Politics Government Books

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.

This was in great condition, good price. Arried fast. Would buy from here again. Eerything as advertised

Hays and Kearney are well know for their edited readers. This text is a compilation of articles from leading writers in the field of public personnel management. As such, the book serves as a useful discussion text within the classroom environment. The subjects treated run the gamut of personnel issues, but most noteworthy are the articles on constitutional law, public ethics, and civil service reform.

Before approaching the text of Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America, I had little realization as to the proper content of his prophetic work. To my former understanding, the text was merely a collection of adulation and reflections upon the American way of life by a French observer in the nineteenth century. Upon reading this abridged version of Democracy in America, I found a much more prophetic text which reflected more upon the cultural impact of democratic institutions than upon the praise which should be attributed thereto. While one may fault de Tocqueville for approaching the democratic world with the cutting eye of a small aristocracy, it is quite evident that he accepted the fact that the human spirit was led to greater democratic tendencies and that such was to be taken almost a priori as the state of the world in his era.

The truly important reflection of the work as a whole comes in the considerations which he places upon the consequences of equality which follows from democratic revolutions. The phenomena of hardy individualism and its potential devolvement into individualism were not lost in his reflections. From this hardy individualism, de Tocqueville feared that humanity in democratic times may tend more toward equality and stability than toward liberty. In this, he not only foresaw the simple tendencies of utilitarian artwork and literature but also the potential destruction of civil associations and the devaluation of individual accomplishment and differentiation. It is this latter point, which seems somewhat paradoxical at first glance, which is perhaps the most prophetic of his reflections. In the process of cultural homogenization and individuation, de Tocqueville foresees that centralization of power will become much more likely as the populace views itself to be nothing more than an accumulation of nearly-identical citizens. Beyond this, his fears of the tyranny which could result by the abandonment of liberties by the people are well founded, for a society which wholly forgets the fact that some human beings can stand out is one which can easily allow itself to be subjected to the capricious desires of a powerful state as liberty is wholly forgotten.

These prophetic words should be read by all reflective Americans as we continue to move toward a larger centralized state and clamor with greater intensity for security in all forms (be it physical or social), for such equalizing security can only come at the cost of the liberties which allow the individual to actually have the worth which we intellectually affirm that he or she has.

As an American living in Europe, I read with great interest Alexis de Tocqueville's book about a European experiencing America.

Like most people, Mr. de Tocqueville started out with a characterization of the United States, believing that the country's early 19th century prosperity was a function of its distance from rivals in Europe. But after his famous trip, he concludes that the real difference comes from each side's view of risk taking. It's an insight as relevant today as it was when it was written.

Mr. de Tocqueville predicted that the growing issue of state's rights would lead to bloodshed (it led to the Civil War -- though he wrongly predicted it would eventually lead to a breakup of the union, he was very nearly right on that point as well); he predicts the fledgling country's industrial rise and its emergence as a true world power; he recognized the symbiotic role between industry and democracy at a time when they were believed to be unrelated. His insights into the American psyche, optimism, and ambition at times seem timelier than most op-ed pieces.

More than a century and a half after it was written, I am hard pressed to conjure the name of a better commentary about America and Americans. It is an astonishing feat considering the brevity of Mr. de Tocqueville's four-month visit, his youth (he was in his early 20s), and early stage of development the country was in. But the result is something that shouldn't be skipped by any serious student of the political and social essence of the United States.

Praising this book is a bit like saying Huckleberry Finn was one of the great American novels - it's a profound statement of the obvious. Even so, it must be said: Alexis de Tocqueville's magnum opus is a brilliant sociological analysis of America, with his genius made all the more evident by how applicable his observations about 1830s America are to its twenty-first century counterpart. Everything from the solidity of America's political infrastructure to the disquieting trend toward anti-intellectualism are explored in this massive work, and his gift of analysis is matched only by his gift for prophecy (can you believe that he predicted a conflict between America and Russia before the rise of Communism?). An amazing book, and necessary reading for anyone who wishes to understand America, rather than merely talk about it.

