Politics Government Books

The Progressive Era, notes a review, was "essentially a middle-class revolution fueled by a belief in the sanctity of the home and the need for equality between the sexes. The era's vehement campaigns against drink, prostitution, and divorce and its grappling with class conflict and racism were as much about personal happiness and health as they were about social progress." Another review on this page notes the era's egalitarian expansiveness, and faults Professor McGerr for accentuating the era's middle-class matrix.

I think the middle-class contextualists are right, but they don't go far enough. Progressively fighting drink, drunks, and sex were atavistic throw-backs to 19th Century Protestant wars against degenerate urban Catholics. Old anti-saloon leagues were painted over with a veneer of progress, and were pushed forward in the 20th Century as Prohibition. Prohibition & progressiveism were really about putting hyphenated papists back in their place, and their place was with other sub-normal enemies of the people that capitalism had let off the boat. The progressive project was hygiene & purity. It was eugenics.

Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Margaret Sanger, and other progressive purists wanted a clean America. Cleansing Catholic corruption from saloons was a start, but real progress meant cleansing America ethnically: broom the cheap drinkers as well as the drink. Clean the slums. Alter and improve subhumans in their hovels so they couldn't reproduce & recapitulate their pathologies. Battle for the Lord at Armageddon with the weapons of Darwin and Galton. If McGerr discussed the Progressive Era's final solution to a tainted America, I missed it.

Here are random notes from the book, trivial pieces & parts in lieu of the story about eugenic progress that McGerr probably should have told:

By 1918, a government handbook listed almost three thousand mostly new agencies engaged in the mobilization, including the Alimentary Paste War Service Committee and the Chalks and Crayons War Servie Committee. (284)

(T)he Food Administration set priorities, promoted production, urged conservtion, and attempted to set prices. Its director, ... Hoover esposed the characteristic progressive critique of the nation's individualist heritage. "We have gone for a hundred years of unbridled private initiative in this country," he said, "and it has bred its own evils and one of these evils is the lack of responsibility in the American individual to the people as a whole...." (285)

Faced with so much popular hesitation about intervention, the Wilson administraiton had an obsessive fear of anything even approaching disloyalty -- and a blunt determination to root it out. "Woe to the man or group of men that seeks to stand in our way ...," Wilson warned in June 1917. Congress backed up the President's threat with a battery of legislation -- the Alien Act, the Alien Enemies Act, the Espionage Act, the Sedition Act, the Selective Service act, and the Trading with the Enemy Act -- that gave the federal government sweeping powers to fine and jail anyone obstructing the war effort in any way. The Sedition Act, for instance, made illegal "uttering, printing, writing, or publishing any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the United Statyes government or the military." ... (E)ffectively threatened the mailing privileges of any journal that even seemed to "impugn the motives of the government and thus encourage insubordination."

Meanwhile, the government used its new authority to go after ostensibly radical individuals and organizations. ... Another court condemned the labor leader and socialist presidential candidate Eugene V. Debs of Terre Haute, Indiana, to ten years in jail. Federal proceedings in chicago, Kansas City, and Sacramento sent nearly two hundred members of the radical labor union, the International Workers of the World, to jail.

The government's efforts in turn encouraged local officials and private citizens to join in purging disloyalty. Around the country, a quarter of a million members of the American Protective League opened mail and bugged telephones to spy on suspected traitors and reported the results to Washington. ... "In spite of excesses such as lynching," editorialized The Washington Post, "it is a healthful and wholesome awakening in the interior of the country."

As the Wilson administration made sure Americans would not be exposed to dangerous views, the government also tried to determine just what informaion and ideas the people would encounter. ... (S)aw the war as a critical opportunity to advance the progressive agenda ... (290 - 291)

Herbert Hoover's Food Adminstration similarly urged Americans to restrict their appetite for pleasure. Hoover himself passionately deplored the apparent waste and indulgence of the nation's eating habits. ...

So the Food Adminstrations Education Division exhorted the people to choose "meatless and "wheatless" days. An avalanche of advertising drove home the message "FOOD WILL WIN THE WAR - DON'T WASTE IT." Half a million volunteers went door to door asking every man, woman, and child to sign pledge cards vowing support of the Food administraiton and conservation. A special pledge card for children, "A Little American's Promise," vowed:

At table I'll not leave a scrap
Of food upon my plate.
And I'll not eat between meals but
For supper time I'll wait.
I make the promise that I'll do
My honest, earnest part
In helping my America
With all my loyal heart.

Toddlers who could not sign a pledge card had their own rewritten nursery rhymes:

Little Boy Blue, come blow your horn!
The cook's using wheat where she ought to use corn ...

Before long Hooverize became a verb meaning "to save or economize." ... In all,, the Food Administration effectively mobilized what it called the "compelling force of patriotic sentiment in the name of thrift."

For all the emphasis on voluntary conservation, the progressives were always willing to achieve their objectives at least in part through compulsion. (293 - 294)

In McGerr's view, progressivism was a broad based Victorian middle class movement dedicated to extending its way of life - sober, abstemious, moderate, associative, protective, hard-working, modern, consumerist if guiltily so - both upward to a profligate and individualist capitalist elite and downward to an unruly and dissipated working class.

Its work was only partially successful - antitrust, regulation, healthcare, communal associations - and ultimately done in by its own contradictions. Progressives, moderates by temperate and nature, could not embrace the extremism inherent in its boldest initiatives. This became apparent in the bold initiatives undertaken by the Wilson administration for World War I, greatly extending government reach in private and commercial affairs.

This is a rich and nuanced interpretation of the era. Jaklak sez check it out.

"Progressivism" is one of the vaguer words in the history of American politics, and we could always do with a new attempt to define it. And Michael McGerr's new book starts out promisingly. There is an apparently detailed description of the very rich, workers and farmers which appears to be based on the latest research. The book is supported with sixty pages of notes, though there are no archival sources, and the primary sources are mostly from the usual suspects (Wilson, Roosevelt, Jane Addams, plus a few memoirs from Hamlin Garland and Rahel Golub.) McGerr continues with a discussion of the middle class, and how concern over increasing class conflict and social instability encouraged them to support a Progressive philosophy-one that encouraged a sense of association instead of the old individualism, as well as a strong Protestant moralism that valued duty and discouraged pleasure. He then looks at how Progressives sought to change Americans, such as by encouraging school attendance, supporting prohibition, attacking divorce and improving country life. There then follow chapters on limiting class conflict, regulating big business, and imposing segregation. However, Progressivism does meet its nemesis. The rise of the automobile and modern transportation, the rise of popular amusements and jazz, and a more liberal attitude towards sexuality threatens Progressivism's stern ethic. The attempts to encourage government regulation in the First World War only undercut support for it, leading to the disastrous electoral defeat of 1920. In the end, McGerr concludes, this reinforces the "basic lesson" that "reformers should not try too much."

