war herself, also, as she traveled to Britain and to the Pacific. After seeing "the mangled bodies, the stomachs ripped by shells, the amputated limbs, the crushed spirits," she fell into a depression, trying to come to terms with her "emotionally disturbing" trip. Like her husband, she empathized with the American people and, even more than him, was determined to raise the consciousness of our country, fighting against Japanese internment and for women's rights in the workplace, an increased role for African Americans in the workplace, and less restrictive rules to allow refugees into the United States.

Characterizing Eleanor as the agitator and Franklin as the politician, Eleanor as the one who thought about what should be done while Franklin thought only of what could be done, and contrasting Eleanor's shyness and insecurity with Franklin's confidence and sociability, Goodwin makes it clear just how different Eleanor and Franklin were. Realizing their inability to fulfill each other's needs, they established largely independent lives where they turned to others for comfort - Franklin to his "real wife" Missy LeHand, his gossipy cousins, and his aide Harry Hopkins, and Eleanor to her young political activist friend Joseph Lash and a circle of feminist friends, including newspaper reporter Lorena Hickok. Even after Franklin grew lonely as Missy and Hopkins drifted away and turned to Eleanor in the hopes they could re-establish a more traditional marriage, she refused, later writing to Lash that she felt there was "no fundamental love to draw on, just respect and affection." Yet, Goodwin makes it clear that there was a bond between them that could not be broken. In one particularly affecting passage, Goodwin quotes from Eleanor's son, who describes the aftermath of his uncle Hall's death: "'Hall has died,' Eleanor told Franklin simply. Father struggled to her side and put his arms around her. 'Sit down,' he said, so tenderly I can still hear it. And he sank down beside her and hugged her and kissed her and held her head on his chest. . . . . For all they were apart both physically and spiritually much of their married life, there remained between them a bond that others could not break." This bond was not just from nearly forty years of marriage, but from the common cause they were joined in - to better the lives of Americans. In order to advance this cause, they drew strength from each other, together creating a far different America than the one that existed when Franklin Roosevelt first took office.

While it is clear that Goodwin has deep admiration for Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, she also establishes them as fully-fleshed characters - visionary, courageous, and brave, but also deeply flawed. In fleshing out their characters, she also succeeds in creating a third character, that of the American people. When Franklin Roosevelt began his second term, one-third of Americans had no running water or indoor plumbing, more than half had no central heating, and only one-fourth had even graduated from high school. America was a "pyramidal society," with a few fortunate on the top and a great mass of people at the bottom. During the war, though, Americans moved from the farm to the factory, from the south to the north, from the east to the west, as war production led to the emergence of the middle class and created the "most profound transition in American history." Most importantly, through innovations like the minimum wage, labor protection, social security, and market regulation, a new relationship between the American people and their government was formed. Franklin Roosevelt's importance is felt most at the end of the book, as Goodwin poignantly describes the public's reaction to his death - "everybody is crying" - and the long railroad trip as his body is carried from Georgia to Washington, with Eleanor looking out the window of the train and seeing hundreds of thousands of people whose lives he had touched gathered along the way to pay their tribute. In recounting the lives of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, and their impact on America, Goodwin shows readers why this was "no ordinary time," creating a vivid portrait of what American life on the home front was like during the second world war and bringing this incredible time in American history alive.

I know another five star rating. But She deserves it. Doris Kearns Goodwin's best book. I felt as if I was living their lives through the words of Mrs. Goodwin.
The very essence of this marriage made a story which is better than any fiction novel. The formative years of both Franklin and Eleanor's lives tells us of the impending marriage of convenience. The starting of a family, along with the tragedy of the death of one of their offspring, tells us of their early life together. The later relationship with Lucy Mercer exposes us to an altered marriage in which Eleanor becomes a truly effective politician in her own right who in turn effected national policy.
Mrs. Goodwin should be commmended for this truly human account of the Franklin Roosevelt period. Her writing was accurate yet highly entertaining. I learned a lot of this Brahman Family. Winston Churchill understood this family as no one else did. It wasn't until Mrs. Goodwin explained this period of extraordinary American History that I really understood the effect of their lives on the American public. Read this Book!!!!!

If you enjoy history, this book is a must read. Doris Kearns Goodwin makes history interesting. Many of the programs that were instituted during the depression are still in effect today. The Roosevelt's were an amazing team, Eleanor paved the way for many women in politics and business. It's the perfect book to read in our current economic situation.

"Team of Rivals" remains my favorite Doris Kearns Goodwin book. But this is a very close second. "No Ordinary Time" is a brilliantly written, information-packed book that provides great insight into the FDR White House and the minds of both Franklin and Eleanor.

"No Ordinary Time" covers the Roosevelts from 1940-45, focusing primarily on how they handled the home front during America's involvement in World War II. It was interesting to learn about Eleanor's deep commitment to civil rights, how polarizing a figure she was throughout the country, and her influence on the president.

I was also very intrigued by the relationships between both Roosevelts and their friends and family. Goodwin occasionally breaks from the time period of the book to cover important moments in their lives pre-1940. FDR's affair with Lucy Rutherfurd, and the rekindling of their relationship in his last years, through the help of his daughter, is fascinating.

If I have one criticism -- and it's a stretch -- it would be that Goodwin sometimes gets bogged down in numbers, such as statistics about war production -- the amount of planes, tanks, guns, etc., that were produced and/or shipped to England and Russia. But while those sections may have somewhat slowed the progress of the book, they were important to the story she was telling.