I have three complaints about this edition of Tocqueville:
1) Nowhere in the book is the translator credited. This violates basic principles of publication and scholarship.
2) This is in fact an abridged version of the original English-language translation by Henry Reeve, dating from sometime before 1862. Unless you want to re-create the experience of a modern Frenchman confronted with de Tocqueville's somewhat archaic French by reading the text in somewhat archaic English, I would seek out any of the more recent translations: there are at least three.
3) The ellipses, that is, the abridgements, have sometimes been made to conceal some of the author's less flattering views America. In fact I suspect this is a "patriotic" abridgement. For example, in the second chapter of part one, Heffner has omitted references to some of the excesses of Puritan law in New England which the notoriously even-handed Tocqueville had cited.

As a former reviewer has stated this edition takes quite a bit of liberty in excising the less flattering aspects of Tocqueville's views of America. In fact the entire section on race-relations has been excised --perhaps it was deemed too controversial? This kind of editing is even more unacceptable in our age of open communications and hopefully open minds. Find another edition.

This text is the finest I have come across for a basic understanding of American government.

MMMurphy

Wilson's book is a very solid foundation for begining political science clases. It delivers the information in a to the point way that is easy to understand. The charts and graphs barely reach the '90's and need to be updated. The headlines are very useful when skiming and reviewing. The end of the chapter summaries and bold typed vocabulary words are very convieninet for studying. . .A well written book that shows all sides of controversial issues!

American Government covered everything and anything on politics. I could not have asked for a better introduction on politics! It covered everything from the US Constitution to interest groups and the bureaucracy. If you are interested in politics, but need a simple, solid introduction, this book is for you! However, I found the book was difficult to read, as it was poorly written and tedious at times. Although this book is probably the best intro to Government around, do not buy it if you have a short attention span.

This book offers a foundation for political concepts and historic background about the U.S. Using standard survey course format, the author skims the broad topics of government from the core documents, including the Declaration and the Constitution, to the general structures and processes of governing. While I must conclude with a prior reviewer that the writing is unexciting, I have yet to find THE basic government text equivalent of "Democracy - Not 4 Dummies"

A trully remarkable text book! This text strives where many fail, in communicating with students from AP level high school to Doctoral studies. Includded are full color diagrams on the political process, governmental structure dating back to the 1600s. Also, philisophical viewpoints from Plato to John Locke. The benefit of the text, is its current up-to-date information on the 'insides' of political views and parties. This text would assist anyone in learning about our nations history and government.

Sowell explains why liberals and conservatives do not work together to solve problems, such as education, in which all have a stake.

I have never read a book that taught me so much. It teaches how to think clearly about law, economics and social policy. It is worthy to be spoken of in the same tradition as Adam Smith and Edmund Burke: a classic.

Here you have another typical one-sided (read: one-sighted) book fully of finger pointing and false accusations. This book will appease any far right-leaning American who thinks that the left are idiots and liars. This book will offend anyone who leans to the left.

But if you are like me, and tread in the middle to nowhere category, this book will simply annoy you. Sowell talks about how the left (referred to as the "Anointed" literally three million times in the book) spins truths and statistics to get their way. He then does the same thing to refute te left's stances.

From his high horse he must have felt pretty good writing in 1995 that gas prices will never rise, that because we are always finding more natural resources there will never be an energy crisis. Wonder how he feels now. Hopefully as idiotic as he tried to make everyone else seem.

This book made me want to never read about politics again. Heap in with Ann Coulter propaganda trash.

In his previous work, A CONFLICT OF VISIONS, Thomas Sowell explored the issue of why people often tend to agree with the same people on seemingly distinct social and political issues. If a woman advocates generous welfare benefits, abortion on demand and preferential policies for blacks to compensate for the legacy of slavery, where do you think she stands on gun control? Yeah, maybe you will be wrong if you say she advocates strict gun control, but probably not.

As Sowell explained, the reason for this is because of the visions that people have about the world in which they live. Those with the constrained vision view humans as inherently very limited in what we can do and accomplish and advocate those social structures that allow us to best cope with such limitations. Those with the unconstrained vision view people as far more capable of achieving certain favorable ideals and goals, if only such limitations were not imposed upon us preventing us from doing so.

In THE VISION OF THE ANOINTED, Sowell explores the unconstrained vision further. This vision is predominant in the intellectual and political elite and often involves attitudes and opinions that are simply taken for granted. Whereas A CONFLICT OF VISIONS is more academic in tone (if one did not know Sowell himself was one with the constrained vision, one probably would not have gleaned it from the text), THE VISION OF THE ANOINTED is more polemical and ideological. Although that makes for a more fun read for the red meat crowd, it makes for a work of lesser importance in Sowell's oeuvre on ideas.

