Politics Government Books

Of all the folks in the storied history of this world of ours, Mr. Lincoln is the one I'd most like to have had the opportunity to meet....this book takes one as close as he or she can get to that imaginary event.

I bought this book as a gift for my husband who has been interested in Linclon ever since reading "Lincoln: The Unknown" by Dale Carnegie. Since receiving the book he has become interested in studying Lincoln's prose to improve his own written communication skills. I've read parts and it is truly fascinating---there are letters to his wife Mary Todd Lincoln and to other notable historical persons (and various others) that help us to see Mr. Lincoln as he really was---kind, clever, quick-witted, and intelligent.

This book chronicles not only texts of key speeches showing the evolution of Lincoln's view of slavery, but also insightful letters revealing some private thoughts of this shrewd railroad lawyer whose ambition propelled him to heights that made him the best President our Republic has ever seen. The 1838 Lyceum speech of Lincoln's youth gives stunning insight into that ambition. This book supports the notion that Lincoln was also the greatest writer to ever occupy the White House, revealing an impressive variety of literary styles, from meticulous legal argumentation to a dry, concise wit. In light of Lincoln's literary legacy, it is no wonder that each President since Woodrow Wilson has deemed the aid of professional speechwriters vital to their strategies. And even with the professional help the modern chief executives have gotten, Lincoln's rhetoric remains the most sublime of all our Presidents.

The musty, stoic Lincoln of folklore is brought to life in the pages of this book, and in the best way possible... through his own words. Abraham Lincoln, we discover through his letters and speeches, was first and foremost an intellectual: one can feel his pain as he writes poetry about homesickness and the loss of a close friend to mental illness; one can hear his enthusiasm as he discusses the history of communication and human progress, to such a degree that he goes off on fascinating tangents; one can detect barely-suppressed anger at pro-slavery activists who lynched an abolitionist in 1838, or at the hypocrisy of popular sovereignty when espoused by Stephen Douglas twenty years later. I refer to him here as an intellectual because the defining characteristic that underlies the majority of these letters is the way that Lincoln uses his mind to both understand and make his way through the world he occupied. One can see him exploring new ideas, contemplating contemporary events, attempting to formulate political strategies, and so on; his cerebral nature shines through every page. I can think of no better way to get to know one of our nation's three greatest presidents (along with George Washington and Franklin Roosevelt) than through the pages of this book.

Abraham Lincoln is a giant in American history, but it wasn't until I read his speeches and writings that his wisdom and wit became apparent. This is a man born in the depths of poverty, and who climbed to the very top. The Gettysburg Address, largely ignored when it was first given, has risen to become one of the most profound, definite, and understood explanations of the American dream..."we will witness a new birth of freedom...that government ofthe people, by the people, and for the people will not perish from the earth..." God Bless Lincoln, and God Bless America.

In After Hegemony neoliberal institutionalist Robert O. Keohane deals with the 'central political dilemma': How to organize international cooperation without hegemony? Or in other words, is cooperation possible in the post-hegemonic world? Keohane audaciously contends that cooperation is possible without hegemony since international regimes make this cooperation possible. In this sense, he criticizes hegemonic stability theory (HST) since HST necessitates a hegemon for regime maintenance specifically and for international cooperation in general. This book, however, might not be considered as a fundamental criticism of the realist theory since it accepts basic realist premises of international cooperation. For instance, he takes states as the major actors in international politics in which they have interest maximizing goals. On the other hand, Keohane also basically argues that 'although hegemony can facilitate cooperation, it is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for it...hegemony is less important for the continuation of cooperation, once after began, than for its creation'.In this respect, he differentiates hegemon's role in creation of international regimes from their maintenance. While he keeps hegemonic power important in creating regimes he does not see hegemon so significant for the their maintenance. What are the functions and/or benefits of international regimes? Institutions/regimes provide information, decrease transaction costs, monitor compliance, create issue linkages and prevent cehating. Then, they serve states' self-interests and generate international cooperation. Fear of retaliation and search for reputation are the key reasons why states eschew to break the rules of international regimes. The concept of 'bounded rationality' is also important in Keohane's functionalist theory of regimes. In this framework, states are willing to uphold international regimes for their self-interests. According to him 'bounded rationality' relaxes the strict assumptions of rationality and they make states emphatically interdependent to each other. Then it leads to shifts in state preferences and they will be more likely to cooperate by means of international regimes. In this respect, Keohane tends generally to see interdependence as a beneficial element for international cooperation. Moreover, After Hegemony have case studies in three issue areas; trade, money, and oil. Keohane examines international regimes in these areas for post-hegemonic period when the US power began to decline by the early 1970s. He finds hegemonic stability theory relevant for oil while he does not for the issue areas of trade and money. in this sense, he also point out the limits and possibilities of both HST and his regime theory.Overarall, he makes the point: non-hegemonic cooperation is difficult but not impossible.

