Editorial Review

This is the best-selling Original Authorized Edition regularly featured by Glenn Beck to Fox TV viewers as a Must Read!

The nation the Founders built is now in the throes of a political, economic, social, and spiritual crisis that has driven many to an almost frantic search for modern solutions. The truth is that the solutions have been available for a long time -- in the writings of our Founding Fathers -- carefully set forth in this timely book.

In The 5000 Year Leap: A Miracle That Changed the World, Discover the 28 Principles of Freedom our Founding Fathers said must be understood and perpetuated by every people who desire peace, prosperity, and freedom. Learn how adherence to these beliefs during the past 200 years has brought about more progress than was made in the previous 5000 years. These 28 Principles include The Genius of Natural Law, Virtuous and Moral Leaders, Equal Rights--Not Equal Things, and Avoiding the Burden of Debt. Published by the National Center for Constitutional Studies, a nonprofit educational foundation dedicated to restoring Constitutional principles in the tradition of America's Founding Fathers.

The National Center for Constitutional Studies...is doing a fine public service in educating Americans about the principles of the Constitution. -- Ronald Reagan, President of the United States

This is possibly the most comprehensive treatment of the genius of the American Founding Fathers which has ever been encompassed in a single volume. --Kenneth C. Chatwin, District Judge, Phoenix, Arizona

Reviews

A Must Read For All Americans, November 23, 2007
This is an incredible book that should be read by all Americans.

I first read this book back in the mid 1980s shortly after it was first published. It had such a profound effect on me that I can still recall where I was when I was reading it. That is rather amazing as I have I have probably read about 1600 books since then.

I was excited to see that it had recently been republished as my original copy is pretty ragged. It was great to reread it and brush up on the great ideas contained in it.

The premise of the book is that because of the free market system that took root after our Constitution was enacted, the United States literally made a 5000 year leap of progress in the time since then. The author, W. Cleon Skousen, discussed the changes from the time of the founding of Jamestown in 1607 to the early 1980s when the book was written. In discussing Jamestown, he said: "The most striking thing about the settlers of Jamestown was their startling similarity to the ancient pioneers who built settlements in other parts of the world 5,000 years earlier. The whole panorama of Jamestown demonstrated how shockingly little progress had been made by man during all of those fifty centuries."

He went on to say, "The settlers of Jamestown had come in a boat no larger and no more commodious than those of the ancient sea kings. Their tools still consisted of shovel, axe, hoe, and a stick plow which were only slightly improved over those of China, Egypt, Persia, and Greece. They harvested their grain and hay-grass with the same primitive scythes ..."

He then discussed the Constitution that was developed by the Founders. It took 180 years for them to put it all together from the beginning of Jamestown in 1607 to the enactment of the U.S. Constitution in 1787. He goes through the inspirations and sources for their thoughts in explaining how the U.S. Constitutional system came about.

Dr. Skousen contrasted the situation described in Jamestown above to the present day. He talks about the phenomenol results produced by the free enterprise system. Some of the incredible inventions and changes that he cites are as follows: the internal combustion engine, jet propulsion, exotic space travel, 'all the wonders of nuclear energy', massive changes in communications, the doubling of the life expectancy, central heating/air conditioning, surgical miracles, cures for numerous diseases, etc. Needless to say, the list could go on and on.

In showing how our system was designed, Skousen goes through 28 principles that the Founders developed from their study of sources such as Cicero, Locke, Montesquieu, Adam Smith, and others. Skousen has done what most people don't have the time or inclination to do: Study the original source materials and bring it all together.

Obviously, it would be great if every American studied the sources listed above as well as The Federalist Papers, the writings of Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, and others. Since that is unlikely, this is a great way to gain a good general understanding of the roots of our nation.

One great thing about this book is that the author discusses some of the problems that we have faced in recent years due to failing to follow the Constitution and the principles of the Founders. Some of these are issues like the mounting national debt, excessive taxation, and judicial activism.

Dr. Skousen also does a great job of explaining the political spectrum and the absurdities of the left-right labeling so often used in discourse today. He explains in an easy-to-understand manner that the far left and far right as the terms are used today are really the same thing, ruler's law, and are totally out of step with the way the system was intended.

One could easily go on about this book for a long time, but I will spare the reader that. Suffice it to say, this is an amazing book that should be read by all.

I would also highly recommend, "The Making Of America" The Making of America: The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution by the same author. Anyone who reads those two books will know more about the way our system was designed and supposed to work than 99% of all Americans including 'constitutional lawyers'. Buy this book.

