Politics Government Books

The "Nightingales's Song" is a remarkable story. I know three of the five characters, (McCain, McFarlane, and Webb), and truly admire them all. This book is a great piece of reporting, and is more relevant today than it was when it was first published. Admiral Jim Stavridis, still on the front lines of history, and a wonderful writer as well, said this book is a, "Greek tragedy," and is, "no more about Iran-Contra than 'Moby Dick' is about whaling." David Mamet who recommended this story to me and I both agree.

amazing must read book.

first the writing is simply beautiful, from the choice of words, to hidden humor and subtle points to the really big ideas that make a life ruined by reading well worthwhile.

second, i have no idea what genre this book falls into. it is unique.
it is the well researched story of 5 men's lives, those most effected by the iran contra hearings. from the day they entered the US Naval Academy to the time of the hearings.

the hearings are just a chapter or so at the very end. it is how they got to where they were and even more importantly --who they are and what they had learned during their time in government service that makes the books both a pleasure for the eye and for the mind. it is very good history with a high level analysis of what is good about these men and what is bad and how choosing each path is important, in these cases not only for the men involved but for the country they serviced.

thanks to the author for a very pleasant and rewarding day spent reading...

This book was important when it was published and remains so today. It describes in detail key members of the Reagan administration and other prominent political figures. Some remain active today, e. g. John McCain, James Webb, Oliver North. Most interesting figure, in my opinion, was Admiral Poindexter. He was a brilliant man with a Ph. D. but commanded at sea and was apparently respected and liked by the sailors. In my opinion, it may be unusual for a CalTech PH. D. to be a down-to-earth commander of troops.

Lots of detail; well-researched; very interesting book.

I thoroughly enjoyed this book's insights into these prominent graduates of the U. S. Naval Academy. I gained in-depth information about the subjects which I never saw covered in any other publication.

This was an amazing book when it was written a few years ago, and is now more timely than ever. It follows the careers of five Naval Academy graduates, all of whom gained some measure of fame--Oliver North, Jim Webb (now US Senator from VA) John Poindexter and "Sparky" McFarlane, both of whom served Ronald Reagan, and JOHN MCCAIN, who certainly was a wild man, by any standard, in his younger years. Beautifully written by another Naval Academy graduate who was severely wounded in Vietnam.

This book is the first account of US foreign policy in the 1990s that treats the decade as genuine history. I mean that it does not simply offer a chronicle of the period, or a set of newspaper clippings and individual events - it offers a guiding historical interpretation that sets those years in relation to the Cold War before and 9/11 and beyond. It is very convincing that there is far more continuity today with the foreign policies of those years than many people, left or right, give credit for. It is a highly persuasive interpretation of the period and I believe will remain the standard account of its foreign policy for a long time to come.

This is a tremendously important book that explains what happened when the Berlin wall fell and America's foreign policy establishment was forced to confront a world that was no longer organized by the US/Soviet rivalry. As it becomes increasingly clear that the "war on terrorism" is only a part of the broader foreign policy needed to protect our nation in a complex and multi-polar world, this is the book to read if you want to understand how the next generation of policymakers will draw on the lessons of the recent past to set a new course. Chollet and Goldgeier know what they are talking about. They have done exhaustive research, and each of them has hands on experience in the foreign policy business. It's a bonus that the writing is lively and engaging. Don't miss this book.

An excellent read for someone who wants a non-partisan approach to history's impact on international relations and foreign policy. Additionally, Chollet and Goldgeier postulate how our current state of affairs will shape tomorrow's. This is a perfect book for someone who wants to understand where we were and where we are going.

I was in Jr. High and High School during the 90s and so wasn't very familiar with this period before reading this, and while interested and somewhat familiar with policy, am certainly no expert. After years of thinking I knew who neoconservatives were and what both parties "stood for", this book really put things into perspective and contextualized things for me. And though it's a "history", it draws extensively on interviews with leading policymakers & insiders during the period, so the text ends up reading more like a narrative (great for a novel-reader like myself).

In sum, this was really informative, interesting, and a quick read - perfect for anyone looking for a genuinely nonpartisan, nuanced look at how we got to where we are - both domestically and abroad. Definitely a must for your summer reading list.