I have never shared realism's pessimism towards international politics in general and international cooperation in particular. For me, cooperation among states was logical and practical. It was logical, because in the long run cooperative states were better off than non-cooperative ones; it was practical, because most international problems -such as nonproliferation of nuclear weapons, setting up an international monetary system, and alleviating international poverty- required collective solutions. What makes Robert Keohane's After Hegemony important in my eyes is its logical and empirical support to the possibility and existence of cooperation among states.

The aftermath of WWII witnessed a mushrooming of international organizations/institutions to facilitate international cooperation in political as well as economic issues. The dominant realist theory of international relations did not have a well-defined theory of international organizations. But a sub-theory of realism -hegemonic stability theory- argued that the unchallenged hegemony of the United States was the driving force behind this international institutionalization and the relative peace it espoused (Gilpin 1981). All these institutions were established under the hegemony of the US and therefore their influence on world politics was dependent on the hegemonic status of the US. Thus, when in 1970's and 1980's the hegemony of the US declined with the recuperation of the Japanese and the West European economies, hegemonic stability theory expected a reversal in the impact of international institutions on world politics.

Keohane's central aim in After Hegemony is to challenge these pessimist realist evaluations of the decline in US hegemony. Keohane rejects realism's pessimist evaluations on two grounds. First, he argues that international cooperation is possible among nations and does not require a hegemon in the first place. Second, he argues that even though the national interests of states have a role in the establishment of international institutions, these institutions take a life of their own once they start rolling.

Keohane first challenges the neorealist link between states' egoism and the rarity of cooperation among them. He states, "Realist assumptions about world politics are consistent with the formation of institutionalized arrangements, containing rules and principles, which promote cooperation," (67). He maintains that egoistic governments "can rationally seek to form international regimes on the basis of shared interest," which actually reflects "rational egoism," (107). From his perspective, only a "myopic self-interest" understanding prevents states from cooperating when it is actually in their interest if the issue is evaluated with other issues (99).

Keohane then develops a theory of international institutions in which he argues that international institutions, or more broadly international regimes, influence the way and the extent to which states cooperate with each other. He states that by providing principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures, regimes "prescribe certain actions and proscribe others," (59). However, international regimes are valuable to governments not because they enforce binding rules on others, "but because they render it possible for governments to enter into mutually beneficial agreements with one another," (13). Regimes do that through multiple channels. First, they create an environment whereby states obtain information about other states' intentions and preferences. Second, international regimes can be regarded as "quasi agreements", which, although lacking a legally binding force, "help to organize relationships in mutually beneficial way," (89). Once a regime is established, states' concern about `retaliation' and `reputation' makes them "forward looking" and generally urges them to cooperate. And third, Keohane argues that international regimes decrease "transaction costs" for parties involved, thereby increasing incentives to cooperate (90).
Keohane was heavily influence by Ernst Haas who challenged the statist view in international politics and argued that the actors in international relations are all entities capable of putting forth demands effectively; "who or what these entities may be cannot be answered a priori," (1964, 84). Thus, Keohane is opposed to the realists' argument on the insignificance of international institutions and argues that regimes can affect the interests and policies of states by influencing their "expectations and values," (63). Although he accepts that international regimes are not "beyond the nation-state," he maintains that they are not pure "dependent variables" as argued by neorealists, but rather "intervening variables" with semi-independent effects on states' behavior (63-4). Therefore, international regimes are easier to maintain than to create (50).

I do not have significant problems with the institutionalist theory Keohane develops in After Hegemony. Yet I must confess that institutional theory is more a theory of international cooperation than a theory of international relations. By borrowing from both realism and liberalism, Keohane succeeded in developing a concrete and persuasive theory of cooperation among states. Also, like some others (Moravscik 1997, Mearsheimer 1995, Gilpin 2001) I do not think that Keohane's institutional theory can be regarded as a "neoliberal" argument. Keohane shares realism's assumptions of anarchy, rationality, and egoism but maintains a more optimistic view on the cooperation among states. Hence, as he himself states elsewhere, his position is not "against" structural realism, but "beyond" structural realism (1984, 191). Personally, I would rather consider him an "optimistic realist" than a "neoliberal institutionalist". Yet this does not undermine the strength of his arguments.