Unfortunately on closer examination one sees that McGerr has produced a superficial book. It's not just that looking at the endnotes one finds that most of the book could have been written a decade earlier with little loss, with some chapters printed two or three decades earlier. It's not just that the chapters on labor and business are not especially original. There are larger problems with causation and logic. One of the things researchers in the seventies and eighties noted about Progressivism was its variety. It had supporters in all regions, it appealed to workers and farmers as well as the middle class, it appealed to immigrant Catholics, Protestant moralists, and secular intellectuals. Progressives could be in both parties, and included racist imperialists and the most humane socialists. Instead of dealing with this variety, McGerr limits it to the middle class, since none of the other groups "advocated the full range of progressive positions as consistently as the middle class did." The problem is that the same middle class made up the overwhelming majority of politicians in the unProgressive Gilded Age, as well as the overwhelming majority of politicians in the age of Harding and Hoover. In the fifties Richard Hofstadter introduced the idea of "status anxiety." This idea was a flawed one, but at least it tried to explain why some of the middle class supported Progressivism and others didn't. McGerr never does so.

There are other gaps. There is no discussion of Progressivism in a comparative context, so we do not learn how successful they were in comparison with their European contexts (This is especially true of their view of the state). Much discussion of Progressivism asks about its connection with modernity. Was the Progressive endorsement of such things as prohibition and racial segregation a sign of its reactionary character? Or did such measures show how "modern" apparently reactionary people as prohibitionists and racists were? And if so, what does that say about modernity as a whole? McGerr does nothing to answer this question. There is no discussion of foreign policy before the First World War, no real discussion of why the United States entered the war, and little discussion of its postwar plans. This complicates the whole idea of a Progressive break with its predecessors and successors. There are obvious continuities with McKinley and Roosevelt, and scholars such as William A. Williams and Frank Costigliola have pointed out that the twenties was not an era of simple minded isolationism.

There are problems with McGerr's emphasis on pleasure as the solvent of Progressivism. There is an emphasis on increasing sexuality, but there are no facts about illegitimacy, pre-marital sex, prostitution or abortion. Moreover, far from dying in 1920, the twenties marked the triumph of Prohibition, and it was still an electoral winner for Herbert Hoover in 1928. Not did Protestant Hegemony go away either. At other points McGerr takes his sources' complaints at face value, whether about Progressive distaste for the vulgarly wealthy or Republican complaints about the First World War. It is not clear why regulation of the economy should be so fatal to the Democrats, when conservatives accepted a version of it in Britain and France and won the post-war elections. And to say that Progressives shouldn't have tried too hard simply reflects journalistic cant and its willingness to split the differences between the two sides, as well as its easy contempt for people with more principle. One could ask industrial workers denied a union, immigrants and African-Americans living with the GOP's enormous condescension, or Sacco and Vanzetti whether Republican domination was simply part of the natural balance of things. Ultimately this is a book that is less than it appears. In such works scholars tend to summon up amusing anecdotes as a substitute for analysis. But McGerr is no Orlando Figes or Simon Schama. The most memorable story concerns the fact that J.P. Morgan, when he didn't like the tune of the hymn being played, would ostentatiously jingle the coins in his pocket. Those crazy rich people.

McGerr's book is a valuable resource on helping to define who the progressives were and what they wanted to accomplish. The Progressives were at their peak in influence from the late 19th Century until the end of World War I, from Theodore Roosevelt's administration to Woodrow Wilson's administration. As McGerr stated, Progressives wanted to transform Americans into their own image of a middle class society, uplifting the poorest workers while chastising the wealthiest. It is this transformative vision that makes the Progressive movement stand out from most other political movements in our country's history. In addition to transforming Americans, McGerr says Progressives wanted to end class conflict, use government to control big businesses, and use segregation to help implement their objectives successfully.

McGerr is effective in adding the human dimension to his history of Progressivism. The Garlands, young Rahel Golub and her immigrant family, the Bradley-Martins and others are all used to give an image of who some of the wage laborers, upper class and progressive reformers were. The reformers include many of the standard names like Hull-House founder Jane Addams, salon smashing Carrie Nation, Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, and a host of other reformers in all different strata of society. Many organizations that formed to support the various agendas of the Progressive movement are also mentioned, including the Anti-Saloon League, the Country Life Commission, and others that represented various Progressive causes.

I felt the author was most focused on and interested in the Progressive belief in transforming other people to conform to this middle class vision of society and he handles the issue very ably. Whether it be their dislike of rugged individualism or their crusades against personal vices like divorce and alcohol or their belief in the promises of education, the Progressives truly believed people could be changed and molded into their way of thinking. While a bold and radical idea, it is also naive and arrogant. As time revealed, people grew tired and resistant to the Progressive idea of changing people's attitudes and way of living. Times had changed with technological innovations like the automobile and new recreational and leisure activities that allowed for a new sense of personal freedom. The effects of World War I and the new challenges in a post-war society also added to the decline of Progressive ideals.

Surprisingly, I didn't think the author gave a lot of attention to more of the legislative accomplishments of the Progressive Era, especially during the Wilson Administration, but overall as well. He mentioned many topics that led to enacted legislation, but generally with little detail. McGerr is quite good in showing the larger picture and how people reacted to the movement and how external factors effected its progression and or decline. The social aspects of the Progressive movement are his clear strong points. From a political standpoint I think the author was more sympathetic to the more radical reformers who wanted greater, more broad-sweeping reform. He shows the Progressives for who they were and what they hoped to achieve, with their strengths and their flaws. I think he is right in assessing the times we live in as a bit disappointing politically. But as he stated, that is one of the consequences of the Progressive Era with its high hopes and expectations, expectations that realistically could never be accomplished.

The Progressives can be credited for bringing many political, economic and social issues to the forefront of public debate as well as leaving a legacy of some very notable legislative accomplishments that endure to this day. Ultimately, they could not overcome the innate belief held by so many concerning the importance of the individual and that person's belief in being allowed to achieve whatever type of life and way of living they felt entitled to pursue without other individuals, groups or government telling them how to live. As McGerr stated in his conclusion, the Progressives overreached; they tried to accomplish too much. The backlash it produced has led other leaders as well as a large section of the population to approach any mention of reform, at least in relation to individuals, with a justifiable amount of caution.

This well-done account of the rise of the Progressive Movement is as good on the history of the period, and is studded with many interesting details about the Victorian period in the gestation of the great challenge to the world of big business. Notable, and what makes the book out of the ordinary, is depiction of the limits of the movement seen in the account of the movement's attitudes toward segregation. This was also the era of consolidated Jim Crow, where were the Reformer? The book is food for thought indeed given the strange similarity to our own era of politics, or lack of it.

