Politics Government Books

Frankly, I was disappointed in the depth of insight and reflection offered in this book. This little volume is essentially a recapitulation of a narrow and shallow view of Constitutional Law and exegesis of the US Constitution that lacks a unifying logic or point of view that underlies it. And, I found him disingenuous in that he adopts a literalist position while knowing full well that no such position is possible in reading documents more complex and abstract than simple assembly instructions. His responses to the criticisms of Dworkin, Glendon, Tribe and Wood were frequently glib and self-indulgent, even self-congratulatory. Contrast this work with Justice Breyer's Active Liberty.

This is an excellent book that provides valuable insight into understanding the modern controversy and problem of construing the American Constitution. Unique in that Justice Scalia graciously provides his theory first. He is then rebutted in different ways by university scholars in very varied manner. Each rebuttal is quite unique and interesting in its own right. Fascinating in that Scalia also provides responses to each rebuttal at the end of the book.

The format is very educational and enlightening and it's remarkable that a sitting Justice of the Supreme Court would provide such candid and unapologetic theory of interpretation, knowing that his views would face challenging if not scathing attack by some very important scholars on the topic.

The only thing that would have made this book more interesting is a discussion, or forward describing just how this process of argument, response and rebuttal was organized. Just how did these authors get together to create such an honest discussion of what are, in some cases, very polar views on the issue of interpretation. That's why I gave it four stars. But I loved it.

I would caution that some of the writing is technical both legally and philosophically. Legally in that some discussion referring to the doctrine of incorporation seem to be assumed understood. Philosophically in that Dworkin's discussion of "meaning" and "intention" could be daunting though I think he does a beautiful job of simplifying and clarifying what are often considered some of the most complex philosophical issues of the 20th Century.

Very well done. Very appreciated work. I was fascinated and thoroughly enjoyed the format of argument, counterargument and response.

My favorite part of the book is when Scalia criticizes those who bash textualism for being formalistic. "Of course, it's formalistic! Law is formalistic!," he claims.

Beyond that, the book is more or less dull precisely because Scalia did not provide any satisfying answer to any of the non-originalist criticisms.
One of the core criticisms raised against Scalia is that originalist interpretation can be, too, and often is, a subjective view of an individual judge. It's just a matter of how you, as a judge, support your decision and originalist judges tend to stick by their textual interpretation as a way of doing that. But how, one might ask, do you prove that the text is saying what you believe it is saying? Some say we should rely on legislative or framers' intent. But that doesn't solve the problem either, because there has to be an interpretation of the intent, and there you see another layer of subjectivity involved.

I hope someday Scalia, or any other originalist for that matter, can clearly answer the criticism so that we all can move on to the next stage. But this book is not doing that.

First of all, let me make it clear that I think Scalia is a brilliant Justice. I have a very high level of respect for him intellectually. However, I think that he is too conservative, as is this book. I still think people should read it, because I advocate hearing all sides of an argument, but I thoroughley disagree with Scalia's opinions.

Be that as it may, everyone should sill read this insightful and interesting book, if for no other reason than the debate that takes place at the end of the book.

I think the largest challenge facing Scalia was turning his simple philosophy into an entire book.

When interpreting the constitution we should look at its original meaning.

There it is in 11 words. Scalia manages to expound on his theory a little bit by differentiating it from strict textualism and reinforcing his views here and there. Scalia allows several scholars to give their replies followed by Scalia's rebuttals. This back-and-forth provides an engaging read and expands the simple premise into a full-length, comprehensive read. All in all I enjoyed this book.

I feel compelled to warn potential readers that from time to time this book will sink into the worst of academia. That pseudo-intellectual, acting smart for the sake of sounding smart mentality that plagues universities across the country. These lapses are usually brief and do not greatly detract from what is otherwise a great book on an important debate currently occuring within the highest court in America.

I also recommend you read Active Liberty by Justice Breyer. I have nothing against Tribe, Dworkin or the other respondents in this book, but Breyer takes the discussion out of originalism and into his own philosophy.

Wow! This is one of those books. You know the ones. The book you can't put down at 2 o'clock in the morning, even though you know the baby's going to be wide awake at 7:30. I read "The Tea Rose" first and absolutely loved it. I'd highly recommend reading that one first, as the characters are continued in this story and they'll mean so much more to you if you know them already.

Donnelly does such a wonderful job of creating characters you'll love and spinning stories that keep you on the edge of your seat. I could hardly wait to read what was coming next. The good guys aren't completely perfect, and the villains aren't completely evil -- or at least they didn't start out that way. It's that complexity of characters that made me feel like I was reading about real people and not some two dimensional author's creation.

Set mostly in historical London, Donnelly also does an amazing job of portraying the terrible conditions in Whitechapel in both books. It's uplifting to see the main characters work so hard to make life better for Whitechapel's citizens and succeed in many ways.

Towards the end, I just couldn't imagine how everything would resolve itself, and I love that about a book. I love to be surprised and must admit that I was so touched at places that it drew tears.

I'd recommend this book to anyone.

(review by Mrs. Scott)

I was hoping this book would be as enjoyable as The Tea Rose, but it's not quite. I think it's too long and the story is unfocused. I'd have preferred the story to focus more on India and leave out the characters from the previous book. It's not only long, it FEELS long when you read it. I do think Donnelly's research is great and she tells a good story when she gets going. I just don't think this one quite measures up.

I read The Tea Rose by Jennifer Donnelly a couple years ago and loved it. I was excited to read The Winter Rose and was not disappointed. I enjoyed her first book better, but this one is definetely worth reading. I really enjoy the authors writing style and her stories are fascinating.

This is the most enjoyable novel I have read in a long, long time and I am a voracious reader. Fabulous characters, a detailed and layered plot that keeps moving (even when you think it can't), emotional intensity that had me weeping, and outstanding historical information on early Victorian life in East London. I cannot recommend it highly enough!

So I was sitting here, two weeks ago, trying to decide which book to read next. I had just pulled five off my shelves and figured I would read the Amazon reviews on each of these books and then decide which one to read. I searched The Winter Rose first and didn't get any further because many of the reviewers were saying words I've been waiting all year to hear...."has kept me up until the wee hours", "just made my collection of books to re-read", "I was hooked on the prologue" and "a sequel that lives up to its predecessor." Okay, I'm in, I thought to myself.

