Politics Government Books

I loved Nickel and Dimed and was happy to find this book. As with her other book, Ehrenreich comes across as a very sincere and compassionate person. She is funny, too, and makes the book enjoyable.
Not sure if I completely buy into her viewpoint and am left wondering how her job search was so futile.
All in all, a good book about real life in the U.S.A.

OK, so it may be that the blue and pink collar work force is easier to love than middle management. It may be that the real heroism in this country is found closer to the poverty line then to middle management. Certainly, it is clear that Barbara Ehrenreich believes this to be true. A comparison of Bait and Switch with her earlier Nickel and Dimed demonstrated that while Ehrenreich finds much to lament in the plight of the working class, she generally finds the corporate world laughable and the white collar unemployed closer to pathetic than tragic. Perhaps these are defensible stances, but not when you present yourself, which she shamelessly and unironically does at one point, as deeply compassionate and empathetic, or as the scholarly investigative writer she equally believes herself to represent.

I am always at least a bit put off by investigative writers and documentarians who put themselves at the heart of the story they tell. While it may be necessary to assume a disguise when penetrating a secretive organization or particularly shadowy corporation, surely at least some of the middle class unemployed are not unwilling to speak frankly about their experiences and expectations. Why would stories told in the real voices of the unemployed be less compelling or insightful than Ehrenreich's own? But, putting this initial, and only slight objection aside (it is fun, after all, to read the narrative of a complete outsider penetrating a new world, even if not entirely convincing) my major objection to this book is how callously Ehrenreich dismisses the unemployed workers she interacts with as automatons and gullible fools. Ehrenreich's time spent among job coaches and consultants as an ersatz job seeker causes her to deride the industry as filled with "victim blamers" who cause the unemployed to question their own self worth rather than external forces like the market and unethical corporations that might be equally culpable.

However, more subtly but equally insidiously, Ehrenreich spends much of the book engaging in equally cold victim blaming: after all, she implies, only the truly stupid and unaware would fall into obvious traps like image consulting and faith-based networking when looking for a new position. Unlike the working class, Ehrenreich seems to suggest, these people should know better. Of course, she never stops to consider that many job seekers likely don't go the route she takes when looking for a new position. I have known a few of the unemployed middle class, at least one of whom was recently without work for more than a year, and none used the myriad methods Ehrenreich so condescendingly employs. But more importantly, are those who do use such methods really to be mocked rather than pitied? Desperation makes even very smart, very capable people fall pray to illogical behavior. Surely this is a demonstration of how much these people want to find employment, not of their congenital stupidity.

But by far the most egregious assumption made by Ehrenreich is that she is not only utterly qualified for a corporate position, but that she is over-qualified. I noticed a similar, although slightly less pervasive suggestion, in Nickel and Dimed. In that book, she mentions that nobody who interviewed or hired her ever commented on her education or that she was a writer. Gee. I've known someone with three degrees, two of them Master's, and two very prestigious schools on her resume who spent the past year working at a minimum wage job in Chicago because nobody wants an historian or a English professor. Maybe the reason nobody hiring her asked about her qualifications is because they see it all the time, and it says absolutely nothing for the applicant's ability to clean toilets or fold shirts. In this newer book, Ehrenreich is even more insulting. She seems to think that people should be lining up to hire someone with her not very impressive sounding and MADE UP credentials. Can't imagine why nobody jumped at the opportunity presented there. I wonder how she would react to a typical corporate-type who showed up at her door, insisted they were qualified to be a co-author on her next project, and then provided a falsified resume to strengthen their assertion. Surely, she would explain the many hours, even years, which went into honing her craft. She would talk about training and education, the commitment needed to get up every day and write a book. But, she thinks so little of the profession she attempts to enter that she assumes her skills are not only transferable, but better than.

Alright, admittedly, this is a really long review and diatribe. And all this being said, I do think there is a great deal in the corporate world that should be changed. I agree with Ehrenreich that we should be marching for health care coverage, and to remove more bias from the workplace. The state of the unemployed from all walks of life is lamentable, and I hope never to find myself back in the grind of job-hunting or working in the corporate world, either as a member of middle management or a blue-collar worker. But, I also think that the academic and non-profit worlds are generally out of touch and condescending. I find it hypocritical to assume that anyone with half a brain, or a conscience, would follow the same path you yourself have taken. There are good people who end up corporate managers, born-again Christians, and Republicans. Really. And if Ehrenreich has no empathy for the middle class, she shouldn't write about them while professing something else entirely.