Finally, if empirical evidence is a support to the accuracy of theories, the history of the European Union since the end of the Cold War gives extensive support to Keohane's argument on international institutions. Some realist (Mearsheimer 1990) expected a reversal in the integration of European countries after the end of the Cold War. By contrast, Keohane argued that because common interests are likely to persists and the institutions of the European Community are well-entrenched, we should expect further integration in Europe (1993, 291). The current deepening as well as expansion of European integration after the Cold War confirms Keohane's prediction and gives further support to Keohane's institutional arguments.

Hegemony is a popular buzz word in international politics these days. Talking heads throw it around every Sunday morning. So one might expect a book entitled After Hegemony to be discussion on American foreign policy "after hegemony." In this case - Wrong! This is a nearly 20 year old book with a title that is currently a trendy topic. And it deals with political economy and "regime" formation, such as international monetary regime, international trade regime, and international oil regime, how these regimes were founded during the time period the author considers the time of US economic (and military) hegemony (the 1950's and 60's) and how they evolved during the years after US hegemony had passed according to the author.

For students and academics who are interested in the political and economic theory of how organizations are created and evolve, how "rational actors" (governments) behave on the macro scale, how preponderance of power allows a nation to create regimes (that is rules sets) that favor its policies, how these regimes become self-perpetuating, this is the book. It is an academic analysis of the subjects.

If you are looking for something relating to the oft discussed current "American Hegemony" and its likely impact on US and world relations, this is not the book. Look on.

Robert Keohane is one of the top five International Relations theorists today. His book "After Hegemony", written in 1984, is considered to be the iniciator of the neoliberal institutionalist school of IR. In this book, Keohane shows that although states live in an anarchic world and are racional actors, they can cooperate with each other through institutions. This book revolutionalised the field and opened a fierce debate on cooperation that lasts until now. A very interesting book written by a master in the field - that is enough recommendation.

Dr. Schick's book is outstanding. If you use this book in the classroom or teach the congressional or federal budget process, you should also look at the Congressional Operations Poster.

One side of the poster covers the federal budget process, with a flowchart that is very useful when teaching about the federal or congressional budget process. (But don't take my word that the poster is useful - I have seen it hanging in federal agency offices in Washington, DC.) The publisher, TheCapitol.Net, has more information about the poster, and many useful links, on their web site: congressposter.com

Best bet is to buy Dr. Shick's book and the Congressional Operations Poster.

I would not take Stupid White Men seriously. I wonder if it was intended as a humorous sally lobbied into the ether, but you can't be sure with Moore. It comes across as a rant against every ill he can conjure up that oppresses his view of what America should be - and clearly isn't, at least to Moore. I found it very funny at times, but I also found it very one-sided and even disturbing, as when he suggests that blacks in America will one day rise up and violently overpower whites.
I think to suggest that white men are the sole reason this country is in bad shape is simplistic, although I definitely agreed with some of his reasoning. There is no doubt in my mind that white men have perpetrated many ills. But how can you paint the picture so broadly? Moore can, happily. He never bothers to give us both sides of the equation - this is a one-sided rant that picks up steam as it goes on, as if he's writing it while swilling down a giant tanker of coffee.
Moore has been characterized as a hysterical populist who has tinkered with the footage of his movies and, in real life, ain't such a nice guy. I don't know if he is, or he isn't. I read this book for entertainment purposes only - to take it seriously would suggest a higher level of reasoning and deduction than are contained therein.

I do not really think this book is for someone that has a thorough knowledge of politics. In general, it could have been written in a more eloquent manner; as it is easy to notice that it is for the average, disgruntled American or someone that does not like America period. Most of these people do not read enough to criticize anything. If you are ignorant to the dynamic of American politics than this book seems like it is revealing something profound. Truly, it is not. Moore tries to be a "shock jock" in the political sense but he is more than likely a hypocrite in many different ways. If you want to hear a unique yet a poorly defined argument, than read this book. I would not waste my money or time on this book. Be warned about Moore because he is really sly in how he presents his research. I also get the feeling that he is anti-semitic. Moore also tries to appeal to the poor, the lower middle class, and to minorities in a way that makes him seem holier than thou. It is my honest guess that he is a flaming racist as well, even though he pretends not to be. Moore is a fake. Do not be taken by the way he constructs his arguments as there are many holes in his presentation. If you are using this book to present a well-defined argument, something with more clout, than read Noam Chomsky. I do not always agree with Noam Chomsky but at least you could be prepared to tackle all sides of a political argument, whether you agree or disagree. Lastly, do not let Moore put you into an emotionally charged state that is his usual aim, it is so obvious and weak on his part. Honestly, it's hilarious that he actually wasted people's time in droves, including my own. In the interim he made money, I should have never read it. As someone else said, even a penny is too much for this book! You may even have a few smirks or laughs at the content, but it is not worth such an unsophisticated experience. In retrospect, I wonder if he wrote this book the way that most respectable authors would have written it; or did he just put on a cape, a top hat, and wave his magic wand and said, "Abracadabra!" It is shameful that Moore IS aware of the group of people that he is using in order to get his poorly examined point across. Moore's formula reminds me of Ralph Nader's speeches because he complains about everything but I am not underneath the guise that he tries to create. Moore has an alterior motive and I am not convinced that he believes his own argument which is drowning in mediocrity and ignorance. If Moore ran for President of the United States, would you vote for him? Just think about Moore running the country for four years! Please! Spare me. I would vote for the Fonz before I voted for Micheal Moore. Do you understand? Do not buy this book.

