Politics Government Books

I believe Brzezinski still has a great deal of influence (maybe now more so than ever) on foreign policy and relations. Although I do not like most of his policies, it is extremely important to be aware of what he is proposing. As a speculator I try to be aware of if then macro economic scenarios.

Please read this book before you rate it. If you have read it and you care about America's safety and image, then a 5 star rating is what this book is and should be. If you care NOTHING about America's safety and image, then you are probably one of those 1 or 2 star raters. To you I say: "Put America First!" Read the book, or reread the book and let it sink in. Thank you Dr. Brzezinski for looking out for America first, World Peace and; very, very clearly bringing this to USA/World attention. Wow! Highly recommended; you will read it in one sitting. Absolutely Superb!!!

Once again Dr. Brzezinski has written a highly intellectual
book on foreign affairs. He has the ability to stress numerous
complicated issues into clear sentences. In general, his books are
very reader-friendly. I really hope that despite his age, he will
continue to write new books.

I would like to remind everyone that this book by its very nature is a subjective work, and this the author readily admits within the very text of this book. Unfortunately there is no nationally recognized rubric with which to judge presidents that we can use to accurately assess the accomplishments and failures of each president. This means that more than likely everyone who reads this book will find something in it they vehemently disagree with, whether they loved the book and gave it 5 stars or hated it and gave it 1. I myself enjoyed the book and found plenty I disagreed with, but just because there were aspects of his critique that I disagreed with doesn't mean I am going to disregard the work in its entirety.

The author has the credentials to give this assessment legitimacy, and his assessment seems balanced and void of any political malice. The author has written a sincere book that should give any reader something to think about, and hopefully the next president will have something to think about as well. This is a brave work that the author must have known would bring hard criticism from certain spheres, but the author chose to write it anyway. I think the we are all better for it.

Not much to get excited about here. This is an evaluation of the last three US presidents (apparently Zbig was ok with the secret Iran-Contra wars during the Reagan administration). Brzezinski is Mr. Foreign Policy and his politics are as Machiavellian as...well...Machiavelli. Without Zbig, there would have been no Russian invasion of Afghanistan, no Mujihadeen, no OBL, and no al qaeda. So you tell me, how good a foreign policy advisor is he? This book was apparently written because Zbig is unhappy with George W. Bush. He isn't unhappy with George W. Bush because of the high crimes and misdemeanors as described under Kucinich's 35 ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT on June 9, 2008. Nope, it appears that Mr. hc. and m. George W. Bush hasn't committed enough crimes. Is this because the US hasn't YET attacked Iran, Syria, North Korea, CHINA for Christ's sake? Let's face it people. The world would be such a nice and peaceful place if Mr. Brzezinski would move back to Poland. Unfortunately, he's about to re-enter the national stage, most likely as National Security Advisor again, where all crimes are in the shadows and coverd up. Lord have mercy.

This is an excellent book and provides numerous examples about looking at the root causes of terrorism. The author uses a somewhat scientific approach to looking at the root causes of terrorism, for example, he looked at the ages of terrorists, their education and background to debunk current thinking that terrorists have been disenfrancised. Instead he looks at radical islamists/terrorist as having been influenced by radical peers, the Iraqi invasion and the internet chat rooms. There is much to be said about "leaderless jihad" because terrorists evolve not as recruits of a central body but as separate groups that take the jihad on their own.He further defines future efforts and approaches to combat this "leaderless jihad".

This seems to me an overrated, padded book, with little insight but much fodder for the author's future grant applications. There is some useful culling of statistical reports. The psychological profiles teach less than nothing about the individual jihadis. Sageman's main point, that terrorism is now decentralized and needs to be prevented by adequate psychological massaging of potential recruits, is undercut by his prefatory scene-setting admissions: the jihad has been reduced to low-level cells that lack adequate technical and planning skills precisely because the high end leadership has been run to ground and killed. Of course they could rise and reorganize (if they have not to some extent done so) if we give them territory sufficient to shelter their activities and let down our guard after reading Sageman's book.

