Politics Government Books

"Unequal Democracy" presents the results of a six-year exploration of the political causes and consequences of economic inequality in America. It was inspired by the substantial escalation of this inequality in recent years. Total income going to the top 0.1% of income earners has more than tripled, from 3.2% in the late 1950s to 10.9% in 2005; that going to the top 1% rose from 10.2% to 21.8%. Further, this widening is accelerating. Despite this trend, 80% believe that though you may start out poor, if you work hard you can make lots of money - more than any other developed nation. This belief undermines motivation for change.

Bartels believes that the most significant domestic policy initiative of the past decade has been a massive government-engineered transfer of additional wealth from the lower and middle classes to the rich via substantial reduction in federal income taxes for the rich.

Economists have found little evidence that large disparities promote growth, or that progressive tax rates retard growth by discouraging economic effort.

Meanwhile, political campaigns have become dramatically more expensive, increasing the reliance of elected officials on those who can afford to help finance their re-election bids. At the same time, membership in labor groups, a previously countervailing force, has substantially declined.

On average over the past half century, real incomes of middle-class families grew 2X under Democrats vs. Republicans, and working poor families grew 6X faster under Democrats - even after allowing for differences in economic circumstances.

So why do those with lower incomes vote for Republicans? Bartels tells us that contrary to the theme of "What Happened to Kansas," moral values do not trump economics as a basis for lower-income voting behavior. Bartels offers evidence that the contradiction is explained by confusion generated by mixing "working class" (defined often as those w/o a college education) with lower-income. The working class has a lot of relatively high earners that are influenced by the moral values issues.

Bartels then contends that Republican success in presidential races is due to voters' overemphasis on election-year economic growth, vs. the superior longer-term performance of Democratic presidents, but lesser achievement during the last year of their terms.

Finally, its on to the estate ("death") tax. Actions to reduce and eliminate it during the early Bush II years represent about 15% of the impact of the overall tax reduction package. Bartels asserts that there is enormous misunderstanding about this tax regarding the wideness of its applicability. As a result, it is a wonder that it still exists.

Bottom Line: "Unequal Democracy" presents a carefully documented set of conclusions about an important and timely topic; its only drawback is that sometimes the statistics get too deep.

I've been searching for some data on how well off people are during the different rules and along came unequal democracy. If you now people that keep trying to convince you that if you vote for the Dems, you will be over taxed to the gates of hell, this is a must read. It's a text book but very readable.

Regardless of the political party you identify with, this is a great informative read if you are interested in US politics, especially in this day and age with our failing economy.

I would hardly trust a political scientist to do the work of an economist - and this is what this author attempts to do. A basic fallacy taught in introductory economics is "post hoc ergo proctor hoc" - after the fact, therefore because of the fact - and could it not be that Bartel's causation works the same way? His assertions are causally flawed - for example, one cannot attribute the growth of the 1990's to Clinton - the economic "successes" of his administration are purely a case of a candidate that was elected at the right place at the right time. Clinton is such a shameless, vain individual that he (and now his wife) happily credit their savvy with our successes as a nation during that period. It's unfortunant that we work like Bartel's that only add to their ego.

A less salacious reframing would be to simply note that the poor's position has grown over all election cycles, just like the rich. Granted, the rich's position has grown faster, but then so has our economy. The true, central failing of this text is that Bartel, like so many others, preys on peoples notion that the economy is a finite pie and if the rich have more, the poor have less.

Recommended reading for the envious and political science majors who think their degree has value beyond a predictable path to law school.

This book is yet another socialist tome from the 1960's hippie, university mono-culture. The entire point: democracy should produce equal economic results, is wholly anti-American. If the Constitution had said that the goal of democracy was to affect equal economic outcomes throughout our society the theme of the book would have been perfectly compatible with America. But, for some reason, our founders, who created the greatest, wealthiest country in the history of humanity, forgot that little detail in the Constitution. In fact, it seems not to have occurred to anybody until Karl Marx conjured it up out of a deranged mind that eventually could be held directly responsible for impoverishing 100's of millions and killing 100-200 million people. Despite the deadly failure of every socialist gov't since Marx, the university mono-culture still imagines that its' wisdom can perfect the socialist formula in America even as the billions in Russia, China, and India turn toward the capitalism that our founders miraculously gave us, and away from the socialism that Marx gave them.