Bill Gienapp was a brilliant historian, and his work "The Origins of the Republican Party, 1852-1856" is a pillar of American political history. Unfortunately, his final work, "Abraham Lincoln and Civil War America," is a tremendous let-down. It is perhaps one of the worst examinations of Lincoln's life, and has almost nothing to do with "Civil War America." Essentially, it is an unqualified love poem to Lincoln, and strives only to prove his greatness -- there is no critical analysis at all. Lincoln is given credit for every political and military success 1861-1865 and is absolved from blame for all his mistakes. In reality, Lincoln was a complex personality and his public career was much more tumultuous than Gienapp proposes. It is disappointing that Gienapp, a man who dedicated his life to exhaustive, nearly flawless historical research would resort to such frivolous, uncritical "pop history" at the end of his tragically short life. Skip Gienapp's Lincoln and, instead, read Stephen Oates's "With Malice Toward None" or Don Fehrenbacher's "Prelude to Greatness: Lincoln in the 1850s."

A short, but very well biography of Lincoln. It counts only 250 pages, but it gives an excellent overwiew and superb analyse of the life of AL. The bibliography is also very interesting. One of the best books about the 16th president. A must for a Lincolnhistorian.

This book is a welcome addition ot the already crowded Lincolnia bookself. The author is the presumed successor to the retired David Herbert Donald at Harvard University. Gienapp has produced a highly readable and concise version of a Lincoln biography that can be completed on a moderately long airplane trip(and it's quite portable unlike most hardcover books). While relatively short,this book is a sufficiently thorough treatment of the Civil War Lincoln. I especially enjoyed the author's analysis of the politician Lincoln who mastered his rivals, both Republican and Democrat. This a good book for either a new Lincoln /Civil War "buff" or a good refresher for a scholar of the times.

A good short, solid political biography. While Lincoln and the Civil War is its focus, by no means is this a battle history: Gettysburg is described in one paragraph.

Professor Gienapp has written a book that will introduce one to, or remind one of, the long and trying path traveled by Abraham Lincoln toward ultimate greatness.

William Gienapp's Abraham Lincoln and Civil War America answers a longstanding need for a biography of Lincoln manageable in size, accessible in style, and wise and balanced in content. Lincoln appers on every page of the book and is never lost sight of in the welter of events. He emerges from the text a real believable person, an individual and persuasive assessment of Lincoln's leadership abilities, the finest such appraisal avilable anywhere.

J.L's theories of government and rights gave inspiration to the notion that people are "equal" which is a meaningless concept, but inspires in the same way that a flag may inspire. If the notion is taken too far, it becomes dagerous. Spinoza's concept of rights in his brief work on politics and theology is much more valid logically, though not inspiring in the same way.

The Illusion of Supreme Legislative Power
Classical Political Thoughts

The legislative power in a society that allows for money can not be reconciled with individual natural rights because the legislature is bound to compromise the property of minority for the interest of the majority. Thus, despite Locke's assertion that his legislature is supreme, it can not be, since according to Locke's own definition, the foundation of the legislature's supreme power only lies in the complete protection of the people's property by the legislature.

Locke asserts that the Legislative power is supreme in the commonwealth (Chapter 18). This legislative power, however, is only supreme because it protects the life and property of the people. He says,

"And thus the Community perpetually retains a Supream Power of saving themselves from the attempts and designs of any Body, even of their Legislators, whenever they shall be so foolish, or so wicked, as to lay and carry on designs against the Liberties and Properties of the Subject. For no Man, or Society of Men, having a power to deliver up their Preservation, or Society of Men, having a Power to deliver up their Preservation, or consequently the means of it, to the Absolute Will and arbitrary Dominion of another." (p367)

The key here is that "no Man" can give up the right to protect his property and liberty; this means the legislative power does not gain its supreme power by protecting some people's person and property, but everyone's person and property. Sadly, despite Locke's genuine efforts to establish a government that was not "so foolish, or so wicked", his supreme legislature will not protect everyone's person and property. This is not caused by the corruption of the members of the legislature or their promotion of secret laws; instead, Locke's system is intrinsically flawed because the legislature acts according to majority vote.

Locke believes that the interest of the majority vote is the interest of the whole, and the majority vote in a commonwealth must decide the actions of the commonwealth. Locke writes of the necessity for majority rule as follows,
"It is necessary the Body should move that way whither the greater force carries it, which is the consent of the majority: or else it is impossible it should act or continue one Body, one Community, which the consent of every individual that united into it, agreed that it should." (p332)

Locke makes no mistakes here-a government will never be able to function if every action it takes must obtain the consent of every citizen. Nevertheless, although for most of the time, the differences between majority vote and minority vote merely show differences in opinions about how best to achieve a common goal, it is unavoidable that sometimes the differences of opinion will represent fundamental split of interest. With this unavoidable fissure, the laws selected by the majority vote are bound to hurt the person and property of the minority.

America before the American Civil War is an example where a fundamental fissure in society appeared. In the United States of the late 19th century, there was a clear difference of interest between the slave owning plantation economy of the south and the free labor industrial economy of the north. The Yankees, through the legislature, was enforcing economic laws such as high tariff and low silver excavation that protected northern manufacturing industries but hurt the production and exports of southern farming produces. Since the legislature of the United States was controlled by the more populous northern states, the south felt that its interest was always trumped by the majority. This fissure made the legislature no longer a source of supreme power in the eyes of southerners, and it was the cause of the Civil War.

The American civil war is an extreme example, but lesser examples of differences in interest abound. In one case of the 1980s, the conservative British PM Margaret Thatcher recognized that it was not in the interest of the majority of the British people to keep on subsidizing coal workers with billions of tax money, and decided to let the market determine how the coalmines should be ran. Margaret Thatcher was justly representing the interest of the people who gave her and her party power to sit in the House of Commons. The coalminers, a minority interest group, however, were extremely upset because they would lose jobs if Thatcher succeeded since their high-cost mines could not compete in a market economy. The government and the mineworkers battled on the streets for a year before the issue was resolve.

Whether the PM or the mineworkers had more justice on their side is topic for another essay, but it is clear that fundamental differences of interests between different interest groups exist.

Reading Locke, nevertheless, one might come to the conclusion that the above kinds of conflicts of economic interest only arise from people's greed for obtaining what they do not need-the northern capitalists and the southern plantation owners were only fighting for ever more slaves and mills, and perhaps there should have never been any coalmines if only there was not so much economic development which only produce excess and corruption. One might say that in a true Lockeian society, there will never be such battles for money, and as evidence, one find Locke saying,

"God has given us all things richly, I Tim. Vi. 17. is the Voice of Reason confirmed by Inspiration. But how far has he given it us? To enjoy. As much as any one can make use of to any advantage of life before it spoils; so much he may be his labour fix a Property in." (p290)

The above idea on the outset seems to put a tremendous limit on the property one can obtain, and this limit promotes a form of simple agricultural society where everyone has moderate property and happiness.