Upon the release of Stupid White Men, Michael Moore has arguably established himself as the answer of moderates and liberals to the likes of corporate America.

Though many are outraged about the allegations of this book, it is not so apparent that Moore's critics and opponents have answered the indictments in this publication with strong, highly reasonable, clearly expressed responses. From what I see and hear on most of the news shows, the only discussions from pundits center around using false diatribes and trying with no success to portray Moore as an anti-patriot. They just cannot seem to effectively deconstruct the perceived merits and flaws of this work, whether in print or on film.

I do agree that this book might be somewhat slanted, but the so-called extenuating circumstances that critics have tried to espouse in defense of the State of the Union hold very little weight. And who are these critics? Again, Moore's opponents.

Don't get me wrong. There are annoyances from the leftist view, but when you have those espousing their venom under the guise of news talk radio, leaving little room, if any, for other points of view, perhaps for those other opinions to receive any undivided, uninterrupted attention this book had to come out.

Our nation is divided. Plus, it does not help when it is so apparent that those in power seek to elevate their status, regardless of whether it is at the expense of America's working classes. And if they took the time to read this book, then they might conclude deep down inside that Moore has managed to hold a mirror that reflects their greedy, prideful arrogance.

This is an autobiography, I think. Michael is about the size of two of me, which means that he can be considered more than one.

In fact, the better title for this book would have been "The Stupid White Whale." But I think Mr. Moore respects whales, so he didn't do that.

He was 100% right on everything. Time is the true judge and it show Michael 100% right about Bush. He picked his buddy to run government. How many have resigned, been indicted, be convicted? Remember FEMA and Katrina?

This book is the result of a very thorough and detailed investigation. Some of the chapters are more exciting than you'd expect from a book like this. For some other chapters you need a little interest in politics.

This is a must read for anyone with any concern for personal privacy

Whether its through cameras, ATMs, your cell phone, your credit cards or anything digital, someone knows where you are at all times.

Roger O'Harrow has written an unbelievably real account of our surveillance society. It's very real, and doesn't take much: cameras, ATMs, your cell phone, your credit cards or anything digital, and they know where you are. Big government may have weak regulations about compiling your information, but big corporations have no restrictions on what information they can gather and store on you.

Orwellian society has already started.

Robert O'Harrow writes about what data can be collected on individuals, who collects it and who uses it. In a nutshell, data is collected by the various parts of the government (CIA, NSA, etc) and private businesses. Some of the private businesses sell the collected data further, and some of this is also used by law enforcement (including PIs and 'bounty hunters'). This latter issue can be of concern if you think you might one day have to deal with an disgruntled ex-spouse, ex-employee (or a current employees ex-) or have a relative who might be searched by bounty hunters.

If you have an understanding of the technical aspects of what can be done with information technology, the book probably would not surprise you much at all. However, you might still find it interesting (I know I did) for providing a clearer picture of the extent of data gathering. The only drawback with the book is that, overall, it can be a bit tedious to read.

In any case this book is a good 'companion' to a book of privacy called "How to be invisible" by J.J. Luna. Together with the information in Luna's book, it helps provide an answer to the question "why should I need to be invisible?"

While Robert O'Harrow does not write about what you can do to minimize the data gathered about you, he helps provide a motivation for you to take necessary steps so that that data can not be used to connect your actual name with your actual residence. How to do this (legally) is discussed in J.J. Luna's book.

How to Be Invisible: The Essential Guide to Protecting Your Personal Privacy, Your Assets, and Your Life (Revised Edition)

[Later addition: I happened to find a website that sells a DVD titled "Privacy is dead", containing a presentation by Steven Rambam (a P.I.). Steven's presentation is about the amount of information available on each person in the U.S. and how easily this can be retrieved. I have not viewed the DVD so I do not know how 'good' it is, but if you are interested, you can find it with a search engine. Recommendation: check the Wikipedia article on the speaker before buying the DVD.]