I had already read The Tea Rose about six years ago and knew I had enjoyed it. I checked my reading journal and had given it 4 stars. So that made it a good book...not a great book...but definitely a good book. The only problem was that I had forgotten a lot of it so, before I started reading The Winter Rose, I went back and read the last chapter of The Tea Rose and it brought it all back to me.

Let me preface this by saying that I love books set in the early 1900's and I especially love when the setting is England because the surrounding areas usually add a lot to the story. In this case, The Winter Rose did not disappoint. The author was very adept at making me feel the cobblestones in the street and the dampness in the air and everywhere else. I was able to catch up with characters from the prequel like Fiona, Joe and Charlie, whose name is now Sid Malone. Donnelly also introduces us to some new characters like India Selwyn Jones and some of her wealthier group of friends. India is much like Fiona was in The Tea Rose....very strong, capable of striking out on her own but, unfortunately, also failing in the "love" department.

The story takes many turns and many of the characters end up in Africa. This is where it just became a little too contrived for me. Remember, this is 1900. Even today, how many people do you know go to Africa? Yet many of these characters coincidentally arrive on the same soil to finish out the story.

Much has already been written here in other reviews concerning the storyline. It's a good book, the characters are all very endearing (save for one), the writing is excellent, but the story is nothing out of the ordinary. It's just a nice "700" page read. I actually give it 3 1/2 stars but I'm being generous and am rounding up to 4. On the other hand, The Tea Rose, was a solid 4 stars and I definitely enjoyed it more than The Winter Rose. The outcome of the book, however, leaves the author open to the third book in this trilogy and I'll definitely come back for another one if, for no other reason, than to spend some more time with Sid Malone. I just wish I had loved it as much as some of the other reviewers here. I'm still on the hunt for that great book of 2008.

What are the 28 Principles of Freedom incorporated into the Constitution by the Founding Fathers? This inspirational book should be included in every school curriculum. Put this on your "must read" list.

I found this book very well written and easy to read. America is a great nation but must stick to the principles laid down by the founding fathers, or else it will fall behind.

The book is well researched and should be read by every American citizen!

It is amazing how little is taught in public schools regarding the founding our America and the Constitution. I highly recommend this book anyone who cares about this great nation and wants to preserve the miraculous blessings of our country and constitution for years to come.

The constitution, what does it mean anymore? This document changed the course of the world and this book will tell you why the United States of America changed the world in 200 years. Sadly, it is also pointing out why we are loosing what has made us so strong.

This book yes, should be required reading.

Do you want a book that will honestly change your whole way of thinking about American Government, are you willing to be challenged? Take the dare, you will not regret it.

If you are a liberal, Democrat or Republican, how about, just an American, this book is for you.

Are you new to the concepts of Natural Law? This is a good jumping off point.

The book is an easy read, easy to grasp for the beginner, yet I believe an advanced reader will still find it fascinating. It is a new perspective of our country, or rather just highlighting the original intent which seems to be new in this day and age.

There is a type of people in the world today, which has always existed and which will always exist. This type of person honestly seeks wisdom, honestly works, honestly deals with his fellow beings because he knows any type of happiness you get from anything except these things is a false, temporary happiness. This type of person is a person of reason, is person of justice, of integrity. This type of person tries as best as they can to increase their knowledge and tries to figure out the secrets and hidden things of this world and this universe. Those types of secrets and hidden things are only uncovered through a constant quest for knowledge. They realize that the extent to which you are free is the extent to which you know. The most bound person is the most ignorant person because they do not even know of their bond. Every person is bound to some extent. To the extent they lack knowledge of how the world works and how the universe works.

This book is of course called The Five Thousand Year Leap for a reason. The reason being is that in the last two centuries this world has made more progress in every dimension of life than the last fifty centuries combined. That type of progress is not accidental. This book goes into great detail about the economic, political, philosophical, natural, and even religious ideas about why that is so.

America and the world owes a great debt to the founding fathers and authors of the Constitution of the United States of America.

I can promise you that you will not regret reading this book.

It's a lot of reading because there is so much info. At least every other sentence is worth noting.

Direct, blunt and confrontational. Chomsky has started me on a new search for truth, first fo myself, then hopefully for others.

Most commentators view globalization almost exclusively from an economic perspective. However, controversial iconoclast Noam Chomsky, a well-known left-wing (some would say far left) academic, famed also as an innovator in linguistics, discusses globalization's political impact as the modern driver of U.S. foreign policy. Political economics is a sensitive topic, but Chomsky doesn't hold back as he argues that U.S. foreign policy has been imperialist since World War I. He contends that in the invasion of Iraq, and earlier forays elsewhere, the U.S. disregarded the U.N. as well as public opinion at home and abroad. Chomsky makes important, though contentious, points, but he would have a wider audience if he developed a more comprehensible writing style, avoided torturously long sentences, and provided more background on some events he covers, particularly America's more esoteric political and military interventions. He is provocative, subjective and deeply negative about the U.S. (even referring to it as a "terrorist state") and its allies. getAbstract finds this book may intrigue those who want to know about political thinking at all ends of the spectrum. (As is true of every Abstract, the following views are those of the author and not of getAbstract.)

America needs Noam Chomsky (even with his faults) because America has an abundance of proles who hang out down in Plato's cave watching the shadows on the wall and building their belief systems based on those shadows. If it wasn't so sad, I would almost say it's amusing to observe these proles as they slowly and gradually receive information contrary to those shadows, like the revelations in Scott McClellan's book that just came out in June, 2008. But a much bigger punch gets delivered by Mr. Chomsky ever so often, as he writes book after book on the terroristic foreign policy of the US. People choose to dismiss Chomsky because his assertions are not repeated in the mainstream media (as if the government-controlled mainstream media would bite the hand that feeds it). Chomsky is undeterred. He cites country after country, in the Western Hemisphere and abroad, where US foreign policy has murdered thousands of innocent people, and he leaves no confusion in his wake about the US being a major state-sponsored terrorist nation. It's a sad realization that the virtuous constitutional republic we all learn about in the schools is just a big lie. But cold hard truth is always depressing, isn't it (have you stepped on the weight scales lately?)? For those of you who don't understand why the US gov't is this way, simply look no further than Mr. Chomsky's subtitle: "...America's Quest for Global Dominance". But while Mr. Chomsky is willing to villify the US in foreign matters, he won't touch American-sponsored DOMESTIC terrorism. Why? Can you say...book sales???