America Between the Wars tells the story of 11/9 to 9/11 through informative, behind-the-scenes stories that illustrate the dynamic and contentious foreign policy debates from the fall of the Berlin wall to the fall of the twin towers. If you like the stories behind the history, you'll love America Between the Wars. And if you usually prefer novels, you may find Chollet and Goldgeier's narrative voice appealing. Rather than writing a wonky, boring foreign policy book as so many unfortunately do, the authors present a relevant and relatable book. Especially for those who lived through this period, America Between the Wars reveals critical elements of our past and our future.

I am not as enamored of Lincoln as most. He mismanaged an unnecessary way. His northeast industrial backers urged the war for their commercial purposes. The textile mills and their bankers were in the north and wanted cheap southern cotton, which would go up in price if sold to the French and English. Industrial manufacturing and banking, including gun factories, was in the north and the bankers would benefit from a booming war economy. The South was agricultural.
I find it interesting that these same northeastern bankers and merchants wanted to seceed from the union in 1812 if the United States went to war again with England, because it would have hurt their shipping and other commercial interests.
Lincoln at the beginning of the war did not intend to free the slaves because his backers were afraid they would come north seeking employment and lower average wages, putting many of the existing population out of work. The Emancipation Proclamation had little effect in the midst of a war and was of questionable validity, but was a needed political statement at a time when the war was going badly and an election year was approaching. A politician doing political things put on a pedestal.
Slavery in the South had been decreasing for more than a decade because it was not economical to own slaves after the invention of the cotton gin, in addition to changing values in the South just as in the North. The northern Abolitionists made a lot of noise but like many protest groups of the 20th century were small in number.
Could another President have done better? Fewer deaths in Americas most deadly war. Avoided a war and its aftermath of Reconstruction and post-reconstruction. The methods used by Shermans during his march to Atlanta would probably qualify him for a place in the Hague today. I am not sure where that leaves Grant and Lincoln.
I mention the above because history is always less clear than it seems and is often in the eyes of the beholder. Ask one of the following to described the last hundred years of their history. Irish-English: Palestinian-Israeli: Pole-German-Russian: Serb-Croat-Albanian. It takes time for a proper perspective to develop.

To all those who think that George Bush is a dictator, consider reading a book that details the beginning of the centralization of power in this country.

For my entire life I was a hard-core Republican. I loved Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. I read DiLorenzos terrific book How Capitalism Saved America but I still remained a neo-conservative. I hesitated to get this book, but boy am I glad I did. Since then I realized that I have been lied to my entire life. I started reading DiLorenzos and Thomas Woods archives at LewRockwell (dot) com and became a Libertarian. I have bought this book for all of my friends and relatives. I converted my Republican brother and friend who are Civil War re-enactors. As my friend said, "I have only read two chapters and am convinced!"

By the way, one historian reviewed the book and said that a quote is out of context in the book where Lincoln supposedly said blacks can't be equal, only Siamese twins can ever be equal. DiLorenzo has said that he went back and found that the quote is out of context because he got it from a secondary source, and the secondary source got it wrong, so he will remove the quote if there is a future edition of the book. That should tell you that DiLorenzo is honest, and that all of his other quotes are in context.