So I consider this a 5-star book. I know Goodwin justifiably received criticism a few years ago due to some plagiarism in a previous book, but few, if any, historians combine research and writing as effectively as she does. I highly recommend this book.

Rarely does an excellent writer appear in the biography universe. Goodwin uses her amazing skills to weave the story of two remarkable and very human people into and through a momentous time in the world's history. While she sometimes gets slowed down by statistics of limited value (for example how many rubber bands were collected in rubber drive) overall the writer has found a brilliant balance between facts, feelings and remembrances. The book's main revelations center mainly on the enormous contribution ER made to race relations and labor relations during that desperate time. One comes to feel that if not for FDR's hyperactive, agitating wife little or no social progress would have been made during the war years. I have read several biographies of FDR and Churchill and was still enriched by the layers of detail Goodwin has brought to her work, highly recommended.

I had read the Rolling Stone article, and I was positively stoked to begin this book. During the first half, I was fascinated, but then, I am neither a geologist nor an engineer.

I was even willing to overlook Kunstler, in the early pages, defending fellow prophets of doom Thomas Malthus and Paul Erlich, and claiming that they were right after all, despite the fact that the predictions of either man never came to pass.

Then, during the second half of the book, Kunstler started discussing things I actually know quite a bit about, to wit, human disease and history. Oh, Holy Cats, how incorrect his facts were. In the words of another reviewer, he gets it Just Plain Wrong.

For example, he says that historians don't really know what the cause of WWI was. Huh. I guess the Army War College and every 20th Century History department need to talk to Kunstler, so they can be properly informed of their ignorance. Yeah, WWI's causes are complex, but just because Kunstler doesn't know what they are doesn't mean that nobody else does either.

He also claims that global warming will accelerate the spread of diseases that were previously confined to a specific geopgraphic area, which is probably true. However, we have already seen diseases migrate a good deal because of the volume and speed with which humans jet around the globe on a daily basis. Kunstler ignores the profound upside to this, being that, for the vast majority of us who are not immunocompromised, this challenges and boosts our immune systems.

Or how 'bout when he says that the 1918 flu jumped directly from birds to humans, without the usual influenza pit stop in pigs. If that's the case, why was the 1918 flu first noticed on a Kansas pig farm? Or when he claims that we still don't know why the 1918 flu proved fatal to so many young adults- uh, yeah we do. Because of cytokine storms, which turn your own immune sysstem against you- the stronger the immune system, the worse you're affected.

The worst offender, however, is when he claims that HIV (which he incorrectly calls AIDS) is on it's way toward mutating from a blood born pathogen into one that's carried on air. Give me a break. I have had five years of schooling training me to be an HIV educator, and I have never heard or read anything remotely like this from an even somewhat reputable source. Why did he make this claim of HIV, and not, say, hepititis B (another sexually transmitted blood born pathogen), which infects 1.7 billion more people than HIV does? Because "AIDS" sounds scarier, that's why.

All this JPW stuff in the second half of the book makes me doubt the veracity of the first half, and that was only reinforced when I made it to the very end and read Kunstler's racist rant against Mexicans and African Americans. He had already skewered every subset of white people that were remotely different from him, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

I've checked "The End of Oil" out of the library, so we'll see how the first half of "The Long Emergency" holds up, fact wise. But if you're really interested in reading an Apocalypse Story, I'd suggest picking up Stephen King's "The Stand".

I bought this book so that I could relate to a friend who is using it like his bible and guide for his future. I found it to be poorly organized and a long and rambling discourse on the evils and eventual failure of fossil fuels, nuclear energy, the food supply, and an eventual return to living in the stone age in our lifetimes. He passes opinion off as fact to build his case.

Mine's for sale used!

An excellent argument that we are at or approaching the peak oil production plateau, and speculates on the drastic future we may expect. Well done. Provokes a lot of thought about how one should adapt to eventually intolerable circumstances!

This is an important book that every thinking person should read. It will never be a musical.

Kunstler offers much vallid research and seems to make sense about the immediate future. Unfortunately, his credibility drops to 50% when he gives an obviously pro-Israeli view of the Middle East and Israel's problems. His view of it makes it clear that he is a Jew (as am I) and he is clouded by bias. That bias undermines the validity of his book, in my opinion.

This book is a good read, but to many would appear to be just a very long version of many an article Mr. Krugman has written for the New York Times. If you like his op-eds, you will likely be a fan of the book. If you are less enthused by his writings, this is probably not the book for you.

Economist Paul Krugman offers an 8 chapter history of the New Deal with the remaining chapters amounting to a "to do" list for a coming progressive majority in Congress and the White House.

I certainly enjoyed his stories of growing up with the relative income equality of the 50s and 60s. Interestingly, the New Deal was a product of global economic recession, and - with no global economic shock appearing on the horizon - I'm not sure that his dream of a liberal renaissance can be realized.

Krugman prefers to isolate racism and not religious conservatism as the reason for America's reluctance to go as far as other advanced countries in its adoption of a social safety net. To some extent, the next few national elections will either substantiate or refute this premise.

Krugman also tends to demonize those he calls "Movement Conservatives" a bit. But, if you enjoy politics and economics, I think you will enjoy this book.