Contextual perspective of the Constitution from the Founders, January 17, 2009
Over the years I've read many books on the founding of America, the Constitution and our government. From the Federalist papers to present day books on specific politicians and policies. This book has put a perspective on how America came to be the 'Tip of the Sword' of planetary development in only 200 years after a human history that runs on for many centuries consisting of bare bones existence for the masses by illuminating not 'just' the beliefs of the Founders but what they were from the inside out... and what their intent for this nation really was.
Above all they were academicians in every aspect of the word... but also they actually felt individually responsible not only for what they were doing but for each and every word they uttered or wrote in regards to the archival evidence they understood they were creating for the new Government. Something you won't find in any politician today.
An easy read, very enjoyable and ultimately educational. Be careful, you may actually learn something you didn't know.

If one doesn't know what it means to be free in America, this book will teach you., October 12, 2009
I remember going through school and learning about American history and the writing of the Constitution, but I never felt like I had a feel for the language or the principles upon which that great document was written. W. Cleon Skousen's book, The 5000 Year Leap, does just that. This is a book that anyone of almost any age could pick up and understand just what it was the Founding Fathers were striving for. I think that every individual should pick up and read this book at least once, but preferrably multiple times.
This book lays out 28 principles with which the Founding Fathers tried to integrate into the Constitution. It seems that over 50% of the book is actually quotes by the Founding Fathers themselves, allowing it to do a great job of showing the reader what they actually meant and not just what the author thinks they meant. This book is a must-have for any American history fan or any individual who studies politics. I would recommend it to everyone, though.

Look no further, March 25, 2009
As a member of Pi Sigma Alpha, the National Political Science Honor Society and someone who considers themselves well read and current on our nation's politics, this book, The 5000 Year Leap is the absolute best. If you wish to understand the founding of America. If you wish to learn how the founders wrestled with the issues. If you want to know whether or not America is really a unique and great nation, not merely in the world today, but throughout all of human history. If you are troubled by our current day's politics and wonder just how closely our leaders today, regardless of political stripe, remain true to our founding principles. If you have wondered about any of this, you need read only one book for your answer. READ THE 5000 YEAR LEAP!! I promise you will come away with a renewed sense of America and great hope for our continuing success as a nation.

Illuminating but breezy, January 7, 2008
The 5000 Year leap left me irritated, challenged, and wanting to read more.

I found the historical material the most interesting, but every time I read the views and conclusions, I felt the need to check the facts. Somehow it seemed that Dr. Skousen was bending the story. I may be off-base here, or I may not. It has inspired me to do more research.

I had two problems specifically. Skousen's concept of good government, which he says he shares with the Founders, is to seek a balance between anarchy, which he equivocates with chaos, and tyranny. To me that sounds like halfway to tyranny, and doesn't help differentiate between the activities where government arguably has a role, and those in which it doesn't.

He takes to heart the purpose of government as described in the Declaration of Independence, but I still felt an authoritarian streak running through the book.

I think the Founders model was to get as close as possible to liberty, and keep the federal government as small as possible, leaving all else to the people or the states. It may sound like a small semantic difference, but the idea of seeking a balance between pure liberty and pure tyranny is a lot different than staying as close to pure liberty as possible.

My other problem was his notion that the part of natural law that is political law is not discovered but revealed. I believe he is saying that the laws which are used to govern human behavior have been revealed by God, through scripture, and are not discovered through experiment as are the laws of physics. He quotes Blackstone on this. I am uncomfortable with this idea, and plan to read more of Blackstone's work to see for myself.

My understanding is that common law is the best origin of political law, and that it was discovered through centuries of case law arising from the resolution of disputes. Some forms of resolution work, others don't. The workable solutions last, the others fall away. This is a discovery process, a science of behavior, not a matter of applying scripture.

This book came out in 1980. In 1943 two books came out which I think better express the idea of the emergence of liberty: The God Of The Machine by Isabel Paterson, and The Discovery Of Freedom by Rose Wilder Lane.

A little disappointed, September 7, 2009
Don't get me wrong, I think this is a great book, and I highly recommend it. With all the rave reviews, maybe my expectation was set too high. I enjoyed reading the book, and agree with all of it, but was still disappointed.

Here's the catch: This book is written by religious people, for religious people. The title should be changed to "How Religion played a role in the Founders writing of the Constitution".

I've been a conservative all of my life, and am a Libertarian, and even though I grew up in a church, and respect religious people, I no longer believe there is a God. However, I do believe in the morals taught by religion, and choose to associate with these good people.

This book covers many topics, but every single chapter has the same theme: How religion played a role when the founders wrote that part of the Constitution. It makes sense, is well written, and is a very positive book for religious people to read, but if you are not religious, it does eventually start to get old. I made it through about 85% of book, before I hit religion overload. I scanned the rest, reading the bullets and highlights, and agree with them too.