At the height of his influence, many deemed him to be one of the worst tyrants the world had ever seen. He incarcerated 15,000 of his fellow citizens because they disagreed with his war policy. He had his army shut down newspapers and destroy the presses for any papers that wrote against him. He declared martial law and arrested political opponents without a warrant or trial and kept them locked up for years. His Secretary of State bragged that he could have any citizen jailed "at the snap of a finger." He had one Congressman who disagreed with him deported to another country. Then oversaw a war that led to 620,000 deaths...all within his own country. When half of the country sought to escape, they were forced to remain in the Nation.....or be slaughtered in mass for seeking liberty. In essence they were forced to remain citizens at the point of a bayonet. He ordered cities to be burned. Farms to be destroyed. Civilians, including women and children, to be bombed and executed. He was one of the most hated men in history.....and one of the most beloved. His name? Abraham Lincoln.
If the above paragraph shocked you, then you might consider reading a book entitled The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, By Thomas Dilorenzo.
While Lincoln is perhaps not as evil as this book presents, one can't escape the reality that Lincoln took some very harsh and unnecessary measures during the Am Civil War. Ironically, the majority of Americans in both the North and South were in favor of a peaceful secession in 1860. The North wanted separated from the South just as bad as the South did from the North. Yet Lincoln would hear nothing of it. Dilorenzo makes a rather compelling case for the economic motivations behind the war, given the fact that the South was paying roughly 80% of the Nation's expenses through tariffs, while the North was reaping the majority of the benefits in terms of bridge and railroad construction.
Furthermore, in Lincoln's first inaugural address, he stated clearly that he had no interest in freeing the slaves in the South and had no constitutional right to do so. When he reversed course and issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, he confided to his cabinet that it was simply a "war measure" meant to spark a slave insurrection in the South. Though most people don't realize it, the Emancipation Proclamation only granted freedom to slaves in the South. Slaves in the North were not granted freedom because their Masters had been loyal to the Union. William Seward, Lincoln's Secretary of State bemoaned at the time that the act was worthless having "freed slaves that we no longer have jurisdiction over...while keeping in bondage those slaves that we do." Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and even parts of Louisiana were under Federal control by 1863, and were thus allowed to keep their slaves. That seems to be one of those quirks of history that has been forgotten. Or as Dilorenzo contends....glossed over by the victors.
Dilorenzo, who is an Economics Professor at Loyola College (Maryland), writes in a very readable style as he makes his case that slavery should have been abolished by compensated emancipation as done in Britain, Brazil, and many other countries during the 1800s. The forward to the book was written by Dr. Walter Williams, Economics Professor at George Mason University, and frequent fill in host for Rush Limbaugh (and incidentally, an African-American). Furthermore, he contends that the South should have been allowed to secede peacefully....as our colonial fathers did when faced with an overbearing British taxation system. Had this happened, Dilorenzo contends that the North would have been forced to change their overbearing tax structure, and eventually North and South would have reunited with a much more solid and efficient government. But what in fact did happen was the centralization of federal government power to the extent that the Constitution was repeatedly ignored leading to the Federal albatross that exists today.
The argument between a massive Federal government vs. individual state sovereignty goes back to our founders. Thomas Jefferson was famous for saying that the government that "governs best is the one that governs least." In other words, the Federal government's job is to protect the citizens and insure they're given the freedom to purse life, liberty, and happiness. Jefferson's primary opponent was Alexander Hamilton, who sought to have a strong Federal government that dictated things to the individual states and the citizens thereof. Jefferson's followers fought against this (rightfully so), given the fact that they had just escaped tyrannical government control from Britain during the American Revolution.
As the course of our Nation progressed, the Hamiltonians, led by Lincoln, eventually gained control and vastly expanded the Federal government during the Civil War. By 1865 and the end of the Civil War, states right's had virtually ceased to exist, and the Federal government, which was CREATED BY the states, had become the ruling King of American government. Ironically, the states had created a monster and now that monster would rule over them for the next 143 years (and counting).
The great irony in all of this is that the two predominant political parties have swapped sides in the area of government control. Today, it is the Democrat party that seeks higher taxes and more Federal control over the lives of its citizens. While the Republicans seek a smaller government with more individual liberty.
In conclusion, I would heartily recommend the reading of this book. Its insights into our Nation's history are illuminating to say the least. You may not agree with every position taken, but the book does promise to make you think long and hard about governmental and constitutional issues. And it gives a pretty clear road map for the bureaucratic mess that we find our federal government mired in today. History kind of has a way, sometimes, of making people seem better (or worse) than they really were. I suspect this is true of Lincoln as well. While he had some admirable qualities, he was certainly not above political posturing or deceit, as is documented in this work. So check out a copy of The Real Lincoln...and prepare to be challenged.

The great counter-balance to the Cult of Lincoln. Throw out all of your orgasmic adoration for old Abe, this work will replace them all.

it was in great condition when i received it in the mail, just like new.

well once again, we learn things about people in power that we would rather not know because it makes one feel so lied to, so angry that our lives are ofton in their hands in government. and this is not good for high blood pressure, but I am really thankful that there are people who will tell the truth, that there are even Republicans who have some integrity.

We received the book in time for Father's day and it was exactly as advertised. Delivery was on time and the book was in excellent condition as it was new and a great price on your special. The gift was greatly appreciated. It is very good reading for anyone who is interested in politics.

Although Mr. Dean gives us a very good look at right wing authoritarianism, he misses, perhaps because of the connection of the book's concept with Barry Goldwater, the very cause of the take over of what used to be the Party of Abraham Lincoln by these people. It was the Southern Strategy, developed by Goldwater and furthered by Nixon, that caused this. While many other earlier conservative movements were more libertarian in nature, Southern politics has always been authoritarian. When the Republicans invited the Southern Dixiecrats in they did not realize the implications this would have and that they would take over. As Senator Lott said many times, the spirit of Jefferson Davis is alive and well in the Republican Party. You cannot be the Party of Lincoln and the Party of Davis. No tent is that big.
Mr. Dean should have reviewed Dr Augustus Cochran's book "Democracy Heading South: National Politics in the Shadow of Dixie" and Michael Lind's book "Made in Texas: The Southern Takeover of American Politics" and Andrew Manis "Southern Civil Religions in Conflict: Civil Rights and the Culture Wars".