If Locke really does believe that all industrial and expansionary economics are bad and does limit his Commonwealth to the moderate agricultural form, then the legislature could be supreme because when everyone has similar land and make similar produces, there can not be fundamental differences in interest. Nevertheless, Locke is not against industrial and economic expansions since he is not against money, which is the bloodline of economic developments.

Despite the gross inequality that comes with money, Money is acceptable to Locke because it accumulates imperishable goods. Locke believes that although a person should not try to hoard a hundred bananas a day for his own consumption, he should be able to obtain and keep what will be of lasting preservative value. In fact, he sets no limits on such imperishable goods; and the accumulation of imperishable goods is exactly what money accomplishes. Locke writes,

"They having by a tacit and voluntary consent found out a way, how a man may fairly possess more land than he himself can use the product of, by receiving in exchange for overplus, Gold and Silver, which may be hoarded up without injury to any one, these metals not spoileing or decaying in the hands of the possessor." (p302)

As this passage shows, Gold and Silver do not perish, and therefore, they do not represent wastes. Although they cause inequality, they are "fair" in that they are the "overplus" of
one's labour that do not take away the interest of others.

One with Gold and Silver might purchase a nice English country estate, some nice carriages, or even a Cotton machine. Locke, by accepting these imperishable goods procured with money strips away the supreme power that the legislature could have had in an equal agricultural state. This accumulation of imperishable goods is bound to create differing classes in societies with the capitalists having one interest in the law and the poor having another and also create further interest sub-groups. Since the legislature is bound to pass laws that have majority vote (even when the group represents the minority population), the property and liberty of the minority group will always be compromised.

One might argue at this point that although it is clear that the interest of the minority might be deprived, but when people united together to form civil society, they made the contract with each other that each will be governed by the choice of the majority (P331). They are right, however, this contract is conditional. To understand the conditionality, the rationality for coming into civil society must be clear. Locke writes,

"To avoid this State of War (wherein there is no appeal but to Heaven, and wherein every the least difference is apt to end, where there is no Authority to decide between the Contenders) is one great reason of Mens putting themselves into Society, and quitting the State of nature." (p282)

The above quote and Locke's ideas about majority rule together show that Locke is offering two choices for living: either one joins the society or he stays in the "State of War". If he chooses the latter, he keeps intact the whole of his property and rights, but must embrace the danger that there can be no "Authority" to protect his property and rights. If he joins the commonwealth, he will have to pay a "fee", which is the cost of the damage to his property majority action might do, however, this loss will be recuperated overtime from the long term security offered by the Commonwealth. Citizens, therefore, only gave up their irrevocable right to property in order to keep their property.

The balance of benefits changes, however, when one is only getting properties taken away by the society, but receives nothing in return. As the groups support different laws in the legislature through their representatives, the minority will not be paying a "fee" for long term security but will be simply be constantly suppressed by the majority. This dictatorship of the majority is no better for the minority than the state of nature when they still kept the right to punish others in their hands.

In any Commonwealth that uses money as the medium of exchange, there must arise differences of interests that make the legislature a place where majority interest will trump minority interest. Thus, individual liberty for some will be preserved, but for others, it will not be. The legislature will never be able to protect the interest of everyone, and therefore can not have supreme power if the source of the supreme power is truly, as Locke claims, the people.

John Locke (1632-1704) wrote "Second Treatise of Government" in 1690, it was the main political philosophical source that our "Founding Fathers" went to in writing the "Declaration of Independence" and in forming our government. I think you should know something of Locke to understand what influenced his thinking. His father was a small landowner, attorney, Puritan and his political sympathies were with the Cromwell Parliament. Like Hobbes, Locke attended Oxford Univ. and did not think much about the curriculum or his professors. Most of his education came from reading books in the Univ. library. Renee Descartes and Sir Isaac Newton's writings greatly influenced Locke. Like Hobbes, he took a tutoring job teaching the son of the 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, and traveled Europe. His friendship with the Earl was beneficial in obtaining government appointments. During the political unrest in England, (1679-83) he fled to Holland because his liberal notions put him at odds with the government.

Locke writes the "Second Treatise of Government" to justify the Revolt of 1688 and the ascension of William of Orange to the English throne. The book argues against two lines of absolutist ideas. The first is Sir Robert Filmer's "patriarchal theory of divine right of kings; secondly, Hobbes argument for the sovereign's absolute power in his book "Leviathan." Locke argues that government emanates from the people. Locke's treatise rests like other political writings on its interpretation of human nature. He sees our nature opposite the way Hobbes did, decent and not as selfish or competitive. Man is more inclined to join society through reason and not fear. Man prefers stability to change.

His very important contribution to "law of nature" theory was his bias toward individualism. In state of nature, before government, men were free independent, equal enjoying inalienable rights "chief among them being life, liberty, and property." Where have you read that before? Property rights receive much attention in this treatise. Locke argues that government based on consent of man can still preserve freedom independence and equality.

His political writing had immediate influence in the world and influenced our founding fathers in their struggle against tyranny. He is an excellent writer and his theories are easy to understand by the laymen. As a graduate student of political philosophy, I recommend if you have an interest in politics, philosophy, or government then you must read Locke's "Second Treatise of Government"

This guy is a hallucinator. He's had bouts of rage and depression. He head butts people. He thinks the island talks to him. He blows up submarines. Beware of this guy and his crazy woo woo beliefs!

John Locke's major work of political philosophy is often referred to as a major source for the Declaration of Independence, The Second Treatise of Civil Government. This work, authored in 1690, is a major statement of liberalism. Like Thomas Hobbes, Locke begins with humans living in a state of nature, a situation before the development of the state and government. The Lockeian state of nature was not an unpleasant place. Human reason led people to tend to leave one another alone in their respective pursuits.

Natural law guides people's actions in the state of nature and their reason allows them to apprehend the essence of these laws. Thus, Locke expressed great confidence in human reason. However, inconveniences did result in the state of nature. If disagreements rose between people, it was not always easy to resolve these. If one person stole something from another, it was up to the victim to redress the injustice. And these shortcomings in the state of nature made individuals ultimately, rationally, decide that they should give up some of their freedom in order to secure order and protection of the fruits of their labor. Locke said: "[T]he enjoyment of the property he has in his state is very unsafe, very unsecure. . . . The great and chief end, therefore, of man's uniting into commonwealths and putting themselves under government is the preservation of their property."