If you are an Atheist (I don't like that word, the incorrect stereotype assumes you are anti-God which is simply not true for many Atheists), I still recommend this book. You will learn a lot, and it makes sense. Just be warned, it reads at times like a church sermon.

For those of you wondering: Yes, I do agree with this books' premise that a government SHOULD have officials that adhere to MORALS found in religion. I may not pray to God myself, but I would rather our government officials do. I am just as offended by the "God hating" Atheists; they are the ones who seem hell bent on destroying America with their immorality. I usually vote for officials who fear God and love their neighbors. I love my country, and am proud to be an American.

It will change your views of America, June 3, 2008
The constitution, what does it mean anymore? This document changed the course of the world and this book will tell you why the United States of America changed the world in 200 years. Sadly, it is also pointing out why we are loosing what has made us so strong.

This book yes, should be required reading.

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

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

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

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

Really Makes One Wonder...., March 24, 2009
This is one of those books that has the ability to change lives and, if not that, to at least get a person thinking. The Romans were an incredible people with astounding technology, as were the Greeks and other ancient civilizations. But what happened in the early 1800s when suddenly technology suddenly began changing the world faster than the world could handle it?

The United States was driving this technology to a great degree. Unfettered by the oppressive governments in Europe, the Middle East and Asia, it was as if someone suddenly turned on a light...literally. Electric lights, cars, trucks, tanks, telephones, machine guns, airplanes, radar, sonar, submarines, satellites, microscopes, electron microscopes, telescopes, astrophysics, astronomy, computers, cell phones, telecommunications, medical knowledge, atomic energy and a dizzying array of other advancements that made life not only easier, but in many ways much more dangerous.

The 5000 Year Leap brings this home and leaves one wondering...why?

The ride is far from over, and this book makes one wonder if we're not all trading our greatness for a mess of pottage. Very readable and highly recommended.

One Nation Under God, December 3, 2002
A great compilation of the inspired ideas that are shaping our nation; a must read for all patriots. In this post-September-11 world, this book reminds us of the need to return to the religious and moral foundation upon which our republic rests.

Although the book's thesis is based on Judeo-Christian principles, I had no problem (nor did our nation's founders) in extending its premises to all humanity and all humane belief systems. I especially liked the summary of Ben Franklin's fundamentals of all sound religion on p. 77.

For those of you who deny the need for a religious and moral component to our society, I can only side with an intellect greater than mine. Let us remember George Washington's warning from his farewell address excerpted on p. 76 of the book: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indespensable supports...And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion...Reason and experience forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail to the exclusion of religious principle."

Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, anyone who believes in an ordered universe will find much to ponder in this book.

The best way to understand our founding fathers ideas., July 6, 1998
This book is the most detailed collection I've ever seen discussing the constitution and the men who wrote it. I'm planning on making it one of my children's schoolbooks! If you are interested in finding out more about your country and why it was founded, you need to read this book. You'll look back on it often for reference, and you'll have a hard time not loaning it out to every person you know. ... Read more

Editorial Review

The dramatic story behind the most audacious power grab in American history
 
The financial crisis that exploded in 2008 isn’t past but prologue. The stunning rise, fall, and rescue of Wall Street in the bubble-and-bailout era was the coming-out party for the network of looters who sit at the nexus of American political and economic power. The grifter class—made up of the largest players in the financial industry and the politicians who do their bidding—has been growing in power for a generation, transferring wealth upward through increasingly complex financial mechanisms and political maneuvers. The crisis was only one terrifying manifestation of how they’ve hijacked America’s political and economic life.

Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi here unravels the whole fiendish story, digging beyond the headlines to get into the deeper roots and wider implications of the rise of the grifters. He traces the movement’s origins to the cult of Ayn Rand and her most influential—and possibly weirdest—acolyte, Alan Greenspan, and offers fresh reporting on the backroom deals that decided the winners and losers in the government bailouts. He uncovers the hidden commodities bubble that transferred billions of dollars to Wall Street while creating food shortages around the world, and he shows how finance dominates politics, from the story of investment bankers auctioning off America’s infrastructure to an inside account of the high-stakes battle for health-care reform—a battle the true reformers lost. Finally, he tells the story of Goldman Sachs, the “vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity.”