Chomsky is the Father of Lies; this is the derogatory brand with which he will be referred to throughout my scathing criticism of a review of his propaganda-book, Hegemony or Survival. Reading any anti-American--and variously pro-terror, pro-Palestinian, pro-communist, pro-radical Islam--screed from Chomsky subjects the reader to murderously extreme bias, one-sidedness and oftentimes manipulation of the facts. Before reading any propaganda work by Chomsky, the reader will do himself a huge service in realizing that Chomsky is 100% biased against the US, the War on Terror, capitalism...while concurrently exhibiting feral favoritism for terrorists, dictators, socialists/communists, government subsidies, and Arab extremists!!!! As such, Chomsky is an advocate of the hazardously radical far-left, and this in and of itself isn't a problem because Chomsky cannot help being afflicted with liberalism/secular progressive disease, etc.. However, he's intellectually dishonest as he never divulges that he has a clearly glaring agenda.

The Father of Lies' easily discreditable argument in Hegemony is summed up henceforth: the US is so blackened in its evil nature that it pursues foreign policy not to help people or for its national interests, but to subjugate people under its control via terrorism and enormities. This mendacious imitation of an argument by the Father of Lies is based on radicalized prejudice against the US; you'd already have to be indoctrinated with anti-American animosity to take anything he writes at face value. An additionally sinful weakness of the Father of Lies' presentation is that Hegemony--like virtually all his "books" (read: recruitment tools for terrorists)--fails to present arguments based on either logic or trust. He almost 100% bases his deceitful imitations of arguments on emotion--the emotionalism of irrational, America-hating ideologues!!!! This charge is 100% verified when we examine the woeful sources the Father of Lies uses. In his notes, he exclusively either uses only HIS OWN, previous books or the radicalized and unfair opinions of ideologues who share his same anti-Americanism, working at liberal papers like the NYT, LAT or Boston Globe, or anti-American ideologues in academia.

The Father of Lies is exaggeratedly and indefensibly rumored to be a master at linguistics. However, when we analyze the definition of linguistics, we see the Father of Lies is 100% overrated and in reality only a low-minded thug who manipulates the semantics of the quotes of public figures he despises!!!! Linguistics is defined as the study of the nature, structure and variation of language including semantics, phonetics and phonology. In Hegemony--as he furiously does with his other "books" of anti-American recruitment--the Father of Lies seemingly does this by excruciatingly quoting people at length. Yet, what the intellectually honest reader (not a laughingstock, indoctrinated liberal with anti-American ideology) will notice is that he doesn't fairly analyze the quotes of people he targets. Instead, the Father of Lies manipulates, takes out of context, or generally forges the true meaning of what those quoted figures have said!!!! Additionally, another black eye for the Father of Lies is that he's not much of a legitimate author: half his "books" are overflowing with context-less quotes he pilfered from other sources.

For example, in Chapter 8, the Father of Lies charges the US with falsifying the certainty they needed in order to justify war with Afghanistan post 911. He quotes FBI director Mueller as saying, during Senate testimony, that the US government merely believes that the idea to plan the 911 attacks originated from Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. The Father of Lies dishonestly stresses the word "believe" to insinuate that the US government wasn't sure about where the 911 planning emerged. However, the verb "believe" also can be defined as having confidence in the truth or value of something. Through that definition, it irrefutably sounds like Mueller's Senate testimony was in fact credible and not just mere opinion!!!! However, the Father of Lies totally distorts Mueller's use of the word "believe"; that's how devious he is.

Furthermore, Hegemony earns lots of demerits due to factual corruption. For instance, regarding the liberation of Iraq by Bush, the Father of Lies has the nervy audacity to misbehave as the late Hussein's apologist by crediting Hussein for directing oil profits to internal development!!!! This is the only part of the sanctions program the Father of Lies applauds, yet we now know that Hussein was taking massive kickbacks to the tune of several billions from an unwary UN, totally destroying Chomsky's whitewashing of Hussein!!!!

Another egregious evildoing by the Father of Lies is through his overwhelming partisanship against the Israelis. Chomsky fanatically believes the Israelis are the terrorists, and he berates them for the accidental killings of Pali civilians, building of the wall to constrict suicide-bombing Arabs, and the annexation of purportedly Pali lands. However, Chomsky AGAIN conceals the terrorist misconduct from Palis which necessitate Israel's reaction of self-defense: the Pali-instigated terrorism of cowardly targeting Israeli women and children and NEVER abiding by peace agreements.

Noam Chomsky's books are not bedside reads. He is tough, writes like a cat in water, throws facts at you from every direction, and expands your mind with his erudition.
Although this book is one of his most readable, it still has all of his trademarks; his laconic style, dry wit, strident tone.

There is a shift in emphasis in Hegemony Or Survival, from strictly domestic and foreign policy issues, to issues of human survival. In our over-heated, globalized world, Chomsky thinks it a very likely possibility that humanity will destroy itself. This could happen due to environmental catastrophe or nuclear annihilation.

It is to Chomsky's great credit that as the sociopolitical milieu changes, his lens changes. Don't get me wrong, Chomsky spews plenty of venom on our foreign policy. It is just that Chomsky has broadened his focus. No longer can we look at these issues in isolation. Our policy choices in the next 20 years could determine the fate of humanity. Now a skeptic might think this concern to be a bit over the top, but Chomsky- ever the rationalist- is not known for hyperbole. This suggests that we seriously consider his analysis.

Anyone who is concerned with the state of the world would help themselves a great deal by reading this book. Even if you are very conservative, it would not hurt to expand your horizons. Chomsky is a serious academic- unlike Hannity et el.- and as such, he is a force to be reckoned with.

I must mention the one thing that Chomsky seems to do in all of his books that rubs me the wrong way: splice up other peoples' quotes.

A typical example (though made up by me):

"At the far left you have Walzer who states that the U.S. has to spread "its humanity" to other nations, so that they can see our "benevolence" and our "good intentions."