I pretty much read only non-fiction, which is usually very informative but highly depressing. Krugman somehow manages to cover the modern American political state of affairs without depressing me. In fact this book is very hopeful in specific ways and overall quite uplifting.

In modern American political discourse, it seems common for any statistic that supports an ideological position to be used to further that point of view. Krugman takes the opposite tack: citing relevant and logically coherent information to describe in context where we are and how we got here. He then uses the same reasonable approach to outline achievable solutions to the problems of inequality that we face. It's nice to see the fixes as well as the problems.

I just hope Barak read this too.

I recommend this book to liberals. For conservatives, I recommend the info on income distribution, particularly pages 124-136, and the chapter on health care. To be critical, and hopefully useful, I lament the following: 1) saying hyperinflation just kind of happened from 1965 to the `80's isn't good enough for an economist. Were higher wages a factor? Please explain. 2) Married couples are working about 1,000 hours more today than in 1976. Why isn't this mentioned? 3) Are we more in debt today than in 1973? This info would have been interesting. 4) Why begin the recent period in 1973, if arguing that conservative politics changed the economy for the worse? Isn't 1980 a genuine (not convenient or reverse engineered) starting point? 5) The author capitulates to conservatives by using the term "welfare state" Has welfare ever been more than 4% of GDP (not including Social Security)? "The welfare state" is propaganda and plays into the hands of Reagan Republicans. 6) Perhaps ten times, Mr. Krugman says general negative statements about conservatives. This is both preaching to the choir and the pot (liberal establishment) calling the kettle black, and harms our chances of gaining support from independents and moderate conservatives.

Overall, a very useful and readable book. I could say a hundred positive things. Better the book should be read.

I'm a political moderate who's eyes caught the title of this book, in a bookstore. Thinking this might be the liberal version of "Conscience of a Conservative", I bought this book. After reading this, I've got to say, that Barry Goldwater did a much better of describing conservatism in the first 10 pages of his book, then Krugman did in almost 300 pages of this book.

There doesn't seem to be much about the "Liberal Conscience" in here, but more of a listing of stereotypes about conservatives, which, to the author anyway, are a monolithic group of elites, consistently conspiring to keep little man down, particularly the black ones. If you're a die hard liberal, then this book will reinforce every misconception you have about conservatives.

Krugman and Ann Coulter are pretty much two peas in a pod, but Krugman seems a lot nicer.

This is easily the most powerful book I have ever read. Gandhi does a great job of telling the story in his life in such a way that not only tells a story, but teaches lessons that go along with it. The title explains a lot, considering that Gandhi considered his entire life to be an expirement with the truth.

He is very open about the mistakes that were made (such as his marraige and bigotry at an incredibly young age) and details how he took those mistakes to make his life as consistently honest as possible. The way he organized people to non-violence in two terrible situations in Africa and India are legendary, but the way he brings it home to the individual is under-rated, to say the least.

Gandhi teaches that it doesn't take an army to learn the truth, nor does it take an army to become a part of that truth. His story explains that an individual dedicated to the empowerment of honesty and love can overcome any violence or hatred that can exist. It is within this context that one can use this book to change themselves.

These ideas used in an individual's every day life will lead to the understanding that love is more powerful than hatred, and honesty more powerful than lies. His examples of these ideas and proof that they are true is the most inspiring part of this book.

Even for those of us not religious (like myself) his use of religion is also motivating. He teaches lessons from religions and explains how to use this understanding as a way to love people of opposite religions rather than fighting them.

I will leave the indivudal stories to Gandhi himself, but his life is something everyone in the world would benefit from knowing.

Gandhi An Autobiography: The Story of my Experiments with Truth, is a culmination of the life of one of the most famous peaceful revolutionaries and supporters of non-violence. The book is basically an entire list of the life experiences of Gandhi, all of which prove to contribute to his spiritual growth, and in turn, each go to influence his way of thinking. Gandhi's autobiography reveals a vast array of experiments he performed throughout his life, leading to his praise of truth as the ultimate underlying principal, contributing to his adaptation of celibacy (brahmacharya), adherence to fasting, and development of Satyagraha: his concept of non-violent firmness.
Gandhi's autobiography stretches back to his youth in exploring all of his life experiences. Gandhi's inclusion of all aspects of his life in his autobiography illustrates the idea that each and every experience becomes an influence; which, in Gandhi's case, means influences leading to the development of a concept of non-violence to spear-head the Indian journey for Independence.
The strength in Gandhi's autobiography lies in his adherence to truth even as he tells his life story. Gandhi hides nothing, allowing this display of raw truth to help readers examine Gandhi's uncensored ideas and thoughts, making it possible to understand what Gandhi was thinking in even some of the most significant moments in his life.
The main weakness in Gandhi's autobiography, however, is his obvious omission of information where the information is most definitely needed. In order to fully understand a large number of chapters, an understanding of India and its culture is necessary, but not provided. Gandhi also seems to assume that readers have knowledge of the political situation in India, so if you lack any historical knowledge, you will find yourself somewhat confused. Because Gandhi's autobiography radiates the idea that every experience is an influence for the person he eventual becomes, it obviously is a challenge to include every experience and spend an adequate amount of time discussing them. But his choice to omit quite a few particularly significant experiences will not go unnoticed. He does not, for example, spend any time describing his experiments in South Africa, and instead instructs readers to consult other works. Lack of background information regarding people who Gandhi introduces and lack of historical information on the movements he involves himself in, may lead to an incomplete illustration of Gandhi's life.
At the conclusion of Gandhi An Autobiography: The Story of my Experiments with Truth, you are left with the desire to take a trip to the library, because you have surely reached the conclusion that there is much more to know about the teacher and leader who made the world aware of India's struggle for independence. The autobiography gives you an in-depth look into the mind of one of the most influential non-violent role models that the world has seen, with a detailed understanding of the steps necessary to try to follow in Gandhi's footsteps if you so desire. Gandhi's autobiography leaves a lot out, but it also leaves you with a strong desire to find out more.