I will start this off by saying I *loved* "Nickeled and Dimed". I worked in low-end retail jobs for years and was surrounded by the kind of people she profiled, who had slipped through the cracks and couldn't climb back up. But this book was riddled with problems.

She wants to write an expose on white-collar jobs, but then couldn't get one. At some point she should have re-pitched the book, retitled it, and made it solely about job hunting. As it is, she starts off talking about A, then couldn't get A, and awkwardly spends the rest of the book talking about B.

And honestly, she didn't do a very good job with B. She tried to get a job as a PR worker to illustrate how hard it is to get a white collar job, but I would have had more sympathy for her if she had actually done that search correctly. She didn't research the jargon she should have known or the subjects she should have been talking about.

She pitched herself, over and over again, with this phrase she thought up about PR being about starting fires, not just putting them out. She talks like this is some kind of clever insight, like this line would get a HR rep thinking, but my first reaction was "DUH". I have worked with plenty of PR people, and NONE of them were ever employed to "put out" a fire. (Companies respond to PR problems by ignoring them, because they know you'll forget everything soon enough.) Every PR person I've worked with knew their job was to "start fires" 8 hours a day. What's especially baffling is that *she's an author*! She must be dealing with PR people every single day! How could she not have known how they talk or what they do? Why does she think they're professional cover-up scandal-spinners?

So the book about white collar America turned into a book about finding a job, but really, it was about people who weren't competent enough to find one.

Excellently written - I flew through this book. The story--her hunt for a white collar job--is so depressing. For those unlucky-enough to be cast-aside without prospects, the road back to employment is pretty dreary. Between ineffective career coaches, pointless networking sessions, and commission-only sales jobs, I wonder how anyone can stay sane during the ordeal...

Barbara Ehrenreich is right: there really is a crisis going on, a "hidden" crisis if you will, although I'm beginning to think this is more of a case of sheer denial.

I can't imagine why any person, knowing the odds, would choose to work in the white-collar "business," i.e. administrative world. There is no security in jobs nowadays, but even less in such work environs. I would certainly never pursue a Masters in Business as I had once envisioned, especially now that I have seen several people I know personally, struggle to find new jobs after mass layoffs.

The entire business of business nowdays seems nothing more than a pyramid scheme, and the hard-working American worker is nothing but a pawn. As Ehrenreich also pointed out, the blame is always placed on the employee. You're either not trying hard enough to "sell" yourself, or you're not wearing the right shades of lipstick. (Nonsense!) I've also noted myself how temp agencies try to blame the employee in this manner.

It's strange how in the past, workers at the top used to take less in pay to keep those around who were lower on the rung, but even that doesn't happen anymore, not in today's sleek and cruel "dog eat dog" world. People should take a look at their priorities and realise that this life isn't all about themselves.

This book gave me a great overview of modern political thought. I had previously read other introductions, and this one beat them hand down. I can recommend it to anyone getting into the field, also beginners as I found it to be easy to understand.

Some reviewers have commented on him interjecting personal ideas. I did not find that annoying at all. Better he express his opinions outright then try to sneak them in. His opinions were part of the larger narrative and were not forced upon the reader. I think it definitely added something to a book that would perhaps otherwise be a dry introduction. Well done by Kymlicka!

I am a layperson in political philosophy. I found the book comprehensive and easy to understand. Actually, I had borrowed the book at first from a libray and then decided to purchase it, because I found it so good and helpful in my understanding of our political and social systems and the underlying philosophical thoughts.

The essays in here cover the core themes of contemporary Western political thought - liberal egalitarianism, libertarianism, reconstructed Marxism, comunitarianism etc. Most of the bases are covered, and the prevailing arguments are treated with intelligence and insight. Kymlicka is obviously a socially orientated liberal, and supports arguments to this effect, but is always balanced and considerate in his approach of a wide variety of thinkers. This book is best used in conjunction with other texts and journal articles to gain more incisive insight.

I used it in my undergraduate political theory studies to good effect.