As a result, people contract with one another to form civil society and government in order to preserve their rights under natural law, with the dominant right being termed property. And what happens if government does not protect rights under natural law? Revolution is thereby allowable. For instance, Locke notes one justification for suspending an existing government: "Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence. . . .[I]t devolves to the people to have a right to resume their original liberty, and by the establishment of a new legislative, such as they shall think fit, provide for their own safety and security, which is the end for which they are in society."

Locke's work well illustrates basic tenets of liberalism, among which are:

1. Individualism (and its concomitants of limited government and certain rights, such as the right to property and to certain freedoms, and equality);
2. Materialism (material incentives are important; acquisition and enjoyment of material goods is altogether proper);
3. Faith in human reason;
4. Faith in the market as a way of distributing wealth and goods.

Is Locke the philosopher of the American Revolution? Probably not. But he well articulated many of the major themes accepted by the Founders of the revolutionary movement in the 1770s.

An outstanding piece of scholarship; one of the most extensively researched, documented and balanced inquiry into the attacks of September 11, 2001 so far. The bipartisan panel created to answer the questions of what happened, how it could have and why, go to great lengths to assess the failures of the various agencies in the lead up to the attacks yet they fail to land a knockout blow with any of their conclusions. The Commission's insistence that their mandate should not call for them to apportion blame for the attacks belies belief considering the magnitude of the failure of each and every aspect of America's homeland security prior to the attacks.

The conlusions and recommendations at the book's end detracted from my appreciation for the book as a whole. Vague and ambitious recommendations were put forth, and so often they were jumbled with terrible sporting metaphors that seemed to trivialise the very serious nature of the failure of the US government to protect their own citizens. Moreover, despite the fact that this was a Commission charged with investigating the attacks on American soil on September 11, too often the concluding chapters confused the global "war on terror" from America's quest to protect its own security, or perhaps; hegemony. Reading the book as a non-American could be a frustrating experience given these shortcomings.

There are some books you just need to have on hand for when somebody screaming on a blog starts misquoting said books. I didn't buy this book to read it cover to cover, but I'm glad I've got it to refer to when needed. This report certainly does not answer all the questions I have about why 9/11 was allowed to happen, but it's better than nothing. I just wish the Bush/Cheney administration would be held accountable for their atrocious lies and failures.

As a report of a difficult period of time in the United States it gives a fair accounting of the facts. With some distortions of accuracy and now with the benefit of hind-site some omissions a true accounting may never been told. What is told is of a country so incapable of making a quick decision and painfully slow to put the pieces of the puzzle together in time to prevent further destruction. While there are still questions as to if flight 93 was shot down not, don't look here for an answer. Clearly there were people in control in our government that should not have been there. This report was more forgiving of them then I wound have been. Two many mistakes were made, In the air, on the ground, fighters lost over the water. Besides the heroic efforts at the towers and the Pentagon, grounding all flights over the U.S., however late, and keeping the President airborne in Air Force One, would prove to be the correct choices.

Spaces are missing between sentances, sometimes appearing in the middle of words. Footnotes appear in the middle of sentances, and titles or chapter heading are placed ramdomly throughout the text. The formatting problems are indicative that quality is not an issue for this publisher (MobileReference.)

Being new to the whole "Conspiracy theory" possibility regarding 9/11, I thought I would disspell some of the myths regarding 9/11 by reading this book. I guess I was wrong for attempting to do so. First, and probably most blatant is that WTC7 isn't even mentioned in the book. Yeah, you heard right, the only steel framed structure in the history of the world to come down exclusively by "fire and debris falling from WTC1" wasn't even mentioned, which makes you think...why? Secondly, the hi-jackers of the flights are named with full knowledge that BBC and ABC both had articles on their websites showing 6 out of these 19 men alive. Thirdly and finally, it is assumed that a plane hit the Pentagon, however there is no video or other positive identification images available to the public to confirm such an act took place as described. 5 frames were released from a security cam in 2006. All I have to say is that if that is conclusive that a plane hit the Pentagon, then Americans are as dumb as everyone else says we are. I could go on and on with other examples, but I thought I would keep it brief.

I am not an American Government person, but there is a lot of very useful information in this particular book.

John Lewis Gaddis is probably the foremost historian of the Cold War.

Strategies of Containment provides a complete basic overview of the subject of U.S. foreign policy during the Cold War. It is specifically a history of the U.S.'s containment policy toward the Soviet Union and the Communist-bloc and its evolution over time.

It begins with U.S. diplomat George Kennan's famous memomorandum or "long telegram" from the Soviet Union which provided the guide for interpreting the intentions of the Soviet that was used by the State Department and the Executive Branch in formulating U.S. foreign policy towards the Soviet Union and the Communist-bloc nations - especially during the early stages of the Cold War. If a U.S. foreign service officer or other U.S. official wanted to understand the Soviet Union's foreign policy or history and the considerations which would impact the Soviet leadership's behavior - he or she was directed to read it.

The initial assessment by Kennan and his subsequent use of the term "containment" in a Foreign Affairs magazine for the first time, was controversial and volumes have been written on what he meant.

His approach basically was to advise against a wholesale reordering of the world order based on U.S. values which would cause consternation in the Soviet leadership and trigger Soviet defensive diplomatic (and potentially more drastic measures) in opposing the new international framework.

Kennan wanted diversity in the international system, to allow the Soviet Union to participate within it, and not undermine or be alienated from it, and thus transformed by it over time. The history of the Soviet Union's participation in the UN and its institutions confirms his analysis.

Kennan initially argued for a particularist approach as opposed to a universalist approach. He also argued for strong point as opposed to wide-scale perimeter opposition to expanding Soviet spheres of influence.

Kennan's writings set the stage for an interpretation of Soviet behavior and intentions. He studied Soviet and Russian history and knew that the Soviet Union would seek to build buffer zones between it and any potential adversary. The Napolean invasion, Germany's invasion, etc. as well as the Crimean War, and the Russo-Japanes War of 1905, and the U.S. and European intervention in the Russian civil war, all shaped the Soviet leadership's thinking.

Kennan wanted to restore a balance of power at the interface between the East and West in the European theater as well as in Asia, but without contesting every Soviet move for influence along its borders and without alienating the Soviet Union from the new international order.

Truman subsequently instituted a policy review process that led to NSC-68 which expressly stated that the U.S. policy was to promote U.S. values of freedom and human dignity. Containment then moved into the shape of a perimeter-type defensive strategy in which Soviet moves on its periphery for political and military influence was to be contested.

The book then describes U.S. national security policy and how U.S. containment evolved over time into Eisenhower's "New Look" policy in which no further Soviet expansion of its power into other nations was to be uncontested and then later into "flexible response" under Kennedy and Johnson and then detente under Kissinger.