The title says it all: you cannot remain anonymous or hidden any more, anyone with the will or intent can find out a wealth of information about you, and resistance is futile. O'Harrow goes through a laundry list of means that are utilized to capture and share information about you, all without your knowledge or consent. There are companies that exist solely for the purpose of gathering and selling personal information. That's capitalism at work for you (or is it against you?). A fact of life in the information age is that things that make life much easier and simpler for us are also the primary sources for diminishing our privacy. This double-edged sword really does cut both ways, since it is a price we pay for ease, convenience and protection. The irony is that we have struggled and fought for our freedom, yet are not able to survive today without the protections afforded by these measures. It is frightening to think that we can be tracked by satellite when we use GPS in our cars or when we use a credit card at a store. Our grocers know our buying habits because we use their store's discount cards in order to save ourselves money. Phone records indicate whom we called and at what time. Just try to live today without credit cards or a phone! It is difficult to ascertain O'Harrow's purpose for writing this book because he leaves many conclusions to us. Does he take some perverse pleasure in making us feel powerless? Or perhaps he is alerting us to information collecting methods so that we take precautionary measures? We can take precautions, yet if our identity is stolen, laws are designed to protect credit card companies, not us. Only as a majority would we be able to reverse this trend and return to anonymity, though what would be the repercussions of this? Whatever the purpose for the book, it is reasonably informative and at the very least should spur us to contemplate this topical and pervasive issue.

Every so often, I have taught graduate (and even undergraduate) courses in policy analysis. While I have never assigned this book, it is commonly on my "short list" of possible texts. Thus, I obviously think that this book does its job well.

Michael Munger begins by laying out the questions that policy analysis tries to answer (Page xi): "First, what would be the best thing to do? Second, what is the best result that can actually be achieved?" He notes that this book tries to address those two central questions. He also observes that humans have only, in his view, a limited number of options for organizing human activity--including policy decisions: the market, leadership by authority (whether due to knowledge, power, repression, etc.), and democracy (somehow the people, whether directly or indirectly, affect government decisions). A bit simplistic in my view, but not a bad starting point.

The book explores a number of key issues. At the outset he discusses the nature of the profession of policy analysis, how we decide, and the role of markets. For many policy analysts, economic analysis, focusing on the market and whether or not it can deliver services on its own. When markets fail, so gores the logic, government steps in to set things right (e.g., if a monopoly abuses its powerful position). Also considered is how regulation does (and sometimes does not) work. One nice contribution is a reasonably transparent and understandable discussion of a basic tool of policy analysis, cost-benefit analysis.

Anyhow, this is a useful textbook. It can also be a nice resource for those who are not students, but who have some knowledge of the subject matter and an interest in gaining a more in depth understanding of the approach.

As a student in introductory policy analysis, I fully enjoyed the author's approach to policy. Without an extensive background in economics or political science, the text was still quite manageable because it flowed. It gives enough background info in order to better understand concepts without being a long text. Entertaining, witty, and thorough throughout, the professor I know as a brilliant man who worked for the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, enlightens with great precision. Blending a little history of economic and political theory with a skillful modern twist, this is introductory public policy analysis at its best. Highly recommended.

This book details the ATF's extensive attempt to infiltrate the Hells Angels. The operation put the undercover agents through hell and produced nothing. The agents discovered that the Hells Angels displayed far more loyalty and genuine caring for them than their supervisors did. The operation was poorly run and poorly planned. Millions of dollars of taxpayer's money spent with no results. This book does provide a limited "insider's" view of the Hells Angels, but provides a better illustration of federal law enforcement's paranoia and obsession with biker clubs.

This book is absolute GARBAGE. A middle schooler could write a better book. I wouldn't recommend this book to anyone. I want my money back

I thought this book would be much better from the hype I read. No so as it is long and boring. Not much action, constant repeating and not much of a story. Maybe they could not tell much because of secrets not being allowed out. Yeah, that's it!

The job done by the cops - tough and respectable. The job done by the Angels - tough and respectable. The job done by the author - weak. Reads like a fiction novel.

This was absolutely the worst wriiten book I have ever read. The subject matter is great and should be very interesting and informative but the author DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO WRITE. It makes no sense and the characters are unidentifiable. It is very unfortunate the ATF agents risked their lives and allowed the author to butcher their story. Please do not waist your time or money on this book like I did.