One can only wonder how liberals are so blind to what is happening so obviously right under their own noses. Recently, I had dinner with a friend who suggested a Republican understanding of America different from the one commonly suggested by university liberals. She teaches elementary school in the South Bronx. She told me about how some of her students had recently immigrated from Bangladesh where just 2 weeks before the start of the semester they had lived, literally, outside; with no modern conveniences including electricity, toilets, or running water. But somehow, she said, those students were performing better than native Americans who were born in the South Bronx. How could this be? The answer is simple: the South Bronx is the most liberal place on earth. Native American kids bring that culture with them to school. They feel the liberal, Marxist, Democratic entitlement attitude in their souls. In their souls they are victims or the children of victims who are entitled to have their needs met by their victimizers. Why should they work hard in school when Marx instructed them long ago: "to each according to his needs".

Conversely, the Bangladeshi kids have the American, colonialist, capitalist attitude. They and their families are thrilled to be free in a capitalist country where they can create and enjoy their own lives based on what they can provide for themselves, not based on what they are "entitled" to from more productive people. Serendipitously, in a capitalist system, to provide for oneself one has to, firstly, provide more for other people. Hence, capitalism has produced the greatest wealth for all, although not the same quantity of wealth for all at any given time. After all, some have just arrived from Bangladesh, and some who arrived a long ago are just liberals.

Additionally, the author bemoans the loss of union jobs in America. To the author, it is intuitively obvious that unions jobs are good jobs because they are higher paying jobs that, accordingly, result in more equal democracy. Completely and wholly lost is the idea that in a free,wealthy, capitalist society one should get wages or prices that other free people agree to pay for one's goods and services since other people provide an impartial point of view about what goods and services, at what prices, actually constitute a standard of living improvement for the purchaser. When liberal professors or socialist gov't bureaucrats makes those choices they choose wrong and standards of living go down, rather than up, as history has repeatedly shown us.

The liberal, union principle is that one gets whatever one can by blackmailing one's employer for higher wages. Forgotten is that, 1) everyone, including union members, must then pay more for expensive union made goods, thereby eliminating any net gain, 2) blackmail, rather than greater productivity, as a means to get ahead, diminishes an individual's, company's, and economy's focus on productivity, competitiveness, and wealth creation, 3) non-union companies and countries will have lower prices and more competitive products so that unionized companies will ultimately go bankrupt and cost the blackmailing union members their jobs.

For example, American liberals now seems poised to lose GM, Ford, and Chrysler and the millions of jobs that they directly and indirectly provide, in large part because of unions. So why on earth do university liberals still imagine that unions and socialism are a good thing? The answer is that it is only way for them to participate in a free capitalist society that functions very precisely and well without their irrelevant academic disportment. They can come up with childlike and absurd new theories and arguments to promote old fashioned socialism, and try to foist them upon us, but in the end they can't educate one child in the South Bronx or produce one competitive automobile.

If equality is the real issue, why do the top 1%, under Bush, now have to pay 40% (up from 32% prior to Bush) of all Federal Taxes? Why do the poor get free health care and education through high-school, in addition to numerous other entitlements, without which their lives would not be sustainable? Why did Bush introduce the first $2 Trillion budget and then the first $3 Trillion budget if not to help the poor in America? Why did Bush introduce the Prescription Drug Bill - the costliest entitlement since the 1960's - if not to help the poor? The issue isn't that the poor need more economic democracy, it's that liberals (some of whom are truckling or confused Republicans) have declared war on the poor with their caring, preposterous, and counterproductive programs. The liberal attitude toward education and unions constitute two of the many battles in the liberal war against the poor.

At another time one might mention how liberal, hip hop, feminist, welfare culture destroyed the idea of love and family in poor America by replacing June Cleaver with Britney Spears and Madonna so that most kids are now born to single impoverished mothers, but that's another battle in the liberal war on the poor that, again, would only be exacerbated by "economic democracy." When the most sucessful black leader of the last 35 years, Rev. Jesse Jackson, looks at this and then wants to castrate Barak Obama for advocating responsible paternity, we don't need "economic democracy," we, sadly, need liberals who can think above the retarded level. bje1000@aol.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am glad I got this from my local library rather than waste good money. While entertaining at times, this mishmash of nonsense has the feel of Colbert's appearance - a deer caught in the headlights, and wired out on caffeine.

I'm a huge fan of Colbert, but unfortunately I felt a little robbed after buying this book. The book is undoubtedly amusing but it mainly illicits chuckles and grins from the reader rather than genuine laugh-out-loud moments, which you would come across infrequently throughout the entire book.