Early in the book Sowell makes it clear that the anointed vision is predominant not because it is empirically correct, but because it provides its visionaries with a sense of being on the moral high ground compared to the benighted others. The most important feature of the book, the one that has certainly stayed with me the longest and made the deepest impression, is Sowell's analysis of the irrelevance of evidence to those with this vision. As Sowell correctly points out, history is filled with people screaming from the sidelines that a society is about to hit the wall. Yet some mechanism within the vision itself prevents negative feedback from entering the ideological loop.

A comparison of the anointed vision with the benighted vision is provided as a refresher on the subject and example after example is provided as to how a vision of society in desperate need of the anointed's special insight leads to a worsening of the situation. The crusades of the anointed cover a wide ground, from protecting everyone from themselves with strict safety measures imposed on society, to eradication of racism and sexism, to seeking the root causes of crime. In each case, we can, so the vision goes, do so much more to help and even change our fellow man. In each case, however, more people are ultimately harmed, either directly through the recidivism of criminals or more indirectly, such as through the slow erosion of our ability to govern ourselves rather than have a non-elected judiciary impose its will on us.

Sowell seems to letting off a lot of personal steam in this book, again making it a more enjoyable but less substantive work than A CONFLICT OF VISIONS. But that is all relative. A lesser work by Sowell is still head and shoulders above almost anything else out there, except better books by Sowell himself. Any dispassionate reader will get an awful lot of insight out of THE VISION OF THE ANOINTED.

This is a brilliant book. I'm an historian (I teach history at a community college) and have studied, in depth, the philosophic background and history of the rise of modern secular ideology and its utopian vision--the people Sowell refers to as "the anointed" (and it is an accurate term). Sowell is hated by these people for two reasons: he's black and thus does not fit their stereotype of the down-trodden African-American, and his argumentation, which attacks some of the actual consequences of "the anointed's" philosophy, is buttressed by a wide ranging array of facts and evidence. To one who truly understands the philosophy of modern secularism, Sowell's book makes perfect sense and provides the factual data which proves absolutely many of the harmful effects of these "anointed" views.

If you truly read it, this book will make you mad. That there are people out there--who have power, and that's frightening--who want to tell you what to believe, who turn violent criminals loose on a whim, who'll take children away from their parents based upon their own view of how those children should be raised, who flat-out lie to the American people in order to gain the control they want...anybody who believes in freedom will burn in anger while reading this book. The American people, in general, have a sense that there is something wrong with our country, that there has been a gradual decline and degradation over the last generation or so. But most of them can't quite put their finger on what it is. Read this book and you'll find out why. Then come take my history course and I'll give you the historical background to all of it.

What Sowell writes about isn't happening by chance. As incredible as it is to decent, thinking Americans, there are actually people in this country who believe "the anointed's" philosophy. That they can get away with some of the things Sowell describes in this book tells us how stealthily they've stolen this country from the honest, moral people who built and who are still the backbone of it.

LOVE this book and would recommend this to everyone!! Everyone I know who has read it has found some part applicable to themselves or their friends in high school! Informative and engaging - a must read for all students!!

thia book is great the author has some great points and the book gives you the information in an entertaining way. however there is some bias and you can see the author is only showing you the negtive aspects of an overachieving world. again i think thtat the book is great to read but one must take it in without buying into every word she says. overall an informative book well worth reading

This perceptive examination of the lives of real kids gives us cause for concern, but also great hope. There actually are kids who work hard, do their best and want to make the world a better place. Maybe they need more support than they get. (Don't we all?) But they're out there, doing all they can to be all that they can be. That's a good thing. Robbins does a superb job telling the stories of nine young people fighting their ways through the high school jungle, not always getting what they deserve or what they want, but coping and growing. As we follow these kids through some important formative experiences, we can't help worrying about them and questioning the system that puts so much emphasis on being "the best." Guess what. Not every body can be the best. But the good news is this: to succeed in life people don't need to be "the best." They need to be motivated and competent. If these stretched and stressed kids can adjust their focus just a bit, to realize that happiness is more connected to being "their best" than to being "the best," they will do just fine. Thanks, Ms. Robbins, and thanks to these kids and their families, for this meaningful look at the lives of some terrific young people. For a fine fictional treatment of some of these issues, readers might also enjoy Crunch Timeby Mariah Fredericks.
Janet Gingold
author of Finch Goes Wild