This is irksome. Walzer's original quote may have read:

"The U.S. would be advised to spread its humanity to other nations. Unfortuantely however benevolent our citizens, and no matter our good intentions, we are an imperial power. Only the emperor cannot see this."

I am not accusing Chomsky of misrepresentation. I just wish he would use a narrative style. There is no need to parse pundits' quotes like he does. It really serves no purpose. In fact, it gets in the way.

The above aside, there is no doubt that Chomsky is the best and the brightest on the left.

I read this book for a graduate seminar on Aristotle. Politics is one of Aristotle's most prescient works that had a profound impact on our Founding fathers.

Nicomachean Ethics (EN) is part of political knowledge. Politics regulates when virtue does not. Laws are created for people who are not virtuous. Polis= "city or state." Humans live in society, so virtue ethics is not just for individual living, community is a shared project for the good. Aristotle starts with his method, a phenomenological attitude. He starts with pairs, male and female, builds up to ruler and subject, master and slave as a natural relationship, the 1st social community thus is the household. Household is an economic relationship and has monarchy of patriarch. Villages are a collection of households with a king. Then you have a Polis, a fulfilled complete community formed from several villages. Self-sufficiency is the mark of a Polis. An organized social relationship is Polis and a reason is being able to take care of needs of life and promote living well. Only in a Polis can you have art, philosophy, etc. All these are actualized in a Polis. Politics is natural to human life. We are meant to be social. According to Aristotle, "If you don't want to live in a state you are either a God or a beast."

Logos= "rationality or language" is what helps us to be political animals. Rational language expands capacity in human life. Since Aristotle thinks the Polis has a telos or an end then the Polis as potential comes even before the household. This is similar to the acorn having the telos to become a mighty oak tree. Politics completes the human condition for Aristotle. Need a Polis to develop other human capacities.

Aristotle's hierarchy. Slaves are a living tool for Aristotle. Aristotle argues that some people are meant to be slaves right from birth. "Born to be ruled." Slavish person does not have enough rationality to rule themselves. Aristotle says not every form of actual enslavement is justified according to him. He justifies the human use of animals as a natural act.

Aristotle now wants to find what kind of government is best. In a Polis citizens have things in common. Aristotle criticizes Plato's Republic, he finds it to be overly controlling. Socrates says the soul has 3 aspects and so does the Polis. The Soul has:

1. Reason
2. Passion
3. Appetite
The Polis has:
1. Philosopher King.
2. Guardians, (military).
3. Commoners.

Both are a hierarchal ordering. Socrates and Plato talk about the state holding all property in common. This includes the state raising children after birth instead of the parents, thus there will be no family clans trying to better themselves over their neighbors. Aristotle criticizes this idea. Aristotle says a Polis is a plurality of people thus people are not all the same and a Polis must accommodate differences in people, which actually makes a Polis better. Aristotle criticizes Socrates and Plato's idea of a Polis needing to have "unity" of people. This is a contrast to the Polis of Sparta. Aristotle says the best way to integrate citizens to the Polis is to allow them taking turns in ruling it. Aristotle believes that holding property or rearing of children in common as in the Republic is wrong no one really loves children like their own and communal property never gets really taken care of. Love is diminished the less nuclear family we are.
Aristotle says you need a mix of private and public property. Thus, the best kind of Polis is a combination of a governing element. Aristotle affirms a constitutional democracy or Polity. A citizen participates in government by definition for Aristotle.

Comparison of virtue and the good citizen. Excellence of virtuous man not the same as a good citizen. There will be few virtuous men, but good citizens just have to follow the law. Aristotle says good political virtue and good moral virtue don't have to go together. "Living finely then most of all is the goal of the city."

Aristotle classifies 3 types of government which occur naturally in nature and 3 types of deteriorations of those governments, they are:

1. "Monarchy," rule by one man a king, this is a top down rule. The deterioration is a "Tyranny," who is a ruler who rules for his own benefit.
2. "Aristocracy," rule by the best few men in the Polis, also this is a top down rule. The deterioration is an "oligarchy,' which he defines as rule of the rich who want to perpetuate themselves.
3. "Polity," All citizens participate in government with a constitution set above them to guide them instead of a king or aristocracy. The deterioration is a "democracy or what today we call mob rule or tyranny of the majority. He calls it rule of the poor.

Aristotle does a good job of looking at states and how they can be corrupted. Aristotle's concept of political justice and what is the best concept. What does justice mean? Not necessarily equality for all. Not all people are equal. He implies sometimes it is unjust to treat people equally. Justice is not necessarily equality for all; sometimes it would be unjust to treat all people equally. Politics is rated high by Aristotle as a human good. Education is a central feature of political life for Aristotle. "But we must find the relevant respect of equality or inequality; for this question raises a puzzle that concerns political philosophy." First, because someone is unequal on hierarchy that means better than others like more virtuous. This is like "distributive justice" who gets what goods. Do you give the best flute to the best flute player which is based on merit or to the richest or best looking person? Aristotle says inequality should tip towards those who earn it on merit. His concept of equality and inequality is based on merit. Another philosopher coined a famous formula for this based on Relevant Respect:

P= Person, Q= Quality, C= Context.
It would be just to treat P1 + P2 equally or unequally if P1 + P2 are equal or unequal in Q (quality) relevant to C (content). This is a formula on how to treat people relevant to goods. This is context dependent. Allot of empirical work to be done before we use the formula.

People who fight wars control politics in the Polis. The more people who have weapons in a civilian army is a guarantee that a small group of people will not take control of the government and democracy grows, like our 2nd amendment, this is a historical perspective of the idea that works.
Democracy spreads power to citizens a bottom up structure. Expertise in relation to politics. Many professions we tend to defer to the experts for judgment, physicians, lawyers, etc. Plato's Republic does this with his advocacy of Philosopher king running government. Aristotle says the judgment of the many combined as acting as one is better then a monarch or a few wise men to run the government. In principle, pooling of multiple people to run Polis is good. Politics by nature is a communal effort so you should use all the people's expertise. Aristotle is against letting experts running the Polis they are not always the best of judges. The best judge of the function of a house is the owner, not the builder. In addition, Aristotle says there may not really be any such thing as a political expert, like a philosopher king. Aristotle advocates for a constitutional democracy a written set of laws to protect Polis from a tyranny of the majority. "Law is reason unaffected by desire." A government of laws not men. A living being as the last word is not good.