This book opened my eyes to the problem in Washington: Authoritarianism. Why does Washington think that all Americans need the government to be our parents? This book exposes the sickness that so much of Washington has, the belief that the government needs to tell us what to do. The book explains how we came to where we are today: Authoritarian Followers. People in government that are suppose to be critical thinkers capable of coming to their own conclusions, are actually Authoritarian Followers looking upward in rank for someone to tell them what to think and how to vote. Hence the rubber stamping our Congresses have resorted to, God forbid our representatives actually read the legislation, or researched facts! How much easier to just agree than to actually learn the facts and stand up for what is right, not popular. I am very pleased that John Dean is exposing these lazy, irresponsible politicians for what they are: Followers. I pray for my children's sake that the voters will get educated on this issue and will remove these incompetent fools.

Former Watergate figure John Dean wrote a compelling critique of the conservative movement in the United States in his book "Conservatives Without Conscience". The author starts out explaining why the book was necessary and how it had been his hope to refrain from serious political commentary. He then discussed events where conservative hacks made attacks against him and his wife that were unfounded, and that he became the victim of slanders from former Nixon henchmen, G. Gordon Libby and Charles Colson. These events led him back into the public spotlight and convinced him that there had been a fundamental, and authoritarian change in conservatism from the Goldwater conservatism that had initially inspired John Dean. Dean also mentions that this book was inspired by Barry Goldwater and was intended to be a collaboration with him, had he lived.

In the book, John Dean looks at various efforts to define conservatism within the United States and the disparate ideologies that have somehow been embraced and coalesced into modern conservatism. Dean analysis the modern conservative movement and very pointedly takes aim at the authoritarian evolution of that movement and psychological efforts to understand both "authoritarian followers" and "social dominators" within conservative authoritarianism. He also defines different factions within the conservative movement and outlines their differences and their commonalities.

Dean pulls no punches in his examination of "social dominant authoritarians." Guys like Tom Delay, Newt Gingrich, Pat Robertson, and particularly, Dick Cheney are hammered with a searing white hot examination of their careers and characteristics. Cheney, as our nation's most dominant Vice President to a weak-minded and shallow President, is seen in the book as deliberately fundamentally changing the United States towards more central control within the Executive Branch.

Though Dean's book is a couple of years old, what he wrote makes sense of alot of what has happened since he first published it, and in this regard, Dean's analysis is helpful in predicting future administration actions and why they will engage in their behavior. The constant cries of "executive privilege" to hide administration misdeeds will not go away in an era dominated by "conservatives without conscience."

Authoritarians, driven by power, rather than principle, will do anything they can get away with to keep that power. Democrats and libertarian leaning Republicans should take heed and warning, that these authoritarians will not be going away any time soon. Even if they receive temporary setbacks, they see their role as permanent and fore-ordained.

If you could criticize Dean's book, it would be the harshness and anger that seethes under the surface in his analyses. However, Dean seems to have a real sense of just how dangerous, "conservatives without conscience" are to our Republic and seems to, through a bit of "shock and awe", trying to awaken us from our slumber, to let us know exactly what is at stake.

Everything happened as they said it would.

To say that this book is somewhat impenetrable is a bit like saying space is slightly chilly. There certainly are foundational theories that need to be explored in IR, but this book approaches it in the most condescending and repellent way possible. If you enjoy overly-complex, and self-aggrandizing prose, definitely pick one up. If not, there are likely better sources for this material.

I got this book because it was required for my international politics class. It isn't terribly hard to read, and it isn't excruciatingly boring so all in all this isn't a bad book. I probably wouldn't buy it if I didn't need it for class, but it's a good book to go along with the class

A must read for any new-comer to the subject of international relations. Topics covered are varied and relevant. Very applicable to today's world.

Robert Dahl does a fairly good job of raking up the dry grass from previous commentaries on the U.S. Constitution. From this grass, Dahl constructs a strawman, that democracy is virtually synonymous with political equality, then concludes that our political culture stands in the way of any significant reform either of the written or unwritten constitution. Though he dispatches the tension between political equality and liberty with a fairly thin argument, he fails to consider the tension between political equality and individualism (dare I say, equity) and justice (particularly transformative justice where some attention might be given to the principle of subsidiarity).