Marc Sageman knows jihadis first-hand. He trained Taliban for the CIA, and as a forensic psychiatrists he interviewed captured jihadis.
His comparison of the threat of local moslims in the USA and Europe is very interesting. So is his analysis of the person and his context behind the jihadi.
Sageman sees jihadis as a lunatic fringe, which should be reassuring, but is not. He proposes a US pullout from Iraq, and Israeli-Palestinian peace (keep dreaming!) as a way to de-escalate the tension between the jihadis and the US.

As an officer in the Air Force and analyst for DOD, I can not say strongly enough that this book is a must read for all Americans. Sageman diligently puts together a solid argument that considers context, scientific appreciation, individual and group psychology, and Middle East conditions. This book is extremely helpful in understanding the threat of Islamic terrorism and is vital for Americans to read if we are to appreciate, as a country united, the complexities of the terrorist threat. Bottom line: the threat of terrorism is real, but the greatest threat to America is how we choose to respond to it. Although we are succeeding in killing and disrupting the bad guys, as we must, we are possibly loosing the battle in regards to Muslim perspective towards the U.S.(hearts and minds). Policy implications in the book are spot in. Great book...must read!

Marc Sageman gets it. He explains in detail how the third wave of terrorists are more apt to adopt their extremist views through social discourse and the need to fit in. Many people believe that this war is ideologically based i.e. people are driven out of religious doctrine. This may hold true for the al-Qaeda leadership, who wish to return to the 6 and 700s , but for the vast majority of new internet "terrorists", they just want to be cool; they essentially want to be fearless ninjas.
That being said, I would disagree slightly with Mr. Sageman about US policy. It is true that this war can't be continually fought with guns and tanks, but given the time-frame context of 9/11 something had to be done to wipe out training camps, safe havens, and the upper echelon leadership. Now that this has essentially (with the obvious and unfortunate exclusion of the two top tier guys) been done, it's time to engage the Middle East with evolving tactics. Opinion polls show that folks in the Muslim Ummah admired the West for its technology and freedoms, including the right to choose leaders, but they fear western domination. It is incumbent upon our leaders to show that while extremely difficult, in the end the US as a whole are friends with Iraq and Afghanistan and we are there now to help them and to rid them of terrorist strongholds for everybody's mutual benefit. Despite all the turmoil and destruction, roughly 50% of Iraqis feel that the US did the right thing. That is saying something considering the numbers are lower in the US and much lower in Europe; places where people have never had to really endure such hardship in the past 50 years, but are free nevertheless.

If you have to take this class like me, then you'll probably have to buy this book no matter what--even if it sucks, which it does'nt.

This is a standard introductory comparative politics textbook that provides a solid background on a variety of countries. It discusses historical context, economic development, political institutions, electoral issues, etc. I found the tone of the book to be clear and non-irritating. However, there is much to say about these countries and some things inevitably get ignored or treated inadequately. One example that struck me especially was the treatment of the concept of a developmental state. It gets discussed somewhat in the chapter about Brazil while the chapter on Japan - the ultimate developmental state if there ever was one - pretty much ignores the concept altogether. This leads me to think that this book, although it provides significant background and some insights, has to be supplemented with other materials.

The authors give an impressive critique of the political systems in several countries. The book has several parts. The first is the major democracies, with a chapter for each of the US, Britain, France, Germany, Japan and India. It is commendable that India is put into this group, as befits the world's largest democracy.

Another part describes the developing democracies, where the word developing is used in preference to imperfect, perhaps. But that's being too cynical. Anyhow, the countries covered are Russia, Brazil, Nigeria and Mexico.