Role of education in politics. Politics is coming together to foster human development and happiness for community, citizens, and improving human life like education. Aristotle says it should be public education.

I recommend Aristotle's works to anyone interested in obtaining a classical education, and those interested in philosophy. Aristotle is one of the most important philosophers and the standard that all others must be judged by.

I read this book for a graduate seminar on Aristotle. Politics is one of Aristotle's most prescient works that had a profound impact on our Founding fathers.

Nicomachean Ethics (EN) is part of political knowledge. Politics regulates when virtue does not. Laws are created for people who are not virtuous. Polis= "city or state." Humans live in society, so virtue ethics is not just for individual living, community is a shared project for the good. Aristotle starts with his method, a phenomenological attitude. He starts with pairs, male and female, builds up to ruler and subject, master and slave as a natural relationship, the 1st social community thus is the household. Household is an economic relationship and has monarchy of patriarch. Villages are a collection of households with a king. Then you have a Polis, a fulfilled complete community formed from several villages. Self-sufficiency is the mark of a Polis. An organized social relationship is Polis and a reason is being able to take care of needs of life and promote living well. Only in a Polis can you have art, philosophy, etc. All these are actualized in a Polis. Politics is natural to human life. We are meant to be social. According to Aristotle, "If you don't want to live in a state you are either a God or a beast."

Logos= "rationality or language" is what helps us to be political animals. Rational language expands capacity in human life. Since Aristotle thinks the Polis has a telos or an end then the Polis as potential comes even before the household. This is similar to the acorn having the telos to become a mighty oak tree. Politics completes the human condition for Aristotle. Need a Polis to develop other human capacities.

Aristotle's hierarchy. Slaves are a living tool for Aristotle. Aristotle argues that some people are meant to be slaves right from birth. "Born to be ruled." Slavish person does not have enough rationality to rule themselves. Aristotle says not every form of actual enslavement is justified according to him. He justifies the human use of animals as a natural act.

Aristotle now wants to find what kind of government is best. In a Polis citizens have things in common. Aristotle criticizes Plato's Republic, he finds it to be overly controlling. Socrates says the soul has 3 aspects and so does the Polis. The Soul has:

1. Reason
2. Passion
3. Appetite
The Polis has:
1. Philosopher King.
2. Guardians, (military).
3. Commoners.

Both are a hierarchal ordering. Socrates and Plato talk about the state holding all property in common. This includes the state raising children after birth instead of the parents, thus there will be no family clans trying to better themselves over their neighbors. Aristotle criticizes this idea. Aristotle says a Polis is a plurality of people thus people are not all the same and a Polis must accommodate differences in people, which actually makes a Polis better. Aristotle criticizes Socrates and Plato's idea of a Polis needing to have "unity" of people. This is a contrast to the Polis of Sparta. Aristotle says the best way to integrate citizens to the Polis is to allow them taking turns in ruling it. Aristotle believes that holding property or rearing of children in common as in the Republic is wrong no one really loves children like their own and communal property never gets really taken care of. Love is diminished the less nuclear family we are.
Aristotle says you need a mix of private and public property. Thus, the best kind of Polis is a combination of a governing element. Aristotle affirms a constitutional democracy or Polity. A citizen participates in government by definition for Aristotle.

Comparison of virtue and the good citizen. Excellence of virtuous man not the same as a good citizen. There will be few virtuous men, but good citizens just have to follow the law. Aristotle says good political virtue and good moral virtue don't have to go together. "Living finely then most of all is the goal of the city."

Aristotle classifies 3 types of government which occur naturally in nature and 3 types of deteriorations of those governments, they are:

1. "Monarchy," rule by one man a king, this is a top down rule. The deterioration is a "Tyranny," who is a ruler who rules for his own benefit.
2. "Aristocracy," rule by the best few men in the Polis, also this is a top down rule. The deterioration is an "oligarchy,' which he defines as rule of the rich who want to perpetuate themselves.
3. "Polity," All citizens participate in government with a constitution set above them to guide them instead of a king or aristocracy. The deterioration is a "democracy or what today we call mob rule or tyranny of the majority. He calls it rule of the poor.

Aristotle does a good job of looking at states and how they can be corrupted. Aristotle's concept of political justice and what is the best concept. What does justice mean? Not necessarily equality for all. Not all people are equal. He implies sometimes it is unjust to treat people equally. Justice is not necessarily equality for all; sometimes it would be unjust to treat all people equally. Politics is rated high by Aristotle as a human good. Education is a central feature of political life for Aristotle. "But we must find the relevant respect of equality or inequality; for this question raises a puzzle that concerns political philosophy." First, because someone is unequal on hierarchy that means better than others like more virtuous. This is like "distributive justice" who gets what goods. Do you give the best flute to the best flute player which is based on merit or to the richest or best looking person? Aristotle says inequality should tip towards those who earn it on merit. His concept of equality and inequality is based on merit. Another philosopher coined a famous formula for this based on Relevant Respect:

P= Person, Q= Quality, C= Context.
It would be just to treat P1 + P2 equally or unequally if P1 + P2 are equal or unequal in Q (quality) relevant to C (content). This is a formula on how to treat people relevant to goods. This is context dependent. Allot of empirical work to be done before we use the formula.

People who fight wars control politics in the Polis. The more people who have weapons in a civilian army is a guarantee that a small group of people will not take control of the government and democracy grows, like our 2nd amendment, this is a historical perspective of the idea that works.
Democracy spreads power to citizens a bottom up structure. Expertise in relation to politics. Many professions we tend to defer to the experts for judgment, physicians, lawyers, etc. Plato's Republic does this with his advocacy of Philosopher king running government. Aristotle says the judgment of the many combined as acting as one is better then a monarch or a few wise men to run the government. In principle, pooling of multiple people to run Polis is good. Politics by nature is a communal effort so you should use all the people's expertise. Aristotle is against letting experts running the Polis they are not always the best of judges. The best judge of the function of a house is the owner, not the builder. In addition, Aristotle says there may not really be any such thing as a political expert, like a philosopher king. Aristotle advocates for a constitutional democracy a written set of laws to protect Polis from a tyranny of the majority. "Law is reason unaffected by desire." A government of laws not men. A living being as the last word is not good.