In short, this book is a quick read for identifying criticisms raised by earlier scholars, but Dahl's narrow defintion of democracy and failure to tell us how he proposes to increase the availability of "resources" leaves this reader wondering where hope resides for increased democratization under the existing constitution?

Might increased democratization of our constitutional system of government rest more squarely on dealing with the depreciation of social capital (see Robert Putnam's Bowling Alone for further reflections on Tocqueville's portrait of America)? Then again, we might conduct a postmortem on the impact of the Democratic Party's use of proportional representation in 2008, both parties use of presidential primaries, and the role of a commentariat that occupies such privileged position in a mass media based almost exclusively on consumerism. These and other areas of inquiry, while they lay outside the focus of the written constitution, speak more to Dahl's efforts to seek opportunities for reform in the "unwritten constitution". I hope that he and others will turn their considerable talent on such alternatives in the future.

Robert is upset that the Wright Bros. airplane didnt include a First Class section and free liquor. That is, he's sore at the Founding Fathers for slavery and women's sufferage and the Electoral College.

Dont waste your time on this mind-drool.

first, this book is quite brief. less than 200 pages, large font and margins. i can see why he is recognized as a distinguished professor at yale. he is brilliant and engaging. he covered all of the essential topics and this book is a sound, middle-of-the-road text. there were just a few statements he made that i re-re-read, asking myself, "did he really say THAT?" i wish that he had covered more topics and gone into greater depth on those that he did address. perhaps he has done so in other texts? overall, this is an excellent book that is somewhat interesting.

This slim little book has a single, narrow objective, and, with commendable consistency, it refuses to stray. The focus is simple, and given in the very title: How democratic is the American Constitution? The answer, which it deliberately and relentlessly drives home, is, "Not very."

It is with this point that a lot of the reviewers seem to take issue, and let no potential buyer be mistaken: this is the only topic Dahl discusses in this book. He does not wish to argue why absolute and unimpeded democracy should be pursued. Nor does he bother discussing the virtues of whatever checks to pure mob rule America employs. Certainly, he believes that America should have less impediments to democracy--a notion most apparent toward the end--but that is more of an undercurrent to his thought than an inherent element to the argument at hand.

Hence, Dahl points to the Electoral College, the Senate, the Supreme Court, and a variety of other elements of American government only with the intent of proving how they are undemocratic, and how they should be if the American Constitution strove for unfettered democracy. That the Senate, for instance, may be a legitimate tool of federalism as a nod toward state existence is irrelevant; the very notion of federalism is undemocratic, as it creates a source of legitimacy not founded in the people, and consequently it comes under fire. Anyone looking for plausible arguments of why democracy should have limits, and why there should be a Supreme Court capable of curtailing the will of the people (if indeed it can for any respectable period of time) should look elsewhere. It is unfair to this book's streamlined purpose to expect tangential discussion of why democracy is good or bad in a given case.

The question that it does strive to answer, however, it does clearly and concisely, and for this point alone should enjoy one's reading.

The issue of how best to govern a nation is of great importance and should be explored through intellectual, logical debate. Dahl's book does not carry the weight this topic deserves because he entirely avoids exposure of the logical constructs from which his conclusions stem.

Dahl's unstated presupposition is that democracy is a superior form of government compared with representative democracy. This presupposition is never discussed and simply assumed true by Dahl. This is strong evidence that Dahl hopes to persuade, not promote his ideas in this op-ed piece. Since he offers no logical constructs regarding his specific ideas and avoids direct questioning of potential hazards of his ideas, he does not offer the non-critically thinking reader pause for review. Instead he promotes safe, non-threatening ideas that will be easily agreed to by the reader. Once the reader is agreeing with what is said it is nearly effortless to get the reader to agree to the next idea, even if the two ideas are completely unrelated. In fact, the very fashion in which Dahl presented his justification for changing the constitution was one such trick.

Dahl states that during the time of the constitutional convention we were far less technologically advanced. He tells the reader that DaVinci could have done absolutely marvelous things had modern technology been at his dispose. This is certainly debatable if one were to stop and question what circumstances allowed DaVinci to do what he had done. However, for most, this is an idea that will be readily agreed to and will strike imagination and hope, exactly the combination needed to persuade people of such things as Dahl desires. Dahl never strikes his assumption that technological advances also bring about social and political advances, for which he could have at least made a case. He never brings the topic for discussion and simply behaves as if the point had been struck. However, societal advances are not directly conjured through technological advances and in many cases societal norms become less democratic (what Dahl would call more advanced) with technological advances. And thus, we can see why Dahl avoided intellectual debate and instead opted for a trick.