The last part of the book is about the non-democracies. Iran is put into this category. But surely this is a misclassification. Iran has had several elections in 20 years, with competing political parties and changes of national government. The elections were with universal suffrage, with women having the vote, and a woman's vote is weighted the same as a man's. In the Middle East, this is no small thing. Certainly, the chapter on Iran describes many flaws in its government. But is it any worse than Nigeria? Others have said that in the Middle East, there are only two democracies, Israel and Iran.

The title of this book is based on a story told by Jesus according to the book of Luke. A man was attacked by robbers who stripped him, beat him up and left him half dead. Two passers-by saw the man and chose to do nothing. Then a Samaritan came upon the man and his heart was filled with pity. He cleaned and bandaged the wounds, took the man to an inn and paid the innkeeper to care for him. Jesus said, "You go, then, and do the same."

Deborah Stone's premise is that government should act like the Samaritan toward its citizens. I agree with her. This has been the Democratic Party's calling since Roosevelt's New Deal. Stone contrasts the Samaritan's actions with the Republican position of laissez faire economics. Unfortunately Stone does a poor job of explaining why it benefits everyone for government to help those in need, other than saying that it helps the needy be better citizens.

Much of the book is anecdotal evidence that helping others also benefits the helper. Stone focuses on individuals who do the right thing and feel good about themselves as a result. In one offensive section she glorifies people who committ welfare fraud as doing what is best for their families. She also makes heros of people who committ Medicare fraud as caregivers who do what is best for their patients. Stone paints these types of civil disobedience as altruistic.

Stone's cure for our currently inadequate system is government insurance for all life events that leave people unable to provide for themselves. Stone also talks about empowering citizens with programs such as affirmative action and Head Start.

I wish Stone's book had spent less time describing individual acts of altruism and more time delving into exactly how the government insurance would work. How will it be paid for? How can services be streamlined so that the use of each dollar is maximized? How can abuse of these programs be prevented? And how do we service the immense number of people who fall through the cracks of current government programs? The details on how to fix "The Samaritan's Dilemma" are too sketchy to make this book worthwhile.

Tired of trying to keep up with the pace in public policy research? Ta-da! Theories of the Policy Process offers some nice introductory essays on current public policy research, with a focus on (guess what...) theoretical developments. Each major theory is given a chapter of its own, written by distinguished scholars, often the actual parents of the theories. Among the theories covered are Institutional Rational Choice (by Ostrom), Multiple Streams and Garbage Can (by Zahariadis - not Kingdon), Advocacy Coalitions (by Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith) and Punctuated Equilibrium (by True, Baumgartner and Jones). The collection ends with a very good synthesizing chapter by Schlager, where the theories are compared and essential diffrences are higlighted.

This collection is extremely useful to get updated on the latest developments in Public Policy. Lots of good, fresh references, and very accessible and authoritative introductions to the field. Yet, since the collection does not offer anything substantially new, a fifth star is not motivated. Still a very good buy.

I would not recommend it for use in introductory public policy-courses, though. Too abstract and theoretical for that. This is for people already familiar with the field.

This edited work is now in its second edition. In that, it has updated its summary of theories to cover new approaches and deleted a couple chapters from the first edition that are no longer as useful for the analyst and student of public policy.

Interested in how an evolutionary theory of change among species, punctuated equilibrium, has any relevance for our understanding of policy? Then read the chapter by True, Baumgartner and Jones. What about the impact of chance and contingency on what issues gain access to the political agenda versus those that might not gain governmental discussion and consideration? Read the chapter on Kingdon's "multiple streams" theory, written in this volume by Zahariadis.

Ingram and Schneider (with deLeon) have added a chapter to this edition not in the prior one. Their theory of social construction and its effect on policy has become widely recognized in recent years and is included in this edition. Network organizations are increasingly viewed as critical structures in the delivery of services. The private sector, nonprofits, and the public sector collaborate within networks to achieve public goals. The chapter by Adam and Kriesi is new to this edition and a welcome addition.

And so on.