The book is an excellent introduction to the Cold War, the U.S. policy of containment and its evolution.

This book show us the strategies of Containment in the Cold War Era; an important beginning had been made with the Truman Doctrine and the Containment thesis, which established a defensive position holding back Soviet expansionism.
In 1947 the US had an exclusive monopoly on the ultimate weapon, the atomic weapon, and this monopoly should be used -the bomb "makes politically possible....the domination of the world by a single sufficiently large state". The architect of containment was George Frost Kennan, best known as "the father of containment" and as a key figure in the emergence of the Cold War.
He later wrote standard histories of the relations between Russia and the Western powers. The NSC-68, the most important of all Cold War documents, was "a plan of military rearment and development is at present going forward". It's the central document of the Cold War that transformed containment into a global crusade. Approved by Harry Truman in April 1950, it still lacked Congressional funding and support, and Truman was too weak a president to push it throught in the absence of a major crisis.
It would have been interesting if the author of the book had also used an approach from the Soviet point of view, as well as one in the West and the United States. In addition, Henry Kissinger has been widely studied and detailed, but it seems that is not mentioned in the book the figure of the first Secretary of State of the Nixon presidency, William Rodgers.

Strategies of Containment, by John Lewis Gaddis, is a description of the evolving strategy of containment that was the basis of US policy toward the Soviet Union from 1946 through 1989. Gaddis traces the concept of containment from its inception by George F. Kennan through the modifications applied by five administrations and assesses the strengths, weaknesses, and effectiveness of each version. This book is more than another chronology of the cold war; it provides deep insights into strategic thinking and is essential reading for any serious student of the cold war. Here's a brief summary:

Kennan's Original Doctrine of Containment

* Identify and defend vital interests based on the centers of industrial strength - Britain, Western Europe, Japan -don't try to defend the entire world.
* Use all instruments of power: economic, diplomatic, political, and cultural power as well as military power. Rebuilding the economic vitality of the above areas is a high priority.
* Seek to divide the communist world. Our primary adversary is the Soviet Union. Other communist countries, if not actively supporting Soviet policy, may be led to serve as quasi-allies by depriving the Soviets of their support.
* General war with the Soviets is unlikely, so we can afford to take risks. We can limit our defense spending and not try to defend the world. A point defense of our vital interests is probably adequate.
* Define threats in light of US vital interests, not in terms of Soviet capabilities

Truman and NSC-68

* The policies articulated in NSC-68 moved toward a perimeter defense covering the entire world rather than a point defense of vital interests.
* Primary emphasis was switched to military power and to the entire spectrum of war
* US interests were redefined in response to perceived threats (anything that is threatened must be an interest).
* US strategy became based on a symmetric response to threats - responding in the same time, place, and with the same means as the adversary (e.g., the Korean War).

Eisenhower, Dulles, and the New Look

* Eisenhower's guiding philosophy was that defense is not just defeating the enemy - it is the preservation of our economic and political systems.
* Spending too much on defense could destroy these systems by leading to either inflation or the imposition of autocratic controls. He reduced the defense budget by 33% from Truman's last year and held it at about that level for eight years.
* Alliances relied on allies for ground forces with the US providing Air and Naval support.
* The nuclear threat became the cornerstone of deterrence across the spectrum of conflict - with goal of avoiding war - in belief that any war was all too likely to escalate to nuclear.
* Asymmetric response to threats - response need not be in same place or using same methods as Soviet threat
* Anti-colonial Conundrum: The communists are fomenting wars of national liberation while the US is trying to rebuild Europe (the colonial powers). If the US backs decolonization, it undermines the European allies it is trying to rebuild. If the US backs the colonial powers, it loses any chance of support from the colonies. The Soviets really put us in a no-win position on this issue.

Kennedy, Johnson, and Flexible Response

* Kennedy and Johnson return to NSC-68 reasoning by lowering threat of nuclear response and replaced it with flexible response, requiring a direct, symmetric response to threats - a respond in same time and place using the same means.
* These administrations applied a circular logic: Threats create interests which demand responses which require capabilities even where no interest previously had been identified. This was articulated in the "bear any burden, pay any price" rhetoric.
* This strategy necessitated greater reliance on military response versus economic, political, etc which increased demands on the defense budget.
* Kennedy abandoned Eisenhower's commitment to a balanced budget and relied on Keynesian fiscal policy to stimulate the economy. Spending was predicated on the potential of the economy rather than its actual performance. Lack of budgetary constraints led to inability to prioritize, to distinguish the essential from the peripheral, the feasible from the infeasible which encouraged more "bear any burden, pay and price' reasoning because it wasn't real money.
* Flexible response led to graduated escalation in Viet Nam which became "never enough to defeat the enemy, just enough to prolong the war". Stakes were repeatedly raised to prevent the humiliation of a defeat but this only made the eventual defeat more humiliating.
* Calibrated escalation yielded the initiative to the enemy - allowed him to define the terms of conflict. Deterrence can be made effective only if the adversary can be made to doubt that he can retain control of the situation. Taking the nuclear option away encouraged adversaries to call our bluff.

Nixon, Kissinger and Détente

* Nixon and Kissinger moved the US government from a bi-polar to a multi-polar world view by positing the existence of five significant power centers: US, USSR, Western Europe, China, and Japan. They recognized that these five power centers were far from equal. Only the US and USSR were superpowers able to exert substantial influence via military, economic, political, or diplomatic means. This strategy was a return to the balance of power envisioned by Kennan.
* In the military arena, they focused on sufficiency rather than superiority over the Soviet Union and sought to persuade Brezhnev that a similar policy would be in his country's best interest as well. Sufficiency won the logical argument over superiority because the latter invariably provoked the other side into matching every military advance, producing and endless and unwinnable arms race.
* Conceptually, Kissinger and Nixon changed the country's strategic definition of US interests and threats to those interests. For most of the interval between Kennan and Nixon-Kissinger, the US strategic view had started with the USSR, its capabilities and intentions, then identified the impact these capabilities could have. These impacts became viewed as threats and US interests were defined as anything thus threatened. Nixon and Kissinger reversed the logical flow, much as Kennan did, starting with the identification of US interests, independent of any adversary. They then identified as an adversary an entity with capability and intent to harm these interests.
* Again returning to Kennan's approach, Nixon-Kissinger sought to use negotiations to influence Soviet behavior. They took a long-term approach to negotiations, discarding the tendency of previous administrations from Roosevelt on to use negotiations and agreements with the Soviets for domestic political purposes. They discarded the approach of seeking agreements on specific areas where they could be reached and adopted a strategy of linkage - maintaining that Soviet unwillingness to negotiate in good faith on military and strategic issues of importance to the US would result in US refusal to accommodate Soviet desires for economic and trade relations and recognition of the post war division of Europe.
* The next step in the Nixon-Kissinger strategy was to seek an accommodation with China to reduce US-Chinese tensions and, thereby, free China to take a more assertive stance in its own dealings with the USSR. This was a return to Kennan's goal of dividing communism and redefined our prime enemy as the Soviet Union