I bought this as a gift for a high school relative of mine that really wants to get into an Ivy school. This student runs herself ragged taking honors classes, getting tutoring, and participating in sports to the point of utter exhaustion. I feel this book will help her and her parents reflect on their college obsessions and realize that not getting into an Ivy will not ruin your life! I thought this book was very insightful to how crazy some students and parents have become in pursuit of success. I think this book speaks to many people including those that do not have children in high school. The sections in the book that cover the "admissions" testing into top rated preschools in NY is fascinating. I remember neighbors of mine who demanded that our public school put their son into gifted and would eagerly talk about their desire for a full scholarship at a local private college for him one day (he was only 6!) Basically this book will strike a cord with any student or parent. I also liked how the author gave a list of ideas/ suggestions on how to solve these problems. Although the solutions/ideas presented may not be realistic it makes excellent discussion material.

This great book comes with a great message: "...our high-stakes educational culture has spiraled out of control. Following along with nine real people in the battleground of SATs and Ivy League colleges, this book explores the issues of our educational system and their consequences from the point of views of both the students and the author.

The flaws of our educational culture has defined an age where people will go to extremes. For example, one mom strangled another's daughter because the other daughter beat her own daughter for a spot in a prestigious preschool, which won't even go on your college resume. AP Frank, one of the characters in this book, is outraged for all his asian mom did to him, like breaking his thumb or abusing him when he got one single B.

In an era where colleges barely care about your SAT grades, students are taking more and more extracurriculars and anything to add to their college resumes. The sacrificed time and grades build up to take the forms of sleep deprivation and even thoughts of suicide. Educational policies are like a hole which "your chances of getting out get lower as you fall deeper." For anyone who is interested in how our students are reacting to everything thrown at them, this book is a must-read.

This book was purchased for my son, John,(a junior in college); it is a textbook for a course he is taking. He called me very excited about the book once he recieved it and started to read it. I was impressed; it is unusual to find a student excited about a textbook he/she is required to read. I give it a big thumbs up and suggested to him that he keep it for his library whether than selling it when he completes the course, he can always use it for reference purposes. Superb book!

Author Joe McGinnis gives an inside view of the highly-controlled, thoroughly-packaged 1968 Presidential campaign of Richard Nixon. Readers see how the Nixon team made its political commercials and stage-managed campaign events in order to manipulate the public. Nixon had lost a close race eight years earlier to John F. Kennedy, in part because he'd looked haggard in his TV debate appearances. This time he and his handlers were determined that Nixon would be scrubbed and scripted while avoiding debates. In short, they peddled Nixon to voters the way corporations promote cars and cosmetics. Nixon had a huge advantage in money and thus television ad buys, and he went on to a narrow victory on Election Day over Democrat Hubert Humphrey. Ironically, Nixon's packaged 1968 effort seems amateurish compared with today's media-specialized, poll-driven campaigns. Consider that in 2004 President Bush used the secret service as his private Gestapo to illegally detain dissenters, and even his supporters had to sign contracts in order to attend his campaign rallies.

Some accused McGinnis of betraying Nixon with this book, a charge later leveled against him when he wrote the true-crime narrative FATAL VISION. Others argue that he did his job and let the public see an un-reported, dark side of politics. Whatever your view, this is a concise, informative, interesting look at political manipulation.

Joe McGinniss joined the Nixon campaign as an observer, and wrote this book of connected stories. Nixon's team had a number of advertising and TV professionals. The book lacks and index and a table of contents. The cover shows Nixon's face on a pack of cigarettes - an apt metaphor. They are heavily advertised, and bad for you in the short and long run. People know this, but they buy them anyway!