This is a first rate survey of modern political philosophy. Kymlicka devotes individual chapters to Utilitarianism, Liberal Equality views (eg, Rawls and Dworkin), Libertarianism, Marxism, Communitarianism, Citizenship Theory, Multiculturalism, and Feminism. Kymlicka's approach is the same in each chapter. He attempts to describe each position as fairly and charitably as possible, followed by criticism of the position. Kymlicka is an excellent critic and clear writer, logical and fair minded. In general, most positions, including Utilitarianism, Libertarianism, Marxism, and the different strains of Communitarianism receive vigorous criticism. Liberal Equality views, such as those of Rawls and Dworkin, fare better, though Kymlicka points out a number of problems with these positions as well. In Kymlicka's analysis, the Liberal Equality theories often capture the better features of alternative theories but without many of the inconsistencies and problems exhibited by these theories. Kymlicka does sometimes use a problematic argument. In some disucssions of non-Liberal theories, he will resort to appeals to intuition to attack those theories. For example, the strict application of some forms of Utilitarianism seems to violate our sense of the sanctity of human rights. This is a fair argument but it may have limitations not acknowledged by Kymlicka. Given that most readers of this book have been raised in essentially Liberal societies, its likely their intuitions will be Liberal in nature. What would happen if appealing to intuitions of people raised in a caste based or highly egalitarian society? Kymlicka has a thoughtful chapter on Multiculturalism, which is an area of considerable interest to him. He concludes with a weaker chapter on Feminism, which I think is a bit short sighted and underestimates the impact of present approaches to improving the state of women.
All chapters have fine footnotes and excellent bibliographies.

This book contains the best overview of all the important themes, subjects and schools of contemporary normative political philosophy. The language is simple yet elegant and it might indeed be fun to read at some points.

The chapters it contains are as follows:

2. Utilitarianism - the best discussion of utilitarianism I have found. Beats all introductory ethics books by far (see my other reviews).

3. Liberal egalitarianism - Very good overview of Rawls's earlier theory (TJ). He doesn't commit the regular mistakes that introductory books make, but sees Rawls's arguments as they should be seen. Contains also a great overview of a much less-known theory of Dworkin (which was only available in articles before "Sovereign Virtue" 2000).

4. Libertarianism - Indepth overview of Nozick's theory + very good counterarguments. Sees Nozick as he should be seen with the concept of self-ownership at the center of the entitlement theory. Great discussion of the rebuttals to Chamberlain experiment. Nozick can be interpreted differently, but Kymlickas is also an adequate one. This chapter also includes an overview of contractarian mutual advantage theory put forward by David Gauthier. It concludes with a good discussion of libertarianism and freedom and how they do not really fit together.

5. Marxism - Indepth overview of contemporary analytical marxism in the context of politics. Discussion of the marxist rejection of justice, marxist arguments for abolishing private property, about exploitation and about alienation. Guys mentioned are Cohen, Elster, Roemer and others. You wont find this material elsewhere.

6. Communitarianism - The movement of the 80s. Great discussion of philosophical communitarianism's main ideas like: politics of the common good, social self, social thesis and etc. Sandel and Taylor are mostly mentioned, Walzer and MacIntyre less so.

7. Citizenship theory/ 8. Multiculturalism - an addition in the new, 2001 edition. Haven't read those parts yet, but since these are the areas that Kymlicka is the most known scholar in, you should know what to expect.

9. Feminism - A very interesting overview of the wide field of feminism in politics. Touches upon sexual equality and discrimination, the public and the private and the ethic of care (Gilligan and others).

You will also get a great bibliography and a lot of ideas for further reading. It is a must have for any aspiring student in political philosophy or ethics. Kymlicka himself seems to support a somewhat liberal position most, although he doesn't explicitly state it.

BUT

It is not only for students. If you read a lot of primary sources you can see that many quote this book. It isnt just a neutral introductory volume (there are no such things in phil anyway), but a book with many good arguments by Kymlicka not found elsewhere. Of course it also contains good overviews of arguments found in articles that are not usually available for or read by most people. So even a working scholar can benefit a lot from this book - but they probably know that already :)

P.S to the reviewer who had doubts about treating Nozick on the basis of equality. Nozicks theory is not about equality in the real world, but the justification of the theory is in some sense the equality of everyones self-ownership rights. This is the reason Kymlicka deals with Nozick in the way he does.

The greatest thing about this book is that Schelling makes it so readable. Unlike many scholar-type, who sometimes write in Martian, Schelling carefully dissect a delicate subject (arms, deterrence, and war) into explanable sections. The next thing that's good about this book is that it educates the readers on the subtlety in formulating responses to world events. People, who read this book, will watch the news or read the newspapers with a much more critical view of what decision makers are trying to do and possibly formulate your own judgement instead of listening to media pundits criticize any decisons ever made.