Reagan

Reagan continued the return to Kennan's original concept of containment:
* Adopt an asymmetric strategy - don't let the enemy determine the time, place, and terms of conflict
* Apply economic, political, diplomatic, and moral power more than military power. A prime example was his Berlin speech: "Mr. Gorbachev! Tear down this wall!" He put the Soviets in the same kind of no-win position that they had inflicted on Eisenhower over colonialism in the 1950s by setting the Eastern Europeans at odds with the Kremlin.
* He recognized that Soviet system was bankrupt financially, intellectually, morally and turned up the pressure until it collapsed.
* Reagan was also lucky. Kennan had hoped to transform the Soviet Union with the help of a new generation of Russian leaders. Gorbachev turned out to be the leader Kennan had hoped for. He and Reagan together ended the cold war and transformed the Soviet Union from a totalitarian system to one that might have evolved into a more liberal one had the 1991 coup d'état not destroyed it first.

Now in a revised edition, Strategies Of Containment: A Critical Appraisal Of American National Security Policy During The Cold War is a revised and expanded edition of Bancroft Prize winner and Cold War expert John Lewis Gaddis' classic on understanding the history of containment as a policy, its role in bringing the Cold War to an end, and its possible value or pitfalls in the future. Originally published during the Regan presidency when the Soviet Union was still a superpower, Strategies Of Containment includes a greatly expanded chapter on Reagan, Gorbachev, and the completion of containment, as well as a new epilogue. A welcome scrutiny of history with the advantage of post-Cold War hindsight.

This book is still useful even 20 years after publication. Gaddis view US policy toward the USSR as a pendulum that swings between"symmetrical" and "asymmetrical" approaches. The periods are split into: Kennan's original containment, NSC-68, Eisenhower's "New Look", JFK and Nixon's détente. There is a coda covering Carter, but it is less helpful.

The symmetrical approach confronts the USSR wherever the USSR chooses to probe. In this approach, wherever the Soviets seek to advance is, by their very actions, a US interest. In contrast, the asymmetrical view seeks to identify those areas that are inherently vital US interests and protect those.

The first seeks to build a fence (containment) around the Soviets. The second approach builds its fences around US interests and lets the USSR do what it wants - within reason - elsewhere. Heck, why let them do that? The answer is "means." Gaddis stresses the point that US means are not unlimited. The US must balance means and ends and this leads to the pendulum swings.

The reasons I do not give the book the last star are: It does not cover the Carter-Reagan-Bush era and Smith over draws the magnitude of the swings. The book makes it sound like there were tremendous differences between the various administrations and does not pay enough attention to the essential consistency of US Cold War strategy. Smith acknowledges this in a retrospective on his own book available at the Hoover Institute web site.

A compelling memoir from a girl growing up during the Chinese cultural revolution. Filled with patriotic fervor for the Chinese communist government, Ji-li is at first ashamed to be part of her family, which is persecuted because of her grandfather's political beliefs. But as she sees injustices heaped onto the heads of many people around her, she gradually becomes disillusioned and no longer believes government propaganda. Ji-li's authentic voice inspires discussion about family loyalties, government betrayals, and China's history.

This is a great book to read with children. I read it aloud to my daughter, who could not believe that this life happened to this girl and so many like her in China. It prompted lots of discussion about families and government. Even kids as young as 10 or 11 should be able to appreciate the story, and it's fascinating for adults too.

I read this book quite a few books ago. What I remember was that it was very compelling. The author is forced to serve the "People" and endures many hardships while working in an Army production camp. Her description reminds one of Siberian memoirs on not such a grand scale, rather a Chinese adaptation.
The author begins by demonstrating her arrogance through stories of her childhood prior to service in the camp, she was selfish and cruel.
She excels as a patriot, and is promoted as a leader within her work group, she doesn't prove to have much compassion for others. Her colors most vividly show in one particular scene; when two people are discovered as lovers meeting in secret (male/female relationships are forbidden), with horrible consequences a result. The author eagerly participated in their punishment, only to suffer deep regret later. However, this experience, the enduring exhaustion of the camp, and lack of personal freedoms brings about a metamorphosis.
She realizes that there is no humanity in Communism, no true accomplishment in which one can truly take pride; her disillusionment brings about her own self-discoveries in the end making her a better person.
I found the narrative honest, in no sense was did it come across as embroidered to make it more compelling.

This book is about the cultural revolution. Through her own difficult hard times, the author tells the story of her and her family from the age of 12-14. This book is great for children and adults. It really tells what happened to family's during the cultural revolution

This is a great book. It arrived in a timely manner and my daughter and I have enjoyed it very much.

This book was the worst book I've ever read. It was scary, confusing and just plain beadly written. Some of my friends loved this book, some of them thought it was a peice of trash. I'm with the people that say it's a peice of trash. I felt like I was forced to read this book. I wanted to trough it away forever. The book was badly written because she decided to jump through different time periods and the story just didnt fit together. I would recomend to NOT read this book. if i would have to rate this book with 10 being the best and 1 being the worst, I would rate this a 1 and a half. I tell you, don't pick this book up!

Politkovskaya's book is important in the sense as it gives a voice to people that is not heard in other books about contemporary Russia. Especially the chapter "Tanya, Misha, Lena and Rinat - Where are they now?" where she looks up people that she used to know in the 70s, gives a remarkable description of personalities that anyone that gets to know Russian's personally will be able to recognize.

A weekness of this approach is that it is difficult to recognize and appreciate theese personality-types without personally knowing ehough Russians to see what she is talking about. Unless you know Russians personaly it will also be difficult to experience and take in, how many simply will refuse to read, know and take in her story either becuase it is something they have decided to act as if theese things never happened - focusing on this is negative, or simply because they are very emotionally difficult to discuss. This attitude and feelings among ordinary Russians is in my view farmore important than the authorities attitudes towards her writing.

I agree with the other reviews that claim her writing is very emotional. This is a problem because it makes me suspicious of her writing, even when what she tells is probably compleately true. By being less emtional she would undoubtful come through as more trustworthy, that is especially important because we to a large degree only have her side of the stroy to hold on to. Though considerably more moderate than Litvinenko and Felshtinsky's "Blowing up Russia", I find myself having some of the same mixed emotions about some of the consparicy-like claims that come up in the book, where we only have whether we belive the author or not to hold on to. Though experience have learned me that few seemingly over-the-top fantastic rumours can be ruled out when it comes to Russian politics, I am still laved with mixed emotions.