The work ends with a comparison of different theories (by Schlager) and a reflection on how to enhance development of policy theory (by the editor, Sabatier).

Any edited volume like this can be questioned for why certain items were included and others excluded. Edited volumes often end up lacking cohesion. However, this edited work does its subject justice and is a useful book for those with some background in policy.

First, I would like to point out that what you're getting in Truth and Consequences is basically the transcripts of Olbermann's Special Comments from his show, Countdown on MSNBC. The twenty-four Special Comments, from Sept. 2005 to Sept. 2007, constitute the bulk of the book. However, Olbermann opens each commentary with a brief introduction in which he provides some context and the impetus for creating the comment. For those of you who haven't had the privilege of experiencing a Keith Olbermann Special Comment, then this would be a 5 star rating. Nonetheless, as a Keith Olbermann fan, I thoroughly enjoyed this book. I thought he articulated and bolstered his case very well, interjecting history and wit all while being critical.

The book is full of expertly placed jabs, if you will, which we've grown accustom to in the traditional K.O. style:

"...depraved indifference to democracy..." (pg. 153)

In reference to the Bush Administration's total disregard of the evidence proving that there was no WMD in Irag or a al-Qaeda Iraq link, Keith channels George Orwell: "To enforce the lies of the present, it is necessary to erase the truths of the past." (pg. 39)

Referring to Bush and Cheney: "Which is the ventriloquist and which the dummy is irrelevant." (pg. 136)

Keith Olbermann truly has his fingers on the pulse of democratic America. He has provided a voice for many whose cries have either gone unheard or just blatantly ignored.

Nothing new.
Journalism with two faces.
Intelligent? Yes!
Necessary? No
Importance? So so.

Prior to purchasing this book, I had been a long time Olbermann viewer.

20 pages into this book, a light went off and I realized what a self-righteous whiny one-sided loon the guy really is. This book is as it now seems obvious it would have been - a diatribe of negativity, all about things you've heard before (probably even in language you've heard before).

It's almost like Olbermann applied for a job with the Bush administration and didn't get it - then directed his life at the slight he perceives himself to have gotten.

20 pages in one other thing is clear - Olbermann was a sports anchor. He still has the same depth of knowledge of politics and world affairs and imports his encyclopedic memory of sports information accordingly.

You can spend your money better.... by buying toilet paper and giving it to a homeless guy.

You can spend your time better.... by teaching your dog to speak Farsi.

Certainly, those persons who spend their days as apologists for the Bush Administration, with their heads firmly buried in the sand, will list out all the reasons why this book is owned by the democratic party, and they'll shriek out the usual evangelistic defenses of Dumbya. But truly, Olbermann is a thorough, well-researched and articulate journalist, and his book touches on so many of the key problems and disasters that a patently dishonest (and at times, illegal) executive branch has taken us down a horrible path, leading this country further into ruin with poor decision-making and downright deceit.

Talk about a spin zone. I mistakenly bought this book thinking it would be a revelation in facts, evidence, and a political "calling out", if you will, about the unjust administration currently in office. Well, now I'm half way through this book and I've yet to see any of that. So far, all I've gotten is a name-calling, Republican bashing, logically stinted pack of emotionally charged opinions. I like Keith Olbermann. I always have; which is why I bought this book on the blind faith that I was going to get factual, credible, READ-able material. Outside of his use of unnecessary obfuscation, it reads at about the academic level of a third grade temper tantrum. Disappointing to say the least.

I've got about another day and a half of reading this version of "Politics for the Politically Challenged or: Why Anyone Who Doesn't Agree With Me is Stupid", then I'm off to read the next book on my bookshelf, "What Happened" by Scott McClellan.

I hope that won't be nearly as disappointing as this.

The timeline at the end of the book ties up the case: for some unknown reason (perhaps just to get re-elected) the party in power deliberately takes the country to war. Every documented lie is exposed. Sometimes the anguish I felt reading this book caused me to put it aside and I felt despair about our miss-directed lives as citizens.