This is an old, extremely effective sales trick which has personally been used to do things like sell movies to people that did not own a television and found movies morally wrong. This anecdote is not just presented to expose Dahl's method, but is also presented here to strike a point: People are gullible and will easily agree to do things to which they are morally opposed, much less unsure of or apathetic to. This is the very reason to avoid a direct democracy and there are historical examples of such things happening, which of course, Dahl fails to acknowledge. Furthermore, it is precisely self-serving tricksters that the founding fathers had in mind when writing the constitution--no wonder Dahl detests it so.

Dahl uses others tricks that an unsuspecting reader will miss. For example, Dahl goes through some effort to legitimize his term "founding framers," in preference to "founding fathers." This has absolutely no relevance to the discussion of representative government versus pure democracy. However, what it does do is remove a name that places the creators of the constitution on a pedestal and replaces it with something less reverent. This is not to suggest that changing the name to "founding framers," and removing some of the reverence is a bad thing. But combined with the other tricks in this book, it is highly suspicious and comes across as name calling.

Furthermore, it is a rather surprising move on Dahl's part after he showed such deftness with persuasion (discussed in the previous paragraph) in other parts of the book. The reason it is surprising is that the very people he would hope to convince would likely be the people that would put his book away after reading this passage. Dahl is certainly not a dumb individual; so for whom is this book written, the like minded or the variant of Dahl? It is most likely the latter of the two.
He claims that Tocqueville predicted a "collapse of society," due to the nature of a pure democracy and gives examples of trials which modern societies have faced without collapsing. Yet, again, he fails to address the heart of his argument and instead opts for something safe and at best tangent to his point, i.e. wars and depression which have nothing to do with the nature of democracy causing a legislative overload and collapse. And yet, Tocqueville is highly accurate when he discusses the stifling laws and regulations that will govern a purely democratic state. On needs to look no further than license requirements for bicycles in modern democratic countries.

Dahl claims he believes in "intrinsic equality," which he defines as inalienable political equality among all citizens. He further claims that the intrinsic equality is what not only allows but actually promotes democracy because the majority population will respect the intrinsic equality of the minority population. So, live and let live, allow for consideration of differences of opinion on even the most important subjects is what Dahl claims to believe in and promote. However, talk is cheap. Dahl later states, "...it is difficult for me to see how a significantly different proposition could be defended, particularly if we draw on crucial historical cases...," (131). He later refers to his own judgments as, "prudent," while referring to the judgments of others as based in "hopeless ignorance." It appears that Dahl fails to uphold the very standard he promotes as being the basis for a pure democracy.

Dahl directly states that he considers his own opinions correct and prudent and perceives views in variation from his own as invalid. He claims that the founding fathers had personal motivations and designed our government to promote their own interests. He claimed that people today are superior that people in the past. And because of these things, it must seem to Dahl that the debate of a purely democratic society versus a representative democracy is moot.

That said, merit exists in some of his points and objections about our current government. However, his methods of tricking and avoiding direct promotion of his ideas are distasteful and less effective than its compliment. Without allowing the reader preview to arguments, one cannot accurately gauge Dahl's position and thus cannot identify where differences of opinion stem. Since it is highly unlikely that Dahl will be charged with the tasks of creating a new constitution, it is likely that Dahl's work will only benefit his cause by creating a stir among his like-minded, which is certainly not respectful to Dahl's dissenters.

If offered the opportunity, it would be of great interest to hear what Dahl would say regarding the role of pure democracy in the fall of Athens, or to have him explain what mechanism would prevent a pure democracy from passing arbitrary or spiteful laws into action. Or perhaps it would be good to see a working example of a successful pure democracy in business or politics (money and power); the two things that ultimately drive government action. These are the issues that his concepts bring forth and since he wholly failed to address them, his book lacks the weight required to address how to best govern a free body of people.

I recommend this product for preparation for the AP Govt and Politics exam. Much better than the 06-07 version.

Pretty comprehensive and clear. seems to have all you need. it was great, but I give it a 4 instead of a 5 because there was a handful of stuff that I don't remember seeing in here that was on the 2008 AP test.

Really helped prepare for the AP exam. The practice tests are key. They really get you a good feel for the exam. Princeton Review does a great job.