... because you can see some of the flaws in retrospect.

Arms & Influence is a little repetitive, but still a fascinating look at the way countries can use war, violence, threats and generally nasty behavior to get what they want. Schelling analyzes war in terms of "bargaining" - i.e. we'll hit you this hard now to show we mean it, and ten times harder if you don't give us what you want next week.

The theory explains a lot - but if you take it too far it can be too clever by half. One of his examples of a precise, well-considered and effective strike intended to deliver a clear message that an adversary would have to recognize is the Johnson Administration's retaliation for the Tonkin Gulf incident. The book was written in early 1965.

I read this book for a political science class in advanced international relations theory. Even considering the topic of the class, I couldn't put this book down. Schelling writes for the average reader on subjects everybody can use in their daily lives, and applies them to international relations. Regardless of your area of study, this book offers something for everybody.

American Diplomacy, by George F. Kennan, consists of two sets of lectures that Kennan gave in the 1950s plus two articles he wrote for Foreign Affairs. The lectures present lessons Kennan derived from his studies and/or personnel experience in selected episodes of US diplomatic history from the Spanish-American War through the Cold War. Some of the most interesting observations from his lectures include the following.

* Any system of world law is inherently based on some set of moral principles, stated or not, which make transgressors into moral outcasts. Enforcement of world law then becomes a moral crusade, frequently resulting in a war that lasts to the bitter end.
* Diplomacy needs to rely on a case-by-case consideration of each situation and search for the best resolution to each conflict.
* Prior to WWI, wars were more limited in objectives. Total war probably eliminates the possibility of total victory, save by the annihilation of the enemy. Diplomacy based on national self-interest works better because it doesn't create moral crusades, thereby allowing negotiation, compromise, and the termination of conflicts on terms short of total victory for either side.
* Truth and reason are poor competitors when confronted with moral certitude. WWI was a transition from truth and reason to moral certitude and hatred on both sides, and these seeds grew into WWII and the Cold War.
* Once war has been entered, democracies tend to fight to the bitter end, demanding unconditional surrender, to teach the adversary an unforgettable lesson. This was demonstrated in both world wars. As long as Hitler led Nazi Germany, there may not have been a feasible alternative to unconditional surrender. However, publically announcing unconditional surrender as our non-negotiable war aim probably undermined any possibility of Hitler's removal by more rational elements of the German army.
* How do individual ethics differ from national or collective ethics? The individual has far more freedom since only he is impacted by his choices.
* Diplomacy based on a concept of world law will fail because such a structure is inherently too rigid, ignores interactions of domestic and international affairs, assumes that all nations are equally legitimate, and relies on collective military action for enforcement, ignoring the centrifugal nature of coalitions. It also ignores the problem of large, powerful states' unwillingness to abide by the legal system.

Kennan's two papers from Foreign Affairs are equally interesting.

* "The Sources of Soviet Conduct" (1947) is the public version the Kennan's famous "Long Telegram" sent from the US Embassy in Moscow in 1946. In it, Kennan laid the foundations for the policy of containment which served as the basis for US policy toward the Soviet Union for the next 40 years. In Kennan's mind, containment was primarily a political and economic, rather than military, policy. His views led to the Marshall Plan to rebuild Western Europe, thereby reducing the appeal communism to Europeans.
* "America and the Russian Future" (1951) is less well known that the first article. However, it is particularly interesting for its prescience in forecasting, 40 years in advance, essentially how the Soviet Union would either reform or self-destruct. Kennan maintained that a new generation of leaders would be necessary to reform the Soviet Union, leaders who would be able to recognize that the contradictions inherent in Soviet communism were drastically limiting Russia's economic potential and who would be willing to cooperate with the West in ending the Cold War.

American Diplomacy is delightful reading due to Kennan's eloquent and conversational style. The reader who wants to dig more deeply into the history of the Cold War might also want to consider the first volume of Kennan's Memoirs and Strategies of Containment by John Lewis Gaddis which traces the evolution of Kennan's strategy of containment from 1946 through the end of the Cold War.

The original title of this book, American Diplomacy 1900-1950, is misleading. It implies that this is a study of American diplomacy between the two dates. Wrong. The book is split into two parts.

The first part is based on a series of lectures given by Kennan. Each talk looks at a specific event (Spanish American War, WWI or WWII) and draws a general lesson from that event that can be applied to other times and places.