Her personal aproach also leave the basic, structural facts that is important to understand contemporary Russia in the background. Gaidar has used the relevant comparison of Russia in the 90s with the last similary desperate economic situation in Germany in the 30s. About 15 years after the democrasy was established in Germany, Hitler came to power under similar economic conditions. Who ever Putin is, he is like a boy-scout in that perspective. Politkovaskaya fails to give the political and economical understanding to put things into perspective. As another review states, you will not find what progresses Russia has made under Putin in this book. It is not that critical though, as long one can get that perspective from other books. Polikovskaya gives an understanding of the people acting under this cicumstantions that I have seen no other books on contemporary Russia.

Especially Politkovskaya have written other books and articles on Chechnya, I think Chechnya has got too much coverage in the book, compared to other topics. It might be that she should have chosen a different title, instead of writing relatively less about Chechnya though. It is nothing wrong woth writing many books about Chechnya, it is just that the topic "Putin's Russia" is considerably broader than that.

Another review claims you can not find Politkovskayas books in Russia. I can confirm that I have found them in English in ordinary book-stores and Russian friends confirms they have fond them too.

Do read this book. Make sure you fill out the picture with other books on the Putin era and the political and economical development in Post-USSR Russia though.

Having read only a portion of the book i can only express mild shock due to the fact that power corrupts and absolute power absolutly corrupts.Mr Putin has much to ansewr for,whether he does will remain to be seen.
Anna Politcovskaya has to be admired for her courage,in the face of intimidation and death threats. To fearlessly pursue the truth and seek to expose a corrupt regime,provides us in the west with a most worthy example as long as we dont hold too dearly our life or reputation.This is very much like America with George and his cronies re:911 and New Zealand which is similar in that Mz Clark has a small group of people around her who are changing the social landscape of the country to fit their idea of a modern,all inclusive society, and blatently ignoring the express wishes of the people.May she enjoy her imminent retirement.A country or corporation,business will only grow and prosper according to the wishes,goals and desires of its leaders,be they people of integrity or corrupted by the privilege of power.

I had seen a piece on tv about Anna and the plight of journalism in Russia, so decided I had to learn more. I could not put this book down. Her courage in face of insurmountable danger for journalists during the Putin regime should humble any American journalist. I am saddened by the fact that she along with many other Russian journalists, ended up a victim of the very regime she wrote so bravely about.

I was also a bit taken back by some of the Putin regime activities that we could corrolate to recent political events in the U.S.

I think this book should be required reading in any/all high school and college journalism and political science classes.

A must read for all those contemplating on working, investing, living, or visiting Russia and before more authoritarian restrictions are implemented (or should I say the "New Soviet Russia" is completed?).

Ana Politkovskaya's book is a fast read, but the truthful descriptions may be shocking to some. For me, it brought back dark memories from my years working and living there. There is so much increadible [underlined] poverty outside the major cities (e.g., Moscow, St. Petersburg, etc.) and so much more she could have continued writing about... unfortunately, because there is no real free press anymore (& as far as I know, her books have never been published or sold in Russia) the majority of Russian citizens are misinformed and uninformed.

On the other hand, Russia is a vast and beautiful country and it's people (the "real" people) amiable, warm, and very hospitable (once they get to know you). The citizens want so much more for their country, but are afraid to make concrete changes in a unified manner, may not know how to move forward due to conditioning and oppression from the old and new regimes, or are terrified of reprisals. Thus, the current leadership is dismantling Russia's constitution, eliminating the opportunity for real democracy, and is building a "New Iron Curtain" behind the old one.

Again, a must read!

The AUTHOR'S NOTE states: "... this book is not an examination of Putin's policies. I am not a political analyst. I am just a person among many, a face in the crowd, like so many.... These are my immediate reactions, jotted down in the margins of life as it is lived in Russia today."

Well, Politkovskaya doesn't all together stick with this decree, but touches upon Putin's "policies" by way of presenting his lack of policy in helping his people.

There are many events detailed in this book: soldiers being beaten and tormented by their commanding officers. Family members trying to find out the truth about their loved one's death, or murder. Corruption plaguing the Russian judicial system. Yury Budanov's kidnapping of a young Chechen girl, her rape and murder trial. Examples of friends the author has known and how their lives (good and bad) have been affected by the changes in the wake of the New Russia. The gangster life being rife throughout Russia, given in the example of Pavel Anatolievich Fedulev. The storming of the Dubrovka Theater in Moscow during the "Nord-Ost" musical by Chechen terrorists wishing to end the war, and how the government unleashed an unknown gas that ended up killing 200 hostages. The waging of "Antiterrorist Operation Whirlwind" that caused the Chechen people living in Russia to be harassed, framed, and forced to sign confessions that they plotted the attack; many were sent to prison or lost their jobs. According to Politkovskaya it was "Putin's belief that an entire people must shoulder collective responsibility for the crimes committed by a few" pg 224. The hostage situation in the town of Beslan on the day of "Lineyka," the celebration of the beginning of school when many families were at the school. 100 people went missing and the government said that they fled with the terrorists (hu?).

One can't deny that something is happening in Russia. But I can't say I was won over with Politkovskaya's argument that Putin is entirely to blame for it's current state. This is partly due to the author's writing style, which must have been affected by the translation process (there are many words and phrases that come off sounding disjointed), which make for weak arguments. The stories Politkovskaya's shares with us are stories we outsiders have heard for a number of years under the old Soviet Union. Just because one has a new government everything cannot be expected to change quickly. It takes time. It does sound like Russia has reverted to old habits either because that's all its' leader's know, or it's their intentions to align themselves with communist ways in order to gain more power for themselves. The truth is, I don't know what progress has been made under Putin, and certainly you wont find any in Politkovskaya's book. The problem is that politics usually attract power and corruption. Place people with this tendency in a government rife with corruption and things are bound to fail. Unless Russia can find someone courageous enough to stand up to it, willing to put their life on the line, I fail to see how things will ever change.

One things for sure, I'm always amazed by the resilience of the Russian people. I always get a strong sense that they love their country dearly and want nothing more than to live in a free society where the rules are fair. Hopefully one day they will have this. Unfortunately the fact that Politkovskaya died for writing stories like this shows how far Russia still has to go in acheiving freedom.


Chapters:
"My Country's Army and Its Mothers"
"Our New Middle Ages, or War Criminals of All the Russias"
"Tanya, Misha, Lena, and Rinat: Where Are They Now?"
"How to Misappropriate Property with the Connivance of the Government"
"More Stories from the Provinces"
"Nord-Ost: The Latest Tale of Destruction"
"Akaky Akakievich Putin II"
"Postscripts"
"Notes"