This stems from the fact that the entire book is more or less the same diatribes from his show (mainly "The Word" segment), just converted to text and far more lengthy. And its other significant flaw is that it is just not insightful enough to be memorable.

Don't get me wrong, if you're a Colbert fan this is a book worth reading - just not to be bought as a pricey hardcover.

The book is great, the first half had me in stitches. Unfortunately as a reader on the Kindle I couldn't make out most of the images. If they were available at higher resolution and with the proper contrast they would be OK, so its not a limitation of the Kindle. The publisher obviously never previewed the book on the Kindle before sending it out.

If you like The Colbert Report, you will love this book! It is typical Stephen Colbert humor, and you even get "The Word" as you read. This book is hilarious and a must-read for anyone who likes sarcasm and outrageous humor. It is full of truthiness! Be a hero, read this book, and I promise, you will laugh out loud!

Simply put, this is a must for any fan of Daily Show, Politically Incorrect, or any similar show. Stephen has an unusual wit about his comedy. The footnotes give the book just that much more value. And, you can nominate books for "The Stepehen T. Colbert Award for The Literacy Excellence"

Nothing special about economic indicators, or how to observe the hitmens behavior in economics, but more so a life history of the authers growth in this craft. The book was entertaining, but I wanted information, about the imf, C-banks and so on. So if your looking for an informative educational book one star, if you want entertainment, and to learn about the author 5 stars. Good reading.

The author gives us a rare insight into how the US conducts "foreign policy" that primarily benefits US corporate/conglomerate profit interests. Similar to the US "military-industrial complex" that President Eisenhower warned us about in 1961, the author sounds a warning about how narrow monied interests guide the conduct of foreign "assistance" and "relations" so that the public interests, in both the US and the "target" country are ill-served. This is a MUST READ for American voters and the new generation of elected decision-makers.

there are many great, kind and charitable americans. the presidents and the government represented american....

for years, as now everyone knows that there was no nuclear weapon found in iraq, haliburton is still making great money. people like bush family, dick cheney have a lot to do with this company. they made great money. they were the one declaring war. and they were the ones making friends with the dictators of the world. look where it has got america and the world. i hope McCain will not win. and obviously the lady running mate of his. with all due respect, someone who has little education, and pro-live and pro-gun. imagine the future of america and the world in the hands of these duo.

this book is an eye opener. the view it presented has tied in with the facts i have previously known.

american should care more about the rest of the world and the action of their leaders. indifference can otherwise be very costly

Mr. Perkins has a great thesis and great angst about his role in the world. His thesis is simple - American engineering and oil companies go to third world countries and give hugely inflated estimates of growth potential. Using those inflated numbers, they induce the countries to get loans so they can hire the American companies to do the work. The country then is unable to repay the loan. The theory implicates American companies, the many politicians with ties to them and the World Bank, IMF and other financial institutions.

Unfortunately, Mr. Perkins fails to come up with the proofs. His outline appears feasible, but he never gives any instances of the loan and default portion of the thesis. There is nary a number or statistic to back him up. He does not cite a single defaulted loan.

Further, Mr. Perkins often draws parellels to the American Founders and our Revolution. His grasp of American history is sophomoric at best. He uses a cartoonish image of 1776 that one would expect from an elementary school student, not someone indicting corporations, international banks and presidential administrations.

Mr. Perkins does have some sources and they are noted. Again, they occasionally show his sloppiness with the facts. In one instance, he states with firmness that the Reagan and Bush administrations had been proven to have dirtied their hands in this corporatocracy (his term) scheme. The text said this was proven by testimony. When one checks the note, the testimony was by John Dean in 1973 and 1974 - six and seven years before the Reagan and Bush administrations. Such errors in fact and use of bad history undermine the reader's confidence in the basic theory of the book.

That all having been said, the book does show how America's corporations have gone into Third World countries focused only on their own bottom line. Their is no altruism in the corporate world. This pure greed is aided and abetted by connected politicians.

Most interesting are his accounts of the American-Saudi relationship where the corporate scheme worked with oil money rather than World Bank funds. Although Perkins seemed to criticize the plan, it worked well for both sides. It was a true win-win. Somehow, the author tried to tie in the Saudis' support of terrorism with its modernization and westernization. The parallel did not work - especially since he had given Saudi Arabia's history of being founded by fundamentalist Islamists long before the corporations came in. Mr. Perkins then tried to draw another parallel to Iraq. Unfortunately, he could never explain why the system that worked so well for Saudi Arabia did not work for Iraq.