For example, the lesson (well, one of them) Kennan draws from his lecture on the Spanish-American War and the US grab for empire is that the US often does not adequately consider the consequences of its actions. In particular, we do not consider what to do after the fighting stops. Hmm, does that sound familiar?

The second part is a reprint of two famous Kennan articles. The first is the Mr. X article laying out the theory of containment. The second speculates about the nature of a Russia that has gone through the changes hypothesized in the first piece.

These two pieces might seem dated, but there are some points that are still vary valid. For example, Kennan stress that US must be on the side of the angels. He thinks that the USSR's fall is inevitable. He wants the Russian people to think well of the US when that event happens. The first article (and the "long telegram" on which it was based) provides a great model for any analysis of an enemy state and the proper way to think about US policy

I read this book as a text book for a class in American Foreign Policy that I took and I was surprized to find that it was still relevant to today's issues.

Kennan's premise that our foreign policy is based on idealism rather than realism is still true. Some of the past incidents he covers parallel some of the same attitudes we have today in expecting foreign nations to act like we do.

Our naive idea that Iraq could be turned into a western style democracy is addressed in the historical episodes described by Kennan. The use of the media in the Spanish American war parallels our present experience.

We seem to base our foreign policy on our perceptions of the world as we think it is rather than a realistic evaluation of what is really going on.

The lectures reprinted in this book were delivered in 1951 by George Kennan, the legendary American diplomat who authored the "containment" doctrine that guided U.S. relations with the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War. Each lecture analyzes a key episode or turning point in American foreign policy between 1898 and the onset of the Cold War.

The lectures stand up pretty well after half-a-century. Kennan's main point is that the American aversion to diplomatic realism leads to an infantalized domestic debate on foreign policy issues and limits our ability to pursue balance of power strategies. Kennan wrote eloquently and knew what he was talking about -- the ease with which the Bush Administration gulled the American public into supporting the invasion of Iraq is a timely reminder of the need for better public education on foreign policy.

Kennan had a distinguished career as an historian after he left the State Department. However, the reader looking for diplomatic history should know that these lectures are short quasi-philosophical ruminations on the goals and methods of foreign policy in a democracy. They are not detailed reconstructions of diplomatic episodes or negotiations.

Mr. Kennan is a fine example of the best in American thought. Europeans who complain that U.S. policymakers are not thoughtful about the world would do well to read this book. Fantastic.

This book is presented in an academic debate style. Waltz beings with a discussion of why the spread of nuclear weapons is not detremental to world peace. Sagan counters, after which both comment on the recent spread of nuclear weapons to both India and Pakistan. Both then write a conclusionary essay, essentially restating the arguments they made earlier.

This is a wonderful book for people interested in this aspect of international politics. Sagan and Waltz both make deep arguments, peppered with numerous historical references and held together by a sound logical structure. Though this book is quite complex, neither author writes in an overly academic style, which allows for a wide potential audience. You'll read more here about the theoretical logic behind the threat of nuclear war than you will about, say, the technical makeup of nuclear weapons.

My only complaint about this work is that Scott Sagan's responses to Waltz seem specifically devised to tear Waltz's argument apart, rather than constructing a logical arugment of his own. This book also includes quite a deal of repetition. After reading both author's take on the potentiality of an India-Pakistan conflict, one feels exasperated to see Waltz merely reiterate what he said earlier. However, this is still the best book of its kind on this subject, one that any serious student of foreign policy should pursue.

Book was in good condition. As for content, it was for a course, so what does it matter?

Certainly the best debate ever produced about the existence of nuclear weapons and its distribution around the world. Highly recomended!

This books puts together two colliding authors on whether the proliferation of nuclear weapons is a good idea or not. Waltz, one fo the premier figures of realpolitik, argues (brilliantly, even though I disagree with him) that proliferation is a good idea. Sagan argues there are too many organizational risks in the proliferation system.

The two present their arguments, and then respond to each other's argument. It is a fascinating argument, one that can be discussed in 1000 pages, but the authors do a tremendous job of synthesizing it and pointing out the major strenghts and weaknesses of each other's argument. In today's world, where we are willing to go to war to prevent proliferation, it is useful to take a step back and really understand what the main problems arising by proliferation are.

I planned ahead and got the book just about on time. You need to make sure you oder your books altleast a week or week and ahalf before the class starts if you want it for the first day.

This is the guy who brought us the fawning page-turner, Team Bush. No research in here, no grounding in reality, mostly recycling of past work. He's written this book, what?, ten or twelve times over the past two decades. Enough already.