Role of education in politics. Politics is coming together to foster human development and happiness for community, citizens, and improving human life like education. Aristotle says it should be public education.

I recommend Aristotle's works to anyone interested in obtaining a classical education, and those interested in philosophy. Aristotle is one of the most important philosophers and the standard that all others must be judged by.

Perhaps I've been reading too many ancient Greeks and Romans, and certainly too many treatises on ancient politics, but I had a great deal of difficulty getting through this book. Aristotle is a very well-known philosopher and a student of Plato. This book outlined his views on politics, and he quite blatantly goes against a lot of what Plato and Socrates said, but his ideas make sense, especially for the time and place when they were written. It was interesting to compare his ideas to those of Plato since I just finished reading Plato's Republic. I think at heart, I'm more in agreement with Aristotle than with Plato.

Yep, I feel way over my head giving Aristotle three stars, but I'm throwing in my two cents anyhow.

This book is an incredible window into another time. Aristotle's views on a number of topics (women and slavery come quickly to mind) stand out so opposed to our beliefs today that it's almost worth reading this book just to get some perspective on how new some of the social ideas we take for granted really are. Getting that sense of perspective is truly the best part of this book.

That said, there is little here beyond that for anyone but a student of philosophy or someone engaging in a very serious study of the history of government. Very little of what Aristotle says rings true today and at times it's as if he went to the future and decided to predict the exact opposite of what's come to pass.

If you are a layperson looking for a classic on government, I recommend Plato's Republic. While it is even older than Aristotle's work, it is filled with insights that feel as if they must have been written in modern times. That is a truly inspiring feat of thought and foresight.

Perhaps it is not accidental that the work of the Aristotle, the student who explored so clearly and deeply all the externals and interactions of nature and Man, is recorded as tedious, repetitious, complex lecture notes while Plato the teacher who tried to find all the answers within the confines of his own head is recorded as lucid, lively dialogue. Aristotle the rube was evidently too busy observing, cataloging, teaching - living, to write it all down in an organized coherent whole while Plato the aristocrat was at first desperate to capture all he could remember then to expand upon the works of his revered master, Socrates, trying desperately to walk in his sandals. I think maybe with Aristotle there was just too much material, to much to know, and the thing he did best was know. So here is the country boy with that horrible Macedonian accent but regal connections come to study at the Academy, to learn from the very best, and in the end, the thought he produces far surpasses all that the best laid before him.

How is the community of Man best organized? That is the concern of Aristotle's "Politics". Plato had more or less just conjured up an ideal "Republic" based on his interpretation of Socrates. But that was not enough for Aristotle. He traveled, he learned, he catalogued everything and human organization and systems of government were at the top of his list. And he did this traveling analysis at a unique time when all possible permutations of human social organization were up for a try, from the dynamic democracy of the tiny city-state to the decrepit tyranny of the Persian Empire. With this catalog, he could not just conjecture as to what government might work best but make solid statements of fact about the consequences of various human organizations and recommendations about what works best under what circumstance. And we live with the result of his systematic pursuit. As one reads (or re-reads) this the very foundation of Western political thought, images of Madison flipping pages of a well warn and well loved edition to find a particular passage as he pens drafts of the Constitution of the United States of America flash by time and again. The result of his obvious reference to Aristotle was a thriving republic that has grown and flourished providing freedom and the possibility of a good life for millions. What grew from Plato was the horror of the Soviet Union. But I have betrayed my prejudice. One must read both and in order, Plato first to discover the thoughts that inspired Aristotle's questions then Aristotle to find the answers.

That said, I must reiterate, this book is exceptionally tedious, repetitious and complex (though not intellectually difficult). Thousands of people have made careers analyzing it and commenting on it. It is not for everybody but Mortimer Adler's "Aristotle for Everybody" is. That book is a brief, well written compendium, a distillate, of all we have of Aristotle. To go through a life and not read at least that is to miss some of the best thinking ever done by a human.

About half of the way through the book, Neustadt seemed to be saying the same things over and over again. I almost stopped reading. However the incredible tidbits of advice in the first half encouraged me to continue. It was certainly worth it. The last 5 or 6 chapters were written over the period between the Kennedy assasination and the end of the Reagan Administration, allowing Neustadt to ammend many of his ideas from the first 8 chapters (originally published in 1960) making the book far more lively. A wonderful read for those with a weak knowledge of the last 50 years. If you know a lot about the Korean War, Bay of Pigs, or Iran-Contra, the book may be a little too much review. Otherwise it is fabulous.

Neustadt's book describes one of three theories about Presidents. Everyone knows that there is a balance of power between the judiciary, the legislative and the executive branches. Neustadt claims that the President is the weak leg of the stool and that he is unable to govern alone. He must use his powers of persuasion in order to convince the other branches of the government to do his bidding.

As part of a graduate program in political science with a concentration on the United States, you will read this book. If you don't, I am happy to go out on a limb and say that there is something wrong with your program!

This is one of the three seminal works available on the Presidency. There are others but this is one of the big guns. If you read this book, along with Corwin's "Presidential Power" and Rossiter's "The American Presidency", you'll understand all three theories of presidential power: the weak President (Neustadt), the strong President (Corwin) and the President wearing many hats (Rossiter). In reality, all three are correct.

It's interesting but a scholarly read. It's not a book you'd pick up for light after dinner reading.

The 1960 edition of Presidential Power has had a long shelf-life, and has grown over time to append chapters on post-Eisenhower presidents. But Neustadt's original thesis -- that presidents are Constitutionally weak, not strong, and that they therefore must leverage their bargaining advantages to the fullest if they want to be effective leaders -- still holds up. (Think the 104th Congress here.) It's hard to skim Neustadt -- he writes the old-fashioned way, in long, graceful sentences and paragraphs that actually hang together. But it's well worth while to settle in and get a sense of what it takes to be president. It's not clear that 2000 is going to be a good year for the American polity...

This is indeed one the classics in the field of presidential studies. Neustadt's contribution, although somewhat commonsensical at first glance, is that despite the huge increase in formal powers that the president has acquired over the years, the most fundamental power the president possesses is the power to persuade.