In this day and age of sanitized/filtered news and monopolized corporate media, it is refreshing to read a 'timeline' book that delineates all the mistakes, bad schemes, and outright lies of 'Bush 2' and company, written by an astute and honest researcher and chronicler. The book presents disturbing fact after fact that should trouble every American, and is not partisan in any way. Republicans, as well as Democrats, should be at least concerned, and at most outraged at all the inept mismanagement and lies that led to the Iraqi invasion, as well as the many other incompetencies of the Bush administration. From his ignoring the message that the second tower was attacked while reading to children to 'Yellowcake' to wrongly outing Valerie Plame to the Iraq war buildup based on lies/false information to the Iraqi war mismanagement to Bush staging 'Mission Accomplished' to Abu Ghraib to not providing proper armor/combat vehicles to our soldiers to the intransigence of Katrina to the 'swiftboating' of a war hero, John Kerry (while Bush saw no combat duty) to the fast rising oil/gas prices to the brainwashing of the largely gullible and malleable American public, etc. etc. etc. This excellent book essentially 'covers all the bases' when it comes to why George Bush will be considered one of the worst, if not THE worst Presidents we've ever had. Frankly, if 'Shrub' was a corporate CEO, his rear-end would have been fired a LONG TIME AGO! How this way below average buffoon ever made it to be POTUS in the first place is the shock of the century.

what a truth-teller!!! if you want a refreshingly honest and accurate critique of the horrors of w's presidency, be sure to have this in your library...frankie's essays are delightfully biting...

the spin, and Fox news propaganda always made up a quick response to any BUSH lies, and Incompetence. In this excellent book on CD's you can hear the actual truth, sans lying propaganda, and see how we were systematically deceived, manipulated, and just constantly lied to. As to IRAQ, and the whole run up to war, 'the whole damn thing was a LIE !'

Several years ago, I may have had some disagreements with Frank Rich's worldview and some of his columns. But I'm compelled to take a few moments to convey what an astounding accomplishment "The Greatest Story . . ." is.

Mr. Rich has strung together all the important milestones that were incomprehensible to those of us shrouded in the "fog of war" until the convergence of Cindy Sheehan, Katrina and Scooter Libby. This book is nothing short of the first draft of history that a century from now will be the pre-eminent resource of our nation's tragic misadventure in Iraq.

Mr. Rich's narrative is compulsively readable, making sense of the seemingly senseless, and demystifying the propaganda machinery perfected by the Bush administration.

"Greatest Story" is a must-read for anyone who cares to understand how a faux existential threat to America was exploited by the neocons to fashion a new world order in the Middle East with disastrous consequences, a squandering of blood and treasure and -- most importantly -- the destruction of a generation of patriots: American soldiers who will be brought home with appalling disabilities, psychological damage and torn families.

Kudos to Mr. Rich for this monumental achievement. It stands alone in the pantheon of books on the subject of making sense of the senseless.

An intense and concsie study of latin America's political, economic and caste systems defined and discusssed. A very well thought out book.

Mr. Reid, a writer for The Economist magazine, arguably the best magazine in the world, delivers us an extremely concise, well-written book on a region that America turned its back on after fostering democratic reforms in the 80's, but one which has now been cast to the forefront of world affairs due in large part to the huge commodities boom, the flood of investment into their capital markets, leading to the emergence of a new type of 'Caudillo': the Hugo Chavez-esq 21st Century descendent of Fidel Castro, bolstered by the price of oil sitting above $100 per barrel.