Chapter 1 shows Nixon taping commercials for varied markets. "I pledge an all-out war against organized crime in this country." But investigations into organized crime was later halted. Chapter 2 tells us that politics, like advertising, is a con game! Both promise more than they deliver. McGinniss says Nixon lost in 1960 because the camera portrayed him clearly (p.32). I think the TV audience judge he was lying, the radio audience took him at his word. By 1968 Nixon learned how to act sincere. He would appear mellow, not intense; respected, if not loved (p.34). Page 36 explains how this works: saturated TV advertising showing the candidate and giving the desired impression, followed by public appearances where he doesn't say anything. TV would be controlled to transmit the best images (p.38). Chapter 3 tells about Harry Treleaven, who worked on the 1966 campaign for George Bush; he was elected because he was likeable, and none knew his stand on the issues. More people vote for emotional than logical reasons (p.45). Chapter 4 explains the power of TV. "The press doesn't matter anymore: (p.59). Painting Nixon as mellow was their way to overcome the old Nixon. Chapter 5 tells how the TV shows were staged for each region. Page 64 explains the politics for a panel of questioners. The selected audience applauded every answer. Chapter 6 says that if Nixon could not act warmer they would produce commercials that made him so!

Chapter 7 tells how a commercial would "create a Nixon image that was entirely independent of the words" (p.85). "The secret is in the juxtaposition" (p.88). (Was this parodied in that scene in "The Parallax View"?) Once complaint was of a picture of a soldier who had scrawled "LOVE" on his helmet; a new picture was found with a plain helmet. Later they received a letter from that soldier's mother - Mrs William Love (p.92)! Page 99 tells why you never saw a farmer on this show. Or a psychiatrist (p.100)! Chapter 9 gives an insider's view to the commercial images and what they meant. Chapter 10 tells of seeking Wallace voters with a ballad. Another trick was to be seen as a friend of Billy Graham. Chapter 11 tells of Nixon's shrinking lead. How could a slick production lose to a rough-edged show? Chapter 12 rates a Humphrey commercial as "contrived and tasteless" (p.138), but also "most effective" since it showed HHH as a real person in open air, not being kept in a TV studio. Chapter 13 explains how a TV show worked. People would call in with questions; these would be passed to the staff. They would be scrapped, and prepared questions and their answers used (p.149).

The Appendix contains various memos from the campaign; relevant extracts from "Understanding Media" and its analysis. Page 187 notes the good appeal of "reagan". Reagan's personal charisma is noted on plage 189. Pages 218-220 explain the benefits of print advertising over TV. Page 233 mentions the strategy of a challenger: the candidate stands for change (you assume what that means). These memos concern Nixon's run, but are applicable to other candidates today. How much has changed since 1968?

First off, let's get one thing straight: McGinniss infiltrated the Nixon Campaign, pure and simple. Not exactly what you'd call honorable journalism.

That said, "The Selling of the President" remains the definitive case study of the first sophisticated use of television in American Presidential Politics. Having worked in political public relations for three years, the characterizations and quotes ring completely true. While the public was dismayed by the widening morass in Vietnam, there's no denying the fact that Nixon's very astute use of the tube helped catapult him into the office he ultimately disgraced.

Yes, mass media image-building is now the politician's stock in trade: Willy talking boxers versus briefs, the Veep doing the Macarena, and George The Elder fumbling at the checkout counter.

"The Selling of the President 1968" is written in tough, punchy prose, and chillingly accurate. I'm certain The Founding Fathers would flinch.

Highly recommended as a continuing reality check.

Roger Ailes started out as a whiz kid producer in his twenties who was given the responsibility of producing a highly rated, popular, syndicated network television program, "The Mike Douglas Show." From there he moved on to politics, using the same kind of marketing routines that Madison Avenue gurus employ in the cases of super market commodities. Joe McGinniss managed to sneak aboard the Nixon for President campaign without having his main purpose discovered, that of writing up what he observed. Had Ailes or any of his underlings known, McGinniss would assuredly have been instantly dismissed. Had candidate Nixon ever learned the response would, almost assuredly, have been apoplectic, given Nixon's all-consuming hatred for reporters of anything but a fawning bent.

The book is humorous in many respects, while the overall result of the effort reported, selling a candidate who would ultimately become the only U.S. president to resign in disgrace, is anything but funny. "The Selling of the President" gives us an indication of how far we have plummeted in presidential campaigns where spin control dominates over critical substance. For instance, just twenty years after Nixon's 1968 victory over Hubert Humphrey, George Bush was elected by exploiting the American flag and a Massachusetts rapist named Willie Horton. The 1984 campaign of President Ronald Reagan stressed the theme of "Morning in America" despite prolific evidence that the temporary prosperity proudly exploited resulted from a credit card spending effect linked to an irresponsible tax cut which ultimately left America in serious debt.