After hearing Mahatma Gandhi's grandson speak at University of Florida, this book was especially meaningful. If only all our world leaders would employ his wisdom!

This book, the autobiography of Mohandas k. Gandhi, the father of modern India, is a must read. if you have any interest in Gandhi, non violence or just want a glimpse into the life of a spiritually guided person, then this book if a must read.

I enjoyed this book. I wish this book was written sometime after India's independence as more important events unfolded later. I also think that the reader needs background on India and its culture to understand some chapters. Overall, a good one!

21 June 2008 - In this remarkable guide to the major challenges, both foreign and domestic, that face America. Zakaria claims too much democratization and decentralization, two notions that are often hailed as universally good, can be disastrous. This argument is not new, as he readily admits. What is new is the contextualization of these problems to the modern world. Zakaria brilliantly analyzes both foreign and domestic policy through the prism of what he calls "Illiberal Democracy." I read this several years after it was written but the analysis is surprisingly proving correct. I love being a libertarian...we must return to our constitutional roots.

Good analysis. But just touched (it was democracy that produced Hitler) and dropped extremely serious issue of social, ethnic, religious, intellectual, knowledge, etc. diversity and its role in democracy functioning. This analysis and ways to make democracy more efficient and more "dictator resistent" must be continued without any political correctness.

Zakaria is a brilliant mind. I was first introduced to him by some of his writings in Newsweek. His one page articles are often insightful and offer readers new perspectives. I didn't like everything about this book but yet I cannot resist giving it a perfect 5 stars. Zakaria offers readers a new model of looking at societies. His book reminded me of Jarred Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel". Both these books tackle the topic of why certain countries and regions are more prosperous. For example, why are governments in Europe and USA so much more effective than those in the Middle East? Unlike Diamond's book, Zakaria acknowledges many factors including luck. His analysis incorporates many disciplines such as history, religion, philosophy and of course geography. Diamond's emphasis was mainly on geography. Zakaria does not pretend that he knows all the answers and most importantly offers readers issues to consider and think about. Zakaria acknowledges that increased democracy is a work in progress and may not necessarily be all bad.

Domestically, he delves into the new trends in "democratization and marketization". He cleverly expands this theme beyond politics to other topics such as law, medicine, and journalism. As a physician, I witness democratization in medicine constantly. We spend over 15% of our GDP on healthcare and yet our outcomes as judged by the country's morbidity and mortality is worse than Chile and Greece where they spend less than 7%. Democratization in medicine plays a big role in these poor numbers. The public "votes" in a sense how healthcare dollars get spent. Patients (ie: consumers) often dictate what studies and procedures should be performed.

I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in looking at the world in a new way.

This book is an excellent look at the promotion of democratic and economic reforms abroad. The main question in the book which Zakaria seeks to provide an answer to is whether economic reforms (and market reforms) should come first or democratic and governance reforms should come first over the other.

It is about the sequencing between economic and governance reforms. Which should be liberlized first? Which type of liberlization should the U.S. and international financial institutions promote? Should the U.S. promote economic market reforms in other nations or require nations to first liberalize their governance and institute democracy first. Zakaria argues in favor of economic and market liberalization and states that this has usually come first and then governance liberalization and then the creation of democratic institutions usually follow. He argues this by showing examples.

One of the main theses is that once a nations GDP rises above a certain level, the political institutions usually develop and liberilize into democratic ones with more wide-spread participation by a middle class.

This is an excellent book at the intersection of economics and international trade and the promotion of democratic political institutions. Having said that, I do not like the subtitle of the book - but that is a question of marketing for the publisher. We'll watch nations like Singapore and China to see whether liberalization of their governance follows their economic liberalization and thus confirm or deny his hypothesis.

Here is a critical (but not flawless) book. In it, Fareed Zakaria reminds Americans of an idea that was obvious and fundamental to the founders of our nation, but is now anathema to most: That Democracy and freedom are not one and the same, and that too much Democracy can quickly become the enemy of freedom.

That probably sounds strange to most Americans, which is why Zakaria wrote this book. We've been raised to believe that Democracy is unquestionably good and that more of it is always better. In reality, that's a pretty new attitude. At the time of this country's founding, Democracy was viewed very skeptically. The Founders knew that left unchecked, the majority could be an even worse tyrant than an individual because it would have the illusion of morality on its side. For that reason, our nation's government was set up as Republic, not a Democracy (think of the Pledge of Allegiance). A Republic allows the people to choose from pre-screened applicants for leadership roles and then delegates leadership to them.

Zakaria argues that the gradual breakdown of the protections against the Tyranny of the Majority as we've moved further and further towards democratization has had a vast negative effect. Politicians most focus increasingly on the short-term approval of voters in order to get re-elected and are kept from using their judgment and long-term outlook.