There are some alarming aspects of this book and it really does read, in parts, like a novel. Alarm is what Mr. Perkins expects to raise with his "Confession". There is a lot to look at behind his accounts. Sadly, Mr. Perkins just did not deliver the goods to prove his points.

I started reading this with some skepticism but it all seemed to add up to me - - believe it or not - up to you, but I think an interesting read and for me, it was credible..

Thank you. Interesting concepts in this book. I am finishing undergraduate work with a problem-solving project at work. The book is assigned reading. Very helpful.

This book explains the procedure of analyzing policy so it might be useful for someone to organize the procedure.

I do not want to say much about this book other than it is overly obvious in what it states. Also, I did not use this book much in my class, which adds to my negative impression of it.

Bardach is the essential policy analysis book. Apparently a student of his took avid notes in class; that combined with his own journals made for the most trunkated version of any specialized policy book. Written much like a reference manual with his own quips about analysis, it is easy to read and most informative.

Ciao!

ef2

I wanted a basic book on policy and this is a book on the general problem solving method. The sub-title should become the book title:"The Eightfold Path to More Problem Solving." This book expands on the the very basic 3-step general problem solving method: (1) define the problem, (2) think of all the alternatives, (3) choose the best alternative.

When I get a book I take the key word in the title and look for the author's definition of that term so that I can understand their perspective. Amazingly, the author does not define "policy" in the book. Is policy different than a problem, a strategy, a plan, rules and regulations......?

I'll sell you my copy cheap!

"What Happened" is more of an intimate look into an American presidential administration, with an honest assessment of the political problems within and without. It wasn't a smoking gun or a book full of any particular damning revelations against the Bush administration (just about everything in this book hyped as such was already known), but was rightfully critical of how certain things were handled by the administration. Most notably, the war in Iraq (including the selling of the war to the public, and the Plame-affair); and the communications response in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

The overlying theme of the book is that there is something seriously wrong with Washington, and has been for a while. After the ugly political atmosphere between Clinton-Democrats and Gingrich Republicans, Bush promised to change things, but then quickly fell right in line with the status quo by the 2002 mid-term elections. Needlessly politicizing serious matters (such as a war) serves to kill intelligent discourse on all sides, and ends up leading to grave consequences, not only for national security, but in damaging the people's faith in their government, faith that is seriously needed in times of crisis and danger. That is something with which a vast majority of the people in this country agrees, no matter what their political affiliation or leanings. In addition, it is something that politicians often embrace during campaigns, but rarely have the courage to embrace once in office.

As a registered Republican, this book did not make me want to suddenly join the Democratic party. But I appreciated the honest assessment of the problems plaguing American politics on both sides, and by pointing out the failure of the Bush administration to stand up against it, I hope that future administrations of either side might learn from it and finally do so.

The book is much better than any of the political commentaries made when it was first released. Strongly suggest reading it -- whether one is a confirmed Democrat (as I am) or a devoted Republican.

The author spends a lot of time writing about his early life and the years leading up to the subject of the book. It's understandable, but the readers are primarily interested in how, in his opinion, the Bush White House got us into a needless war.

The book is interesting and thoughtful, but does not share much that we don't already know via assumptions and speculation. Still, if you're interested in certain Washington character flaws and evasiveness, it's worth a read.

This is a good book. Its not always an easy read (it can be tedious at points) but I'd say it was well worth reading, to get the inside scoop

I think Scott is kinder to Bush than he deserves, considering the facts laid out in the recent Bugliosi book The Prosecution of George W Bush For Murder

Bing West has written a lively history of the Iraq War. I read it over the Labor Day Weekend and could not put it down. He writes beautifully about the grunt and how leadership from the squad to the President is critical to prevail in a war. He lays out with little bias the decisions and their effects upon the direction of war. The central character is always the infantryman.

Along with this book, it is necessary to read Gen. Rupert Smith's THE UTILITY OF FORCE. Smith gives us the concept; West gives us the people. Two military professionals who write very well.