Mr. Reid adroitly explains to us the historical, political, cultural and ethnic differences between the countries in Latin America with just enough historical reference to make his points without getting the reader bored. Latin America, often viewed as a land who's ground is rich, but the places that have been blessed by nature have been cursed by history. But where John Perkin's conspiracy-theory-laden (but highly entertaining) "Diary of an Economic Hitman" blames the big, bad Gringo and our multi-national corporations and local (LatAm) corrupt politicians and a bureaucratic IMF and World Bank for the continent's centuries of under-achievement which the likes of Hugo Chavez have used to great success (and which have much merit), Mr. Reid takes Latin Americans to task and assigns some of the responsibility, at least, to them. This is a welcome balance to the overplayed 'dependency theory' heard so much today.

Most Americans limit their knowledge of Latins to the illegal immigrants who bravely struggle to get here, doing the jobs that Americans won't while sending much of their earnings back home. Reid reminds of staggering facts: some as simple as Brazil alone being geographically as large as the continental 48 US states, and that in 1913, the standard of living in Argentina was higher than that of France, Germany, Italy or Spain. Buenos Aires was the 2nd largest city in the Americas after New York, had more sewers than Paris and more telephone service than Japan. Also, that by 1551, universities had been founded in Peru, the Domican Republic and Mexico, almost a full century before our esteemed Harvard University.

Whether it be for a businessperson who is new to the region; or someone trying to understand the great undying dichotomy that is Latin America in almost all ways, Mr. Reid's book presents a timely but historically rich study on this diverse region, but never lets the reader's mind wander and does his work with skill and balance. Highly recommended.

Michael Reid's Forgotten Continent is a tiresome repetitive report on the Economist's already well known distrust for Chavez and the rest of the Latin American left in the new Millenium. It is not academically researched or based on interviews and therefore is mostly an account of Reid's (and the Economist's) opinions on the region's center-left trends; the basis of which is that liberal capitalist democracy is the answer to everyone's woes. This is not a useful book for anyone wanting to know more about Chavez or the center-left trend in Latin America. I would recommend Ronnie Munck's essay in Twentieth-Century Marxism: A Global Introduction (2007) if you are interested in a short synopsis of trends in ideology for the left in Latin America.

Would anyone writing for the Economist have an opinion other than demonizing Chavez' "populist challenge", condemning the "debt-ridden dictators" while defending Globalization as some kind of reform movement?
Would he explain how the ultra-corrupt, pseudo-democrat President Menem took Argentina into disaster as Washington's Golden Boy? Would he highlight how the coup against Chavez, crafted and directed by Washington, was beaten back by popular and rank-and-file soldier support which continues today after a dozen FREE elections? Would he dare to mention the rapacity of numerous corporations against workers' rights, environment, water supplies, etc in virtually all countries in the region? Would he approve perhaps of Exxon (yes, that company which still has not paid for the legal damages it was assessed for its Alaska mishap) trying to embargo the wealth of Venezuela's national oil company? The Economist is a shrill for worldwide corporate rule and writers like Reid only do their best muffling the worst sounds of their injustice. That's the reason for the two stars: he is a very good at writing fine deception.

Michael Reid's task in "Forgotten Continent" is onerous: in one book - a large one, to be sure - he wants to summarize two hundred years of a continent's history, and to argue that Latin America is now ready for a major change: the embrace of Free Market Democracy in earnest for the first time.

The thesis of the book is simple: Latin America is torn between reformers - democrats who support free markets and democracy, and populists - who support neither. Reid argues that although the populists have considerable appeal in the region, the tide has turned against them. Unlike previous eras, the current embrace of democracy and capitalism - augmented with a great deal of redistribution policies - is here to last.

Surprisingly for a journalist, Reid's history of Latin American, in three large chapters which take us from the 1820s to the 1990s, is cumbersome and hard to read. It is only when he gets to economic history that Reid, a correspondent for The Economist, hits his stride; A chapter on the development of the Washington Consensus is fascinating; I've read general economic accounts of 1997-1998 crisis (e.g. Paul Krugman's The Return of Depression Economics) and a specific study of Argentina's woes (Paul Bluestein's And the Money Kept Rolling In (and Out) Wall Street, the IMF, and the Bankrupting of Argentina), but Reid offers a continent wide survey of the economic liberalization program which started in the 1980s, and offers a balanced evaluation; Unsurprisingly, Reid, like the journal for which he writes, thinks that the reforms were largely successful and positive, and that the responsibility for economic failures in the countries of Latin America lies more in insufficient reform of their economies and institutions and hardly if at all in the malign influence of Wall Street, the US, and the International Monetary Fund.