The book is filled with eye-opening insights and makes you aware of problems you may never have considered before. It is one of those books that has the power to change your outlook on major issues. That said, it isn't perfect. Zakaria needs to fully form his ideas just a little more. He obviously is a fan of the free market in most cases, but then says that too much of the free market can act in the same way as too much democratization (he uses the downfall as the Book of the Month Club as an a example of cultural diminution brought about by too much free market.) It's an interesting point, but the reader is left wondering where Zakaria thinks the free market is good, and where he thinks it should be cut back. He needs a clear rule to say, "Use more until "X", then stop." There are a couple cases where Zakaria seems to want to have his cake and eat it too, and that rarely works out.

None of that stops this book from being a very important read for modern Americans. I believe Zakaria is striking at the central issue that will determine whether America can retain (or maybe even reclaim) its current and former glory, or whether it will slip off into history. Zakaria doesn't sound an optimistic note, but at least he's done his part to sound the alarm. I applaud his efforts. Read this book and give it to your friends as well.

This book gives a decent picture of the current political situation of the world.

Especially w.r.t 9/11 and the ongoing clash between the west and Islam the books seems like prophecy. The author is also right on the money when he claims and explains the bloody borders of Islam and I wonder why there is any dispute about this. More analysis of how Christianity and Islam spread after conception would have been insightful. Yugoslav wars are analyzed quite well and I would like to find a refutation of this analysis by any of his political/academic rivals.

The author however does not provide an alternative to the western dependence on mid-east oil. Limited interference is fine but how to run the limping US economy?

The author seems to have a subtle sense of western cultural superiority but hides it well behind cultural relativism.


The author however laments that the west is losing its edge and that religion is fading away. Towards the end he says that to find truth is part of morality. Does he want people to find the truth but not live by it? He also gloats about the west's rule of law, secularism and individualism, some of which are frowned upon by the religious right. It seems like he is contradicting himself unless he appeals for religiousity purely for uniting the society. He claims that Christianity is one of the defining aspects of the current west while ceding that Sweden/Europe is quite non-religious. Being aware of totalitarianism of Islam he should have been careful while treading this line.

I would like to end the review with a few quotes from the book that are (sometimes painfully) true:

"The underlying problem for the west is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilization whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power."

"In civilizational conflicts, unlike idealogical ones, kin stand by their kin "(Comparing responses of EU governments to US actions against USSR and Muslims)

"Powerful societies are universalistic; weak societies are particularistic."

"In Islam god is Caesar, in China and Japan Caesar is god, in Orthodoxy god is Caesar's junior partner"

The author delivers a great future cast rarely found in the historian world. This made the book great. While there is plenty to find out about the past, I always wondered what would the greatest historians of the world think of the future. Due their meticulous attitude few of them venture to speculate on facts that are not checked and double checked. Well, Samuel Huntington, is not that kind of historian. He develops on the future of the two main civilizations and the possible results. While I found him a bit too skeptical on the US future, I admire how well he's documenting his suppositions.
The most important think I got from the book is the fact that we all belong culturally somewhere and that is not necessarily the place where we were born. The early impressions in life mark us with tremendous prejudices, bound to clash with the world outside.
While looking for this book, I stumbled on "The World Without US" - a documentary similar in topic. After checking out the trailer at the film website, I got the DVD and it was quite good. It takes the premise of "America Alone" a step farther by asking, what would happen should the US withdraw its military completely from the world? Answering a hypothetical question is hard, for any author and filmmaker, however this movie did provide an answer. Weather you agree with or not I applaud the filmmakers for going on 5 continents in their quest. Check it out also.


The World Without US - With Niall Ferguson

As an Arab-Canadian, I'm pretty much at the forefront of this so-called "clash of civilizations", and the way I see things as it stands, it seems as though there is indeed a 'clash' materializing. However, that is only a superficial gut feeling, the same feeling the respect Dr. Sam Huntington subscribed to when writing this book.

My interest in this issue started when I read John Esposito's book, Political Islam - truly a masterpiece - which picked stripped the religion of Islam bare, down to its origins, and described its evolution over time, spanning the Muhammedian era up till 9/11. He also dedicated chapters to specific issues such as the Jamaat-e-Islami group in Pakistan, the Iranian revolution and the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt - all these were discussed in a political and religious context. In the afterword, he mentioned how there is almost no overlap between these movements, that these were truly independent movements spawned by the circumstantial political and socioeconomic currents in the region in question. From there, he concluded that the idea of a 'clash of civilizations' is preposterous. Indeed, it's a figment of Dr. Huntington's imagination.

There are almost 1.5 billion Muslims on this planet. The Islamic world stretches from West Africa all the way down to Southeast Asia. There is absolutely no common political denominator between the Muslims in, say, Morocco and the Muslims in China, because there is a massive cultural cleft within the Islamic world (and even within the Western bloc - something Tom Freidman also missed).

I won't go into the details, refuting every claim this book makes, but my impression of this book is that it's trash. I was even slightly offended by how much generalizing and statistical abuse this Harvard graduate has managed to cram in his book. The very fact that he didn't go through the trouble of trying to analyze the Muslim World in a greater depth left me uneasy going through the last couple of pages of the book.

In the end, this is just racist propaganda by a Xenophobe, not more. It shouldn't deserve that much attention, and indeed should be pulled of the shelves of all libraries for being more of a hate speech inciter than even the holy books!