The ultimate value of McGinniss' book is learning just how cynically Ailes and the spin control brigade seeks to manipulate American voters. To readers of George Orwell the pattern will contain a distinctly familiar ring.

William Hare

Somewhere in the second chapter of this splendid book, Leonard Hall, national Republican chairman said; "You sell your candidates and your programs the way a business sells its products." This succinct message captures the essence of Joe McGinniss and his book, "The Selling of the President."
The author explains how Richard Nixon is packaged and distributed to the American people by clever television professionals.

The marriage of politicians and advertising men first took place in 1956 when Dwight Eisenhower ran for re-election and selected the agency of Batton, Barto, Durstine and Osborn. McGinniss explains that the basic advertising concepts remained unchanged right up to 1968 but that Richard Nixon made every use of all the sophisticated technical advances of the day. Moreover, the author details how slick New York advertising men seduced voters which elevated them from the smoky parlors to the expensive suites with the political big shots.

Advertising executives allowed Nixon to dominate the airwaves. To this end, the television campaign allowed Nixon to get through the campaign with a dozen or so carefully worded responses that would cover all the problems of America in 1968. After a while it is rather clear that Richard Nixon is basically a boring man. However, with proper packaging Nixon soon represented competence, respect for tradition, serenity, faith that the American people were better than people anywhere else, and that all these problems others shouted about meant nothing in a land blessed with the tallest buildings, strongest armies, biggest factories, cutest children, and rosiest sunsets in the world.

I found the marriage of political and advertising minds fascinating. Of particular interest is how certain keywords such as conscientiousness, vigorous, party unifier, newness, glamour, humor, warmth could create a television facade to hide a candidate's blemishes. This is a great book and should be used in the classroom to show how television altered how politics and campaigns are orchestrated in the United States.

Bert Ruiz

Does not refute its existence. Hobsawm's arguments about the creation of nationalism are quite true, but he takes as his starting point, not the cultures that Nationalism destroyed, but his acultural commiunist world order.
Herein lies his major flaw: first, by refuting nationalism's authenticity, he is justifiying the communist legacy of aggrressive destructiveness towards "national" groups, who might simply be said to be in the throes of a mythologically based false consciousness. In this snese, communism is really a kind of hyper nationalism - Imperialism really - that does to whole nations what nationalists once did to regions.

In this sense, communism is a continuation of the Imperialism of revolutionary Nationalists.

The other major flaw lies in the negation of culturally distinct identities. These do exist, are based largely in geography and are not reinforced and perpetuated by historians over imbued with the spirit of scientific socialism. In this case, Hobsbawm's Marxism is merely a more extreme version of a kind of narrow, intellectualism. Like Spock, he sees anything not based on fact as "invalid".

The fall of communism has led to the assertion of "buried" nationalisms. In refuting those nationalisms, Hobsbawm is accomplishing two major ideological goals: one, he is showing that communism really didn't repress anything and was thus a good thing; second, he is making sordid the disorder that followed its fall by showing that it's all based on lies. While many national identities are, indeed fabricated, they quickly become real. Second, the fall of communism and the rise of the EU have both facilitated the re-emergence of regional identities. This is particularly so in less econoically advanced areas. to name but one example, the Sicilian language persists side by side with the official Italian langauge and remains the first language learned by most Sicilians. Not so with the Northern Italian dialects. Why? Because those areas attract immigrants from all over Italy. They marry, have kids and use Italian as their lingua franca in the home, and their kids grow up wholly ignorant of their parents regional language.

Thus, the Italian nation is real, but more so in the center and North than in the South. Further, it isn't some mythical facade fabricated to prevent the emergence of commmunism. Its emergence has come about for more practicial reasons.

An interesting counter point can be found in Catalonia in Spain. Here, you have a language and culture that deviates from Spain. But, and this is a big fat but, it is an Industrial Area that has brought in many Spainiards. Now, there is enormous pressure to speak Catalan. So you have grandchildren of Spaniards learning Catalan. Eventually, they marry Catalans and Spanish disappears. Fascinating stuff, really. I'm the MASTER!!!!! I dominate at social and historical analysis!!!!!!