The president must persuade other independently elected officials to do as he sees fit. This, in a city such as Washington DC where people have seen powerful politicians come and go over the years, is easier said than done. The president must be attuned to the nuances of political issues and not allow himself to become cut off from the political back and forth by his retinue of aides. He must retain the prerogative of making the final political decision and avoid becoming a clerk and simply ratifying the decisions made form by the staff and the bureaucracy. Further, he must define what is in his political self interest.

The president does so by keeping himself informed, by employing a system of information that allows him to be at the center and making real decisions; and by carefully husbanding the power and carefully cultivating the image of the president. While the president does posses the power to command, instances where he must rely on command are a prima facie failure of persuasion.

Finally, the president must ensure that others understand his power. He must be able to strike a modicum of fear into both his allies and his foes. In the political sense, this means the ability to hurt someone electorally. If I as the president can campaign against you and make it stick, you will be more likely to fear me and be persuaded by my requests.

This is not an easy read, but if you are involved as a student of politics you WILL read this book at some point. A classic and well worth the effort.

John C. McKee

Neustadt's work has been praised by many other reviewers here, and I won't disagree that this is a classic that must be read by any serious student of the American presidency. Nonetheless, his thesis is quite outdated and has been superceded by more recent scholarship.

Neustadt's fatal flaw is to assume that the individual person in the office is the only thing that matters - if that person has the right set of skills, he can successfully bargain to get his goals accomplished. However, he doesn't pay enough attention to the role other institutions may play in constraining the president's ability to get what he wants, or how increased presidential power may give the president new resources with which to deal with the other branches.

Neustadt also assumes that all presidents before FDR were "pre-modern" and "mere clerks of the office." This perspective has been proven false in several respects. First off, Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson clearly acted like "modern" presidents in many respects. Secondly, there are numerous examples of "pre-modern" presidents acting like the modern ones: even the much-reviled Rutherford B. Hayes acted like the modern presidents when appointing executive branch officials. Others such as Andrew Jackson, James K. Polk, Lincoln, etc., are left out altogether.

If you want to read cutting-edge work that deals with these shortcomings, take a look at Stephen Skowronek's book on the presidency instead.

Shipping was super fast, and book brand new, low price, and good communication, highly recommended

political leaders are motivated by their desire to stay in power? REALLY? wow, talk about obvious. and yet his book manages to explain the implications of this in the most convoluted, annoying way possible. he talks about terms he never defines, doesn't explain his math properly, and cites himself far more often than is necessary. this book is the only one that discusses issues in the abstract (so said my polisci prof), but it could still be written better.

Ignore the previous bad reviews for this textbook. It does a very good job of presenting the fundementals of International Politics and discussing the different schools of thought on the subject (this book is a believer in the "all politicians strive to keep themselves in power" theory, which is a contrast to other international political theories)

The book also covers all of the basic game theory over the first 10-12 chapters that you will need to know for most politics courses.

This is a marvellous book that moves beyond the loose metaphors that pass for theory in most of international relations.
I sincerely hope no one pays the slightest attention to the junk some people write in their reviews for Amazon. What a bunch of nit wits.
Fat Bob

Throughout this text, Bueno de Mesquita tries to convey to the reader his belief that all wars and conflicts in the history of the world could have been avoided if only the decision makers had read his book. And through it all, he manages to project a sense of self-righteous superiority that I have never before seen in a book designed to be a textbook. I personally think that his theory has merit, but it is not the cure-all for international politics. He uses many examples, some of which are good and some of which are bad. An example of the latter is found in the chapter on preferences (9) when he spends about 10 pages on an inane and contrived example concerning a soda machine and the choices involved. Stick with examples involving the subject of the book! Also, he likes to refer to himself a lot. There is one instance in which he refers to his own past works 5 times in 2 consecutive paragraphs. This so annoyed me that I began highlighting each incident of self-citation, which generally occurs on every page.

That being said, if you're interested in BDM's strategic theory of International Relations, this is a good book, but if you want a more objective and comprehensive explanation of various IR theories, I would go with something else.

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.

IMPOSSIBLE SUBJECTS, written by Mae Ngai, is the best of recent books on the 20th-century American history of immigration. She reveals that the problem of "illegal immigrants," which has been regarded as one of the most serious problems since the late 20th century, is indeed a legal construction. According to the author, immigrants from Mexico were drawn into the U.S. Southeast because the Southeast political economy, especially agri-business, raised need for the massive wave of low-wage immigrant workers and at the same time defined them as the racially "foreign" people who were rendered alien to America, which was defined as the nation of Caucasians. What enabled the American Government and people to attach racialized foreignness to the Mexican immigrants (and, inevitably, American citizens of Mexican origin) were Immigration Acts, border policing, and discriminatory control of visas.

Mae Ngai argues that positive laws concerning immigration policy have constructed the category of "illegal aliens" from Mexico, and the implementation of the laws by Border Patrols and INS has reinforced the labeling of racially alien immigrants. She bases her analysis on the critical legal theory which suggests that laws constitute social formations. Her usage of the new legal theory in her inquiry into the American immigration history is highly excellent and persuasive.

The historical analysis of the immigration problems in this book seems to be applicable to other countries' history. For example, Ngai's insight shall give light to the recent Japanese conservative media discourses on the "illegal migrants" from China, South Korea, and Latin American nations which describe the undocumented migrant workers as illegal, criminal and, in case of women, prostitutes.

I would have dedicate five stars to this book if its text were easier to read (it is possible that I felt this book's text not very easy to read because I am not of a native-English tongue).

Mae Ngai's ambitious book compels historians and general readers alike to critically reassess traditional understandings of and approaches to U.S. immigration. Much of the histories on U.S. immigration and immigration policies have told a similar tale. The United States, the narrative goes, has been tainted by a long history of exclusion, a blight on the nation's democratic tradition that was only recently removed with the passage of the Immigration Act of 1965. Such a narrative not only reaffirms the myth of American universalism, but also consistently fails to produce any new critical knowledge about U.S. immigration and U.S. history. Impossible Subjects differs from these other works of immigration history in this important respect: it proceeds with the conviction that the United States was never a "nation of immigrants."