I was pleased with Reid's decision to dedicate a chapter to Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan President. I originally bought "Forgotten Continent" to a large extent in order to learn more about the man and the phenomenon. Unfortunately Reid's account, although informative about Chavez's biography (coolest tid-bit: did you know that Chavez has his own TV show in which he dazzles Venezuelan audiences for five to seven hours every week?) but did not really enlighten me about the overall significance of "The Chavez Revolution", for Venezuela, Latin America, or the world. Overall, Reid's conclusion corresponds to the views I held before reading his book: Chavez's Venezuela is less democratic and more corrupt than the very imperfect regimes that came before it. Chavez's entire regime rests on the high price of oil; once that is gone, Chavez, and unfortunately, his country are in for a rude awakening.

Reid's focus is squarely on economics and politics. The chapter on the changing societies of Latin America is short and feels rudimentary. Reid touches briefly upon the region's press (becoming more liberal and open), religion (becoming more diverse, with a decline of traditional Catholicism and the rise of Protestantism) and race relations (becoming more complicated, as the previously hushed reality of racism is brought to the surface, unleashing various forces and counter forces), but doesn't do them justice.

The heart of the book is the description of the struggle to reform: not only the state and the economy, but the law enforcement and education systems. That improving schools is a difficult job comes as no surprise; Investing in education is relatively easy, but making sure that the investment is productive is much more difficult (see William Easterly's The Elusive Quest for Growth: Economists' Adventures and Misadventures in the Tropics and The White Man's Burden: Why the West's Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good). The difficulties of reforming the law enforcement services owe much to the so-called "War on drugs": US pressure on Latin American countries to destroy coca production causes unnecessary resentment, and is unlikely to effect the availability of crack-cocaine on US streets - the high price of cocaine isn't due to scarcity but to the risks involved in moving it within the market countries, where it is much more heavily regulated (p.256). But beyond the inherent problems in reform, the main obstacle to the spread of effective, free market democracies is the weak economic performances of Latin America. Unlike China and India, which clearly enjoy the benefits of Globalization, the economic performance of most Latin American countries have been abysmal.

Why has Latin America's economies (with few exceptions such as Chile) performed so badly? It's hard to say. The great differences in size, population, geography, system of government, availability of natural resources, etc, guarantees that challenges would always be launched against any single "one size fits all" explanation. Regardless of the cause, Reid argues that Latin America's improved economic policies in the 1990s and 2000s would lead to improved economic outcome, and thus the reformers (and not the populists) would win the "Battle for the Soul of Latin America". Let's hope he's right - a poor Latin America dominated by quasi-socialistic dictators, as in the 20th century, would be a grim reality for the 21st.

This is a great book on all the modern Presidents from FDR to George Walker Bush. It is organized by chapters on each President, and addresses subthemes such as the President's cognitive style, emotional intelligence, etc. It contains a lot of great anecdotal evidence, and offers great insight on the evolution of the Presidential Office, and how different factors (both intrinsic and extrinsic to the President) affect success and failure.

Some parts of the book felt inflated - like the author really didn't have much to say about the topic, but felt he had to write something anyway. Also, I don't agree with his assessments with some Presidents, namely JFK, but all in all I would recommend this book for its very straightforward diction, and informative content.