First published in 1996, this scholarly discussion of future international relations has been a classic from the beginning and will remain so for decades to come. From among the seven most important civilizations the author selected three, which may collide in conflict. Thus, in Moslem eyes Western culture is decadent in various ways and therefore utterly unacceptable. The current resurgence of the Islamic civilization is seen as an evolution no less significant than the Reformation or Marxism, demanding society's complete overhaul, renewal and purification, a movement whose impact on history will grow as the Moslem population will soon represent thirty percent of humanity. At the same time, Islam is seen as the least tolerant of religions, as it promotes peace inside their ranks but hostility toward the infidels outside.
Similarly, in East Asia, the Confucian civilization adheres to commandments like order, discipline, hard work and abstemiousness, where the individual subordinates to the needs of the community. Alien to them is what they call the West's sanctifying of human rights. Whereas we in the West expect our value system soon to become universal, the Confucian world is convinced that "the Anglo-Saxon module is not working" and that their own standards must of necessity apply to the rest of humanity. Here, again, the impact of such convictions will be immense as the center of gravity of economic power is rapidly shifting from the West to the East.
Out of such discordance, there arise economic and political contentions and military ones cannot be ruled out. Huntington believes possible conflicts could arise from a contest between Western arrogance, Islamic intolerance and Sinic assertiveness. The spark igniting material strife, however, will most likely be generated by more prosaic crises such as the youth bulge among the unemployed, terrorism, rivalry in the search of resources such as oil, and the pervasiveness of weapons of mass destruction among those who suffer and rebel.
The main message carried forth from this study is that any military clash in the future will most likely oppose not nations but rather civilizations in what he aptly calls fault-line wars. He points to the danger that such inter-civilizational feuds will be uncompromising and almost impossible to halt.
Huntington advises the reader that cultural universalism, so engrained in the mind of the West, is ill advised and that especially includes the American tendency to be "a nanny if not even a bully" in other civilizations. We must, he says, renounce universalism of values, and instead accept diversity and seek commonalities.
Since these thoughts were first published, much has been confirmed. The power shift toward East Asia is rapidly progressing. Fault-line conflicts in Afghanistan, the Middle East, Chechnya and the Balkans have resisted or defied peacemaking efforts. Our promotion of democracy, civil rights, and individualism has been rejected elsewhere in favor of soft authoritarianism. Most importantly, perhaps, is the West's failure to observe the "abstention rule", that is, for one civilization to abstain from invading the lands of another.
Every prospective world leader should read this book at least once.

This excellent book provides the reader with a view of the world based on civilizations - past, present and future. If you cannot find time to read the entire book, read the last chapter. It describes creditable circumstances under with a third world war could ignite.

Definitely worth reading. This is in my top-five of all time. Well written. Great research. Easy to read. Compelling story. Read it.

Luis paints the scary picture of crossing the desert. He puts humans behind the names of the crossers, border protrol, and the cyotes. Based on true events that happen everyday. This is a must read for everyone in the United States.

Excellent story. Highly recommend to others. Great eye opener to be thankful for everything we have. Great book!!

I was assigned this book for a college English class. I was not looking forward to reading it, but found myself very glad I did.

It is a very interesting account of a true life happening told in a poetic(almost florid) way. The word pictures are amazing! I appreciate the way the author "shows" not "tells".

I especially enjoyed the way each person's point of view is explained. Immigration is a very complicated problems with no easy solutions. This book did a good job of making me empathize with and understand the various characters whose lives are very removed and different from my own.
(In that way it reminded me of "The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down" by Anne Fadiman.)

The conflict of the story is there are 26 Mexicans from different parts of Mexico that cross the boarder illegally. They cross the boarder into a desert they call hell. The desert is the Sonoran desert and is part of southern Arizona. In this desert there is no water also there are deadly animals and spirits. Some are left behind waiting for the return of others.


I liked the book because its real and I could never picture myself going threw the desert with no food or water. I also liked the book because it described the surrounding and face to face things in that Arizona desert. I didn't like it because it made me think about people starving in the desert. I would recommend this book to people that like reading long stories. I also recommend this to people that like the setting of a harsh place.

This is a good, clear text for students new to the field of International Relations (IR). Theories are clearly explained and articulated, and then applied to various problems in the international system. Some of the chapters can seem a bit long-winded, but other than that this is a very good resource.

One useful feature of Mingst's book is how she explicitly lays out different and contending perspectives on viewing international relations. One is realism, or its offshoot, neorealism. She traces its antecedents back to such noted writers as Machiavelli and Hobbes, and back to some ancient Greeks. Another perspective is liberalism, which emphasises more mutually beneficial actions between nations. While the 3rd perspective described is radicalism. Encompassing socialist or communist worldviews, though these have been largely discredited after the end of the Cold War.

Another merit of the book, due to its publication in 2007, is the inclusion and analysis of recent events. Notably the US invasion and occupation of Iraq. Providing a very topical, attention-getting discussion, that should help retain students' interest.

I have to say I find Appiah's cosmopolitanism to be incredibly appealing. Call me a globalized liberal who thinks we can work most things out, but the fact that besides a bedrock belief in toleration of all but intolerance, there is little else that exists as a absolute in Appiah's thinking is attractive to me.