Ngai examines the era between 1924 and 1965, an unconventional periodization in immigration history that situates the 1924 Johnson-Reed Act (usually signifying the end of one regime) at the beginning of her study, and the Immigration Act of 1965 (usually signifying the beginning of another) at the end. Beyond simply filling a historiographical gap in immigration history, the focus on this period of immigration restriction enables a reevaluation of U.S. immigration laws, and more broadly of U.S history, on several levels. First, it demonstrates that restrictionist policies did not merely function as a tool for exclusion, but more, it created-through a racial and geographical remapping of the nation-new categories and concepts deeply implicated in race that defined the spaces and limits of national inclusion. Second, these categories and concepts, most notably "illegal aliens" and "national origins," are not natural or fixed conditions and markers, but are the product of positive law that, when scrutinized, reveal the ways in which its uses have shaped and defined the United States in the twentieth century, particularly its ideas and practices about race, citizenship, and the nation-state. Finally, this periodization allows for a reconfiguration of immigration history beyond a nationalist framework. By suggesting that the making of modern America rested on the exclusion of nonwhites from the geographical and ideological borders of the nation during this regime of restriction, the book argues against the normative telos of immigrant settlement, assimilation, and citizenship as the defining narrative of American history, a narrative that is confined to the nation-state and that invariably reproduces American exceptionalism.

By charting the historical origins of the "illegal alien" and the genealogy of immigration laws that have consistently reproduced it, Ngai has ultimately written a stunning history that goes far beyond narrating the history of U.S. immigration restriction. It is a book that deserves to be read widely.

This book is truly awful. I don't know what her publisher was thinking by letting this book get out. The tone: Nasal. The language: Sociological jargon. The argument: Garbage. Save a tree and find something better.

The United States of America is the great melting pot of the world's immigrants, or is it? A white, middle-class, Protestant, European American lifestyle is what the great melting pot of American folklore was truly intended to articulate to the immigrants of the early 20th century. Mai Ngai counters this image of the US as the embracive playground of diverse immigrants and powerfully weaves the tale of how race, nationality, assimilation, and immigration all became interwoven concepts in overtly discriminatory US immigration policy of the mid-20th century in her newest book Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America. As Mae says, "The telos of immigrant settlement, assimilation, and citizenship has been an enduring narrative of American history, but it has not always been the reality of migrants' desires or their experiences and interactions with American society and state." (5)
Throughout the history of the United States, there has been a clear struggle to define who can gain citizenship in this great nation. Ngai's book attempts not to tackle this debate, but rather how the construction of the illegal immigrant came about because "the promise of citizenship applies only to the legal alien, the lawfully present immigrant. The illegal immigrant has no right to be present, let alone embark on the path to citizenship." (6) Her book begins in 1924 with the adoption of the Johnson-Reed Act which established numeric quotas for immigration from countries across the globe. Prior to the 1920s, immigration was relatively unrestricted as, "the free global movement of labor was essential to economic development in the New World." (17) Ngai points out that it is vital to note that this pre-Johnson Reed Act period did see the exclusion of Chinese laborers who migration disturbed the precious ideas of manifest destiny in the West. She stresses that the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was most important because the Supreme Court gave Congress absolute control over immigration as part of foreign relations.
Throughout her book, Ngai focuses on what she believes to be the two biggest consequences of the Johnson-Reed Act, the first being creation of the concept of illegal alien and the second being racially ranking the desirability for certain groups to immigrate to the United States. Perhaps the most powerful quote of the entire book goes, "Immigration restriction produced the illegal alien as a new legal and political subject, whose inclusion within the nation was simultaneously a social reality and a legal impossibility - a subject barred from citizenship and without rights." (4) Ngai points out that the irony of this newly created status is that the undocumented or illegal immigrants are woven into the economic fabric and labor market of our nation, and yet as they are cheap labor, they are disposable labor who can easily lose their ability to live in even the subhuman conditions in this oh so great nation.
Now that this new quota system was to be implemented, how would the country establish what the quotas would be for the varying countries of the world? Easy, they compared it to the approximate composition of the US population circa 1790, a clearly discriminatory and completely inaccurate and unreliable practice! As the rising popularity of eugenics was during this time period, there had been increased emphasis on census and racial definition and maintaining "racial hygiene". "Euro-American identities turned both on ethnicity - that is, a nationality-based cultural identity that is defined as capable of transformation and assimilation - and on racial identity defined by whiteness." (7) In this construction of the white American, those non-white, browner immigrants from Asia, Africa, and Mexico were deemed less desirable and lower class peoples who subsequently had a lower quota for the number of immigrants allowed. Ngai points to Mexicans as a changing population in regards to the immigration and whiteness policy of time, as originally they were deemed white as the need for immigrant farm workers was needed in the Southwest, but then subsequently deportation and repatriation of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans became the common practice.
Ngai wonderfully illustrates how as this period of quota-based immigration restrictions continued, the treatment of Filipinos, Mexicans, Chinese, and Japanese worsened to the extent of which no matter how long they or their families had been woven into the fabric of the US, they were viewed and abused as second-class foreigners. Ngai urges you to remember, these were systematic attempts at ranking races, excusing maltreatment, and elevating the political, economic, and racial status of white Euro-Americans, and not just subtle nuances of American policies. As the US struggled with its policies towards the Philippines, practices bounced back and forth from Filipinos being portrayed as being capable of "benevolent assimilation" but at the same time clearly of Asian ancestry and eventually was pushed towards independence and repatriation. As World War II arose, the massive discrimination and maltreatment that the Japanese and Chinese Americans endured only further reinforced their cultural ties to their home countries and therefore they were portrayed as disloyal citizens. In many cases these were actual citizens of the US, native-born patriotic people who had protected rights unlike those of their illegal immigrant counterparts. Ngai reminds us not to forget about the Cold War and the extreme measures that were taken to exclude Chinese people from immigration to the US and even participation as US citizens in order to protect us from evil communist China.
Ngai's phenomenal history comes to a close with the Immigration Act of 1965. Although this act overturned the racialized, discriminatory numeric quota system, it did sadly further extend the reach of numeric restrictions. For anyone who believes that racial hierarchy as part of US policy is a thing of the ancient past, for anyone who believes that African-Americans and their struggles for civil rights were the only systematically discriminated against population in recent US history, this is the book for you! Sit back and relax as Ngai takes you through this tremendously researched sensational tale of the United States and the construction of the illegal immigrant.