Hobsbawm takes issues the premise that the "nation" is the genesis of social groups. He writes, "Nations as a natural way of classifying men as an inherent political destiny is a myth" (10). Rather, he contends that a good deal of "social engineering" is involved in the creation of nations and the nation-state. As such, the idea of nations and nationhood is not static, but rather has changed over time. Hobsbawm examines the nature of nationalism, its origin, and its evolution over a number of epochs.

During the revolutionary period, nationalism was based on the common interest of a group of people seeking sovereignty in their political expression. However, as the idea of nation becomes more solidified, issues of heterogeneity may become problematic. Pressures emerge for "the people" to adopt a system of common norms. From this, emerges an idea of unifying citizenship.

Between 1830 and 1880, a number of nation-states emerge, particularly in Europe. In many regards, this emergence was in response to capitalism development. The nation-state "guaranteed the security of property and contracts" and ensured competition (28). Nation-states began to internalize their national economies, "...in any case nation implied national economy and its systematic fostering by the state, which in the 19th century meant protectionism" (29).

Up until about 1880, nationalism and "the nation" was a unifying concept; it brought various groups under one umbrella. After 1880, things began to change. The national sentiments of the common people became politically relevant. Thus we begin to see the rise of proto-nationalism. With the emergence of the modern state (an encompassing, institutionalized government ruling over a particular territory) issues of legitimacy emerged, particularly during modernization. Social structures were changing. Monarchical forms (dynastic lineages, or divine rule) were failing. As such, the state and ruling elites needed to create a "civic religion" or a sense of state-patriotism. Hobsbawm writes that patriotism relates to "the sovereign people" of a territory, regardless of language or ethnicity (86-7). One way state-patriotism is created in through the opening of the political process. Subjects are changed into citizens. As such, the citizens gain a "stake" in their state.

The state and ruling elites can create a concept of state-patriotism based upon commonalities between groups (real or imagined) between various nationalistic groups, thus creating one community. One way this unifying concept emerges is through a sense of protonationalism. Protonationalism refers to the ways in which nationalism is politicized. Holding with his premise that feelings of nationalism are socially constructed, Hobsbawm writes "states and national movements could mobilize certain variants of feelings of collective belonging which already existed and which could operate, as it were, potentially in the more macro-political scale which could fit in with modern states and nations" (46). Protonational bonds include religion, kinship, empire, and a sense of national consciousness.
Hobsbawm also illustrates the dynamism of nationalism in his discussion the emergence of ethnicity and language as requirement for national movements between 1880-1914. Hobsbawm argues that social, political and international changes led to the emergence of ethnic and linguistic nationalism. He contends that traditional groups may feel threatened by the emergence of a strong state and thus mobilize against it. Also, ethnic groups become urbanized which leads to a greater propensity for mobilization. Politically, the move towards democratization leads to the emergence of increasing number of interest groups, often based on ethnicity and language. Additionally, modernization increased the size of the middle class. This middle class felt pressures from both the lower and upper classes. In a bid for protection, the middle class moved towards the political right. In the international environment of the era, many states with imperial designs or national rivalries, welcomed the middle strata. By embracing right-wing causes, the middle class achieves a sense of identity.

The discussion is continued through the interwar years, and continues through the 1950s. Following WWI, the old, unifying nationalism gave way to the still "unredeemed minorities" who were rebelling against the new existing states, i.e. the Basques, Welsh, etc. "What was new was the emergence of such aspirations in nominally national, but actually pluri-national states of western Europe in a political rather than a primarily cultural form" (139). What we see during the interwar period "was the nationalism of established nation-states and their irredenta" (143).

During WWII and the post-war period, many national movements moved towards leftist ideologies, as opposed to the right-wing political movements of the WWI era. This was in part a response to the rise of fascism, and also a move towards decolonization (throw of the chains). In fact, during the war and slightly before it could be argued that a sense of "internationalism" existed. Nations joined forces to fight fascism, colonization, etc.