I have just read The Strongest Tribe by Bing West. It is a page turner for anyone who wants to know how Iraq was nearly lost by our government and our generals and later saved by the dedication of the heroic soldiers and marines at the unit level. These warriors became true "community organizers" and snatched victory out of the jaws of defeat. West has done all of this reporting while accompanying these brave young Americans over several years. You can almost place yourself in the middle of the action on a virtual basis. You will only get this in-depth on-the-scene account in his book. Far too many Iraq books have been written by generals, politicians and bureaucrats who provide self serving, third hand accounts from the comfort of the Green Zone or from state side. West knows what its is all about because he did this in Vietnam - - he has done us all a great service by authoring this book. He tells it like it is. I have bought several copies and have passed them on to returning veterans and their families. A great investment of your time - read it and you will not be disappointed.

Mr West once again captures the history of this often incorrectly reported and generally misunderstood war. After reading the March Up, I gained an insight of the big picture I missed as a Battery Commander in the 1st Marine Division at the time of OIF 1. This book similarly captures the zeitgeist of those of who were on the ground in Iraq during the time covered, even going for far as stating what many of us felt when we heard the words of numerous American politicians playing into the enemies' hands. He is very accurate and expressed better than I every could some of the problems and frustrations of being an adviser to the Iraqi Army.

"Strongest Tribe" is hands down the most definitive chronicle our of engagement in Iraq over the past five years. West's extensive network of military and political contacts gives him a unique perspective which other writers could only hope to achieve.
West's unique ability to blend and bond with the grunts as well as the four stars is unmatched by anybody today.
West clearly outlines the events that led to the "Sunni awakening" in Anbar province which led to the realization of the Sunnis that their lot would be far better aligned with us vs the murderous Al Queda.
West shines sunlight on the ineptness of President Bush as Commander and Chief, and the bungling management of affairs under L. Paul Bremmer (our first Viceroy of Iraq).
West illustrates through these dark days, and absence of a sense of direction from the top, our soldiers and Marines perform admirably despite the ambivalence of a good number of citizens of this country who cannot get their head around the fact that this country is at war.
West takes us through the "surge" from it's inception in the NSA to it's execution by our best and brightest military commanders.
West points out that the future of Iraq is less than certain, but what clearly is a given is that our men and women in uniform are without a doubt the "strongest tribe"
If you are looking for a candid and comprehensive chronicle of where we have been and where we are going in Iraq from a writer who has done his "due diligence", "Strongest Tribe" is a must read.

Gary Wilson, Esq.

All previous reviewers have rated the book 5 stars. There is little I can add to improve on their praise. "Ditto" to all the reviews! This is the "Best Book" of an overview of the war's best and worst from start to current. Our soldiers once again prove we have the "Best Tribe" on the planet. I am glad they are on our side!!

One of my favorite college texts. I was assigned this book for a course on National Security. My only issue with this book is that it seems to have been written in pieces. The first two chapters were very academic and I had to look up a LOT of words in the dictionary! The rest of the book (6 chapters, I think) was much easier. I liked the chapters on how Evangelicals and Hollywood effected militarization. Also, politicians are always saying they support the troops but don't enlist or let their children enlist.

Unfortunately, Bacevich's son died in combat recently.

The author is a Vietnam vet and admits to be a conservative and on the right and he fairly critisizes past Presidential offices and describes why America is on the warpath from past trends and decisions.