Appiah (like me, I'd say) is not interested in all encompassing theories. But he is also wary of an all out relativism. Appiah seems to be trying to walk a line somewhere in the middle. He argues that through engagement, "contamination" and tolerance we can create a new ethics what exactly this means in practical application isn't always clear, and this small book doesn't answer all the questions I have, but it's a start. And an excellent jumping off point for the kind of thinking we need to be doing in today's age.

This book is a must-read for anyone expecting to engage traditions, ideas, practices and worldviews far outside her own. When I started reading it, I thought it was about globalism. How wrong I was. Well, it IS about living on a multifarious planet, but I found many of the insights useful in understanding local email flamewars which I have witnessed (and perhaps caused), and other local differences of opinion. It has caused me to question some of my own attitudes about communities and beliefs I regard as backward (such as American fundamentalist Christianity). I have discovered strong culture clashes within my own nation, a confrontation more stark than much of what I expect to encounter upon traveling.

I feel I have become somewhat more aware of my unproductive attitudes toward those who differ from me, and that boon alone is worth the time I spent with this book. I understand now the value incident in understanding those who sharply differ from you, even if they may never, even in a thousand years, come to agree with me. I can attempt, at least, to authentically hear what they are saying. That is cosmopolitanism.

This book is a collection of essays around a common theme; each is extremely well written, reflective and accessible to the non-specialist.
Anthony Appiah is surely one of our most important thinkers about ethical issues that arise in common life. He brings unusual color and verve to
his subjects, reflecting a childhood in Ghana and an adult life spent as a true citizen of the world in one of the world's great universities.

One of the most pernicious ideas has spung from the myth that we are necessarily separated and segregated into groups that are defined by criteria like gender, language, race, religion or some other kind of boundary. And it is easy to see that these boundaries are a major cause of conflict.

The author of this enthralling book - Kwame Anthony Appiah - challenges this kind of separative thinking by resurrecting the ancient philosophy of "cosmopolitanism." This school of thought that dates back almost 2500 years to the Cynics of Ancient Greece. They first articulated the cosmopolitan ideal that all human beings were citizens of the world. Later on, these ideas were elaborated by another group of philosophers: the Stoics.

According to Appiah, the influence of cosmopolitanism has stretched down the ages and through to the Enlightenment. He takes Immanuel Kant's notion of a League of Nations and the Declaration of the Rights of Man to be two manifestations of this ancient idea.

Appiah sees cosmopolitanism as a dynamic concept based on two fundamental ideas. First is the idea that we have responsibilities to others that are beyond those based on kinship or citizenship. Second is something often forgotten: just because other people have different customs and beliefs from ours, they will likely still have meaning and value. We may not agree with someone else, but mutual understanding should be a first goal.

The book is full of personal experiences. I doubt that anyone else could have written it: His mother was an English author and daughter of the statesman Sir Stafford Cripps, and his father a Ghanaian barrister and politician, who reminded his children to remember that they were "citizens of the world."

Appiah was educated in Ghana and England and has taught in both countries. He now holds a chair of Philosophy at Princeton. He is no starry eyed idealist, and he knows that differences between groups and nations cannot be wished away or ignored. But he contends, rightly, I think, that differences can be accepted without being allowed to become barriers.

As he says, "Cosmopolitans suppose that all cultures have enough overlap in their vocabulary of values to begin a conversation. But they don't suppose, like some Universalists, that we could all come to agreement if only we had the same vocabulary." The reason is simply this: most of us arrive at our values not on the basis of careful reasoning, but by lifelong conditioning and subjective beliefs and attitudes.

In parts of Europe, there have recently been misgivings about the growing diversity and multiculturalism of countries like the United Kingdom, with people asking whether it is doing no more than fracturing society. Appiah tackles this question head on. He has this to say, "If we want to preserve a wide range of human conditions because it allows free people the best chance to make their own lives, there is no place for the enforcement of diversity by trapping people within a kind of difference that they long to escape. There simply is no decent way to sustain those communities of difference that will not survive without the free allegiance of their members."

Cosmopolitanism, balances our "obligations to others" with the "value not just of human life but of particular human lives," what Appiah calls "universality plus difference." He remains skeptical about simple maxims for ethical behavior such as the Golden Rule. He swiftly demonstrates its failings as a moral precept. He argues that cosmopolitanism is the name not "of the solution but of the challenge."

This is an important book that will inevitably be controversial. In a world that is becoming more interconnected and shrinking by the day, and where the "clash of cultures" threatens our existence, Appiah has many new perspectives as he articulates a precise yet flexible ethical manifesto. He does not claim to have all the answers, but this book should be of interest to all of us as we try to make sense of the turmoil, challenges and opportunities of our globalizing world.

There are few individuals more qualified to write a book on the idea of cosmopolitanism than Kwame Anthony Appiah. Biracial, raised in both Ghana and England, multicultural, multilingual, educated at Cambridge but teaching at Princeton, Appiah has an inside familiarity with larger world that few can rival. It is tremendously encouraging to me, a WASP who has been unable to engage in any real travel, that we both seem to share precisely the same ideals. My experience of the world counts for little; his a great deal. Yet it shows that people with extremely different backgrounds can embrace the same ideals.