In regards to nationalism at present, Hobsbawm historically sees a rise and decline trajectory of nationalism's importance. He argues that nationalism at the end of the 20th century is declining in importance. In the Third World, we begin to see a different nationalism than was found in Europe. Hobsbawm argues that this leads to a "general skepticism about the universal applicability of the `national' concept" (152). Third World nationalism was not necessarily based on homogenous ethnicity, etc. When decolonization occurred, groups were "trapped in the state territories drawn by the colonizing powers. This leads to a lot of tension within the state. What we find in these states is not necessarily a move towards self-determination, but rather the groups are bargaining for their share of resources within the state. This is partly the result of modernization. Hobsbawm writes that the "massive and multifarious movements, migrations, and transfers of people [which] undermined the other basic nationalist assumption of territory inhabited essentially be an ethnically, culturally, and linguistically homogenous population" (157).

You'll never get the straight story about nationalism out of Eric Hobsbawm, who himself appears to try to reconcile his own ethnic identity with the topic. David Pryce-Jones once noted that in Hobsbawm's own autobiography: "he [Hobsbawm] boasts of a visit to Bir Zeit University on the West Bank to display solidarity with the Palestinians. Why Palestinian nationalism is valid, and Jewish nationalism invalid, is something else Hobsbawm fails to analyze and explain. Quite crudely, he approves of nationalism in countries which proclaim themselves Communist and anti-American, like Cuba or Vietnam, while rejecting nationalism in countries which are not Communist and are pro-American, like Israel" ([...], Jan. 3, 2003).

Such twisted thinking is evident through "Nations and Nationalism," where Mr. Hobsbawm spares no effort, however subtle, to demean nationalism that doesn't conform to his pre-existing prejudices. In short, when writing about nationalism, Mr. Hobsbawm allowed his considerable analytic and writing skills to become corrupted by his religion, communism. Therefore, unless you are an acolyte of that religion, this book is not worth your time, money or effort to read, and if you *are* a member of that religion, I suggest you broaden your intellectual horizons a bit, perhaps by reading Liah Greenfield's "Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity" or Benedict Anderson's "Imagined Communities."

This is a very good overview of nationalism. Following other scholars, notably the pioneering work of Carlton Hayes and Hans Kohn in the 1930s, Hobsbawm point of departure is the fact that nationalism in the modern sense is a recent phenomenon, arising prinicipally in the 19th century and often as the produce of state formation in that era. Hobsbawm covers the history of nationalist ideas from the early 19th century onward, describing the evolution of nationalist ideas from their association with liberal political movements to their later association with the right, indeed, the fascist right. Hobsbawm covers also the basic historiography as well. The primary theme is the social construction of nationalism, often as a state mediated process with developing states using nationalist ideas to increase social cohesion. Hobsbawm also points out how nationalist ideas often arise from confrontation with others, an increasingly common experience as 19th and 20th century Europe saw increasing contact with others from differing ethnicities and religions as the world economy promoted large population movements and novel information about others. Written with Hobsbawm's typical combination of broad erudition and solid prose, this is an engaging and instuctive book.

We ordered this book as a reading for our 'Old Curmudgeons Book Club'. The book club is made up of a small bunch of 'older guys', i.e. in their 50s and 60s. We get together once a month and disucss non-fiction books. We've been doing this for about 15 years now. The book has to have something important to say about the human condition. Since nations and nationalism play such an important role in the 20th and 21st centuries, we thought it important to get a better handle on this. Hobsbawm's book helps us to understand the incredibly short time that nations and nationalisms have played a big role in the human experience. It is essentially a 19th century invention and yet it has become such a part of our thinking - e.g. the notion of the inviolability of national sovereignty, the whole business of being an 'American', Briton, Australian, etc. which is such an important part of self identity. One piece of information I found to be astonishing is the statement that at the time of the founding of modern 'Italy',in the mid 19th century, only 2.5% of the population in the territory now known as Italy spoke Italian. Hobsbawm's book then, helps to put into perspective the whole notion of nation and nationalism and helps us to be a bit more critical and more sceptical (suspicious perhaps) when political leaders appeal in language such as 'My fellow Americans', or 'Canadians believe that...', etc. Oh yeah? (What's America? What's Canada, etc.? It helps us to recall Samuel Johnson's famous and useful phrase 'Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel'. Of course, we can get into debates about the difference between 'nationalism' and 'patriotism' but, for my money, they're pretty much the same thing and both are based on unexamined assumptions. Hobsbawm's book will get you thinking about these issues.
Jim Ward