Andrew J. Bacevich's New American Militarism is an informative, insightful, methodical analysis of key influences that have created American militarism, of how it came to be as it is. It is careful delineation of the parts influencing how G. W. Bush and the current administration arrived at their current policy, and why they regard the use of force and the deployment of American military forces throughout the world as paramount components of our foreign policy, despite warnings to the contrary from the nation's Founders. From his description of Woodrow Wilson's original interventionist intent (a moral vision shared with both Carter and Reagan, manifesting itself in vastly different ways in their respective presidencies, and one that GW Bush would adopt after 9/11), to the impact on the public's psyche of the mass media and Hollywood, the long term investment in particular world views of the evangelical right, neo-cons and the officers' corps under decades of Cold War influence--he meticulously traces how the parts fit together, and who played what role. This writer found his narration of the on-going influence of Albert Wohlstetter, the RAND Corporation and Robert McNamara, and their subsequent impact on Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Bush (II) to be particularly interesting. Simultaneously informative and frustrating was his description of evangelicals; it brought home the point that a thorough reading of Mark Twain's War Prayer would probably leave little impression on many of them.
His tying together of such seemingly disparate leaders as Carter and Hoover, Reagan and Roosevelt, Wilson and Bush, show recurring trends in how the government approaches the leviathan that is our armed forces. Bacevich describes a juggernaut used for global power projection, where all the principal policy players (presidents and presidential candidates, Congress, etc.) know that bigger is essential--as Carter discovered to his electoral dismay after delivering his Crisis of Conscience speech. (pgs. 100-102) Without falling into diatribe or invective against any of those he describes, it is quite clear who stands out as Bacevich's exemplars and who comes up short. We see the myriad influences that have lead to President Bush's Orwellian injunction that this country must go on the offense and stay on the offense, and simultaneously understand that is not a new concept with GW, as we see from C. Wright Mills' 1956 commentary on the subject, that "the only accepted `plan' for peace is the loaded pistol."
The author's description of the convictions of second generation neo-cons (heirs to the ideological likes of Podhoretz and Kagan), is instructive in that it is a mirror reflection of the current administration's SOP (American global dominion is benign and other nations necessarily see it as such, failure on the part of the US to sustain its imperium would inevitable result in global disorder, nothing works like force, commitment to sustaining and enhancing American military supremacy is essential and, a political realism is viewed with hostility, whether manifesting itself as a deficit of ideals or an excess of caution).
Bacevich sees that culpability for the current situation is cumulative, and while one or another of the players may share more responsibility for our current predicament, laying blame accomplishes nothing and does not address the issues and challenges our militarism confronts us with. The author makes it clear that (as Madison puts it) "...No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." With these points in mind, Bacevich offers in his final chapter, Common Defense, a plan of action--ten fundamental principles to abate present militaristic tendencies (heed the intentions of the Founders, revitalize the concept of separation of powers, view force as a last resort, enhance US strategic self-sufficiency, organize US forces explicitly for national defense, devise an appropriate gauge for determining the level of US defense spending, enhance alternative instruments of statecraft, revive the moribund concept of the citizen-soldier, re-examine the role of the National Guard and reserve components, and reconcile the American military profession to American society). (pgs. 208-221) I would include a final essential point in Bacevich's ten principles to avert expanding militarism--unceasing engagement, for it is only through consistent contact that we can hope to engage both our allies and foes. The indelible conclusion one draws from New American Militarism is that there are a multitude of issues that must be simultaneously addressed in order to curtain our reliance on overt militarism as a tool of foreign policy, but Bacevich also makes it clear that such a process of redress is possible. An excellent read for anyone in the armed forces, who has a family member in the military, or who has an interest in the symbiotic relationship between American society and its military.

The best books are those that challenge conventional thinking and have the intellectual weight to back up that challenge. This book is one of those. The author, a Vietnam vet and West Pointer, has the credentials and knows the military from the inside, which gives his argument particular strength and provides the reader with information not otherwise easily available. Is it really necessary that the United States have a military machine as large as it does? In these troubled times, that's a view that wins easy assent. But this book will make you think twice.

Judging by his track record, Bacevich might appear as a true-blue conservative, a West Point graduate, Vietnam veteran, and soldier for 23 years. He currently teaches at Boston University and has contributed to conservative magazines such as the Weekly Standard and the National Review. He was a former Bush Fellow at the American Academy in Berlin. Nevertheless, his analysis of evolving military doctrines shows no bias for any party.

I think that there is an incredible amount to learn in Jesus For President. Shane does an excellent job with many different topics. The bottom-line is very practical ways of living for Jesus and making Him the leader of our lives. There are some sections that are harder to read than others, but overall a great book that I will keep.

I literally could not put this book down. I learned more from reading this than I did taking 2 semesters of Old testament and New Testament and years of bible study. I like the way the author breaks the book down into themes. I loved the graphics, the type.. everything. I think every person who calls him or herself a Christian should read this book. It will challenge you on a personal level. It is so different from what is out there on the shelves. I highly recommend this book.

This was an amazing book. Its a book about Jesus for people who don't wanna waste anymore time with organized religion. It goes back to who Jesus really was and how the modern church of today is actually almost a polar opposite of the early church.

When I first saw the title, I thought, "Here's someone who came up with an intriguing catch phrase so they could sell a book during an election year." I couldn't have been more wrong.

This book is serious. It carries a high reverence for God and a high respect of the truth of the Scriptures. It packages 4,000 plus years of political and religious history in a way that is easy to comprehend, without dumbing down. It is both academic and born out of real life experience. The authors love God and love people, and this book is a fruit of their inspiring, Christ-centered faith.

My fellow Americans... my fellow Christians... please read this book.

the perfect Kingdom will not come
in mortal time and yet
my our service here and now
the cornerstone is set...

the individual and communal
both must play a role
either overemphasized
will stunt the human soul

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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