Greenstein's The Presidential Difference is short and sweet. It condenses the story of our Presidents from FDR to George W. Bush into an easy to read manner. Each chapter is dedicated to a President and gives six points upon which they are evaluated, which makes comparisons with other Presidents in the book easy. Even with only 223 pages nothing seems to be left out. The book is engaging from beginning to end and before you know it you have gone through twelve presidencies. To end it all Greenstein wraps 13 chapters up in a magnificent conclusion titled "Lessons from the Modern Presidency". There isn't any more one can ask for. I highly recommend this book as a good read, that is fun, short, and a great way to brush up on knowledge of our Presidents.

Greenstein does a great job in setting aside his bias and reporting on the facts from the people who knew. He reports on the "Modern Presidency" - all of the presidents who were elected from FDR to Clinton. He evaluates them based on a number of qualities including vision, cognitive ability and a few other qualities. Greenstein first gives a basic history of life before being elected president and then evaluates the qualities. At the end of the book, he sums up the qualities he has just evaluated and proceeds to explain that no president will ever be able to perfect all of these qualities because every man is flawed. Overall, this is a great read for everyone who wants to brush up on their knowledge of these presidents. It doesn't go into too much detail but what it does present is both useful and sufficient.

Fred Greenstein explores the leadership style of the presidents from FDR to Bill Clinton in his piece "The Presidential Difference." In the new edition, Greenstein includes an updated afterword on George W. Bush. The book is a great introduction to the modern day presidents and is recommended to the amateur historian to the most serious public policy students.

The organization of the book is wonderful. Greenstein spends a chapter on each president. The format is the same for each chapter. Each opens with interesting quotes from the respective president, and then goes into a brief biography. Greenstein then spends time describing the major events of the president's tenure, and closes the chapter with the significance of the president's leadership. In doing this last bit, Greenstein analyzes five areas of each chief: public communication, organizational capacity, political skill, cognitive style, and emotional intelligence.

There are other aspects of the book that are praiseworthy. Greenstein scatters wonderful pictures throughout; my favorite is of LBJ in the face of Senator Theodore Green. The appendix is also a wonderful tool, as it in effect shows the resume of each president. It outlines important life events and information, election results, the political composition of Congress, appointments, staff, and key events.

This book is recommended to all as a great introduction the the U.S. presidency.

This book by political scientist Fred Greenstein is the first I've read focusing, not on presidential achievement but on effective leadership. Using a series of criteria including vision, cognitive ability, management style and most importantly emotional intelligence, Greenstein looks briefly yet closely at each president from FDR through Clinton with a special afterword on George W. Bush. (pre 9/11) Greenstein chronicles the successes and failings of each president he profiles. Roosevelt receives the highest regards for his ability to translate his popularity into bold leadership. His secretive and manipulative management style is condemmed. Truman is praised for his management style but criticized for his inability at times to lead the nation along the lines of his vision. There is truth to this criticism but Greenstein doesn't look at external facotrs that effected Truman's ability to govern such as the Republican demagoguery of the Democrats as "soft on communism". Eisenhower is highly praised, and properly so, for his strong management style and his strong, quiet leadership. Kennedy gets deserved criticism for his early failings but not enough credit for his later growth. One thing Kennedy is properly criticized for, in my view, is his overreliance on intellectuals, something that would plague Clinton as well. After Kennedy we have a series of failed presidents, with Ford excepted. The common denominator between Johnson, Nixon and Carter are their weak emotional intelligence quotas. All are thin skinned, unable to work well with others, naturally suspicious of those outside their circle. Clinton too is regarded as weak emotionally. Greenstein's thesis is that persons of low emotional intelligence should not become president as it is a recipe for failure. Interestingly, in his brief comments on President Bush, written before Sept. 11, 2001, he predicts, based on his observations of Bush's steady emotional inner core, that he will be a strong and succesful leader. You don't have to agree with Greenstein's entire analysis to appreciate the achievement of this book. It is refreshing to read a book about the presidency that moves beyond Arthur Schlesinger's tired and outdated theory of active and passive presidents. A good read and I highly recommend it.