Appiah is a philosopher, but though he has clearly been raised in the Anglo-American linguistic philosophical tradition, he has not found himself restricted by it. From the various philosophers he quotes, I'm sure that he and had had similar philosophical training. I envy the way that he can make what I learned as logical positivism (Appiah lops off the "logical") and make it relevant in a discussion of wider cultural issues. Though he obviously was trained in the tradition honed by Russell, Carnap, Frege, Ryle, Austin, Anscombe, Dummett, and the large contingent of American and British logicians and philosophers of language, none of them have informed his literary style. In fact, the two writers Appiah reminds me of most are Herodotus and Montaigne. Like them, he feels a license to bring into his discussion almost anything. If he is cosmopolitan on a moral and social level, he is also as a multidisciplinarian. Nor does he hesitate at mixing cultures. Many of the most compelling passages in the book detail incidents from his experience in Ghana.

The point of the book is to discuss many of the problems that arise if one attempts to embrace--as Appiah clearly feels we all should--cosmopolitan ideals. He deals interestingly with a host of issues, from the idea of who owns the products of a culture to the incommensurability of values from one culture to another (or their possible commensurability) to whether it is problematic when there are conflicts on fundamental issues. As a person he seems to have been deeply molded by all of the cultural influences in which he grew up, but as a philosopher he is exceptionally British. Over the decades there have been a number of British thinkers who have been able to cut through a thick wad of nonsense and discuss issues in a balanced, commonsensical manner. Gilbert Ryle had this capacity, as did (sometimes) G. E. Moore, and so also Mary Midgley. While his views are unquestionably progressive, Appiah always seems to avoid extremes to arrive at conclusions that are, above all else, balanced and reasonable. He is a master at making sense. So when philosopher Peter Unger argues that we all have a moral obligation to give every penny that we do not need for our own sustenance to organizations like UNICEF and OXFAM so that food and medicine can be purchased for the desperately poor in the Third World. Appiah, on the other hand, believes that a world in which no one bought a ticket to the opera would be flat and uninteresting. Besides, what really matters is reforming local governments in order to provide long-term transformation of the socioeconomic structures in the areas most afflicted by poverty, something that giving exclusively to UNICEF and OXFAM will not accomplish (though for the record, Appiah thinks both organizations are very important and he does not discourage contributing to them). Though he does not state it as a principle, he constantly employs something akin to Aristotle's golden mean.

I especially enjoyed his chapter on The Counter-Cosmopolitans. He places many of today's Islamic extremists in this category, though he also very correctly places many Christian fundamentalists here as well. I have long fantasized about writing a book about contemporary proponents of Counter-Enlightenment ideas (a book I will never write because I haven't mastered the range of disciplines such a project would require). Isaiah Berlin wrote frequently about various Counter-Enlightenment thinkers such as Hamaan, but I believe it can be extended into the present for such mass movements as various religious fundamentalisms (Christian, Islamic, as well as Jewish), the New Age movement, contemporary astrology, right wing political movements, and free market capitalism. Obviously I can't make my claim here, but I found Appiah's discussion of the counter-cosmopolitans to overlap entirely with counter-enlightenment ideals.

I value this book not only for its ideals and the intelligent discussion of a host of thorny issues, but for Appiah's warm humanity and wonderful literary style. It is not merely an intelligent book but a well-written one as well.

I used this book in my mid-level International Finance class at a liberal arts college, and I think it is excellent. This text was used to supplement class lectures and economics research/working papers. It served as a companion to more advanced and technical academic literature. Krugman and Obstfeld use commonsense and watered-down calculus to explain the key principles, making the material accessible to the average hard working college student. Furthermore, each scenario is thoroughly explained with a beautiful (i.e. colorful) graph.

Would be more suitable for pg students or ug students majoring in international economics. Better to read after having some basic background in international trade and international monetary system. I'd advice to read "International Trade Theory and Policy Analysis" by Steven Suranovic for example, before going ahead with this text-book.

Krugman rehashes old Keynesian thinking, without challenging it. Science does not move an inch without people daring to kick the can of the old school. This book is very old school and the section on the gold standard is specifically contemptable by its total lack of foundation. I have found better education elsewhere. Besides-the-point mathematics is leaving students confused and not any wiser, except that they probably wasted some money on this book. It passes off for knowledgable but it can not hide its lack of understanding. I certainly will not teach this to my children. If anything, I would recommend Carl Menger, starting with a disequilibrium theory, which seems much more suitable for a non-linear world such as ours.

And I'm not just saying that because I'm inadequate and can't comprehend whatever the author is saying. Seriously, this book is disorganized, confusing, and badly worded. The first equation introduced in the textbook, the gravity model, is written like so: Tij= A x Yi x Yj/Dij. Now I know it's common sense that the division sign before Dij (the distance between countries i and j) would go under both Yi and Yj...but it's just improper formatting (it looks like it could be over just Yj or A,Yi, and Yj). I also agree with the first reviewer that the author does not provide any sort of explanation that would help you with problems for exams or homeworks. He assumes you know random things, yet TAKES FOREVER to explain the simplest of concepts.

Perhaps it was the professor or perhaps it was this book (though the professor basically read verbatim from the ppt slides provided by the book's publishers, so it's the book anyway you look at it), but this text left you confuse and dazed. It was verbose and tedious at times. The examples given could have been thought up by anyone with commonsense, thus it was somewhat superfluous when the authors spent 1-2 pages explaining the example.


Also, the main text of the chapters would not provide a student with adequate information for tackling the exercises at the end of the chapter.