Taibbi has combined deep sources, trailblazing reportage, and provocative analysis to create the most lucid, emotionally galvanizing, and scathingly funny account yet written of the ongoing political and financial crisis in America. This is essential reading for anyone who wants to understand the labyrinthine inner workings of politics and finance in this country, and the profound consequences for us all. ... Read more

Reviews

Wonderfully written and biting
I've been reading all kinds of books since I was 8-9 and have always been able to absorb the information without getting too emotional or involved in the story. I can't count the # of times I shook my head in disbelief or cursed or hoped it was a joke while reading this one. Although I've read all of Matt's books and pretty much read all his blogs/essays that I can find online, this book has left a different mark on me. Is it the seriousness of the tone in this book that's different from the funny/sarcastic humor & petty name calling that's prevalent in his other works(btw there is no shortage of funny one liners and comparisons-the best one being the answer you get for asking why you like pepsi)? I don't know, but I wish, and I certainly plan to do my homework, someone or a lot of folks would prove these assumptions, allegations and accusations to be wrong. Not in the way it was presented (as was the case in all the responses I saw after the squid RS article) but factually! I need someone to prove he's wrong about everything in this book and prove that Matt doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. If there aren't any factual rebuttals to the discussions in this book, I am afraid I'll regret reading this book in the first place. This is too corrupt and cruel to be true. I've never wished for author to be so wrong about so much. Not sure how this review appears to a stranger but as much as I want and need to commend Matt on his efforts, I am not able to. Because if the book is true, I guess he's done too good a job of exposing a lot of painful things that am not able to see past. Ultimately, may be that's the best review an author can get-doing such a wonderful job that the reader wishes he hadn't read it!
Great, just a great book.
Thanks Matt.
murugan ... Read more

Editorial Review

This is the ONLY edition authorized and commissioned by the W. Cleon Skousen Family. Also, no other edition except this one includes the revisions made by the author during the 25 years after the original printing.

NEW in 2009! THE 5000 YEAR LEAP 30 Year Anniversary Edition with Glenn Beck s Foreword! NOW also includes Common Sense by Thomas Paine No other edition offers the revisions and updates of this remarkable book detailing how the Founding Fathers used 28 principles to create a 5000 year leap in freedom, prosperity, and progress; all based upon morality, faith, and ethics.

THIS BONUS EDITION INCLUDES: Common Sense by Thomas Paine, 101 Constitutional Questions To Ask Candidates, The US Constitution, The Declaration of Independence, and Two landmark addresses by author Dr. W. Cleon Skousen never before offered in print.

Revised, 30 Year Anniversary Edition. During the last 26 years of Dr. Skousen's life he continued his extensive study of the constitution and founding values. He kept his original copy of The Five Thousand Year Leap with him and would write notes in the margins and on envelops and note cards of the refinements and updates he wished to add to the book. This new 30 Year Anniversary Edition includes those refinements and updates. Our gratitude goes out to the Skousen family for supplying us with this information to enable us to bring you this new edition.

The 5000 Year Leap will take you by the hand as you discover the ideals of the Founding Fathers and their 28 principles for success. The values explored in detail by Dr. Skousen range from the Founder's prerequisite that the Constitution was designed for a moral people, to a government empowered by the people with checks and balances, along with an understanding of the critical nature of fiscal responsibility and family values. This book sums up the secrets to what James Madison called a miracle. ... Read more

Reviews

The 5,000 Year Leap, April 25, 2009
This book is the quintessential book on understanding the brilliance of our founding fathers. It also shows how the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence are timeless documents. It should be recommended reading in all high school social studies classes. I gained an understanding and appreciation of our freedom given to us via these documents and has woken me up to how our current government is seeking to take power and gradually take away the freedoms granted to the people of the United States. The main reason behind the US Constitution was to limit the oppressive power of government. There are so many things that today's federal government is doing that our forefathers fought to make sure wouldn't happen. I think everyone should read this book to get an idea of just how far over reaching the current federal government is. The amazing thing is that this book was originally written I believe 30 years ago and it's so appropriate to what's happening in the political landscape today. It's almost like Skousen saw our current situation coming.

Should be used in every government and history classroom., October 1, 2009
I hesitated to write this review as I stopped reviewing books on government and politics a couple years ago because of the nasty comments people would make about my conservative and Christian views. A dear friend gave this book to me as a gift and I find it outstanding. Were I still teaching government and history I would be using it in the classroom. Yes, I have checked facts given in this book and have found them 100% correct. I will be buying extra copies to give to friends who are still teaching. I also will not read any comments on my review of this book. I am pleased that the great majority of reviewers seem to feel as I do.

5000 Year Leap, April 15, 2009
Love him or hate him, I saw an interview with Richard Nixon not too long before he passed away. He said his greatest fear is that we are not telling our nation's story over and over, and our children are not being taught in our public schools. I am a retired educator who majored in history and taught American History for several years. I am still an avid student of our history. I can tell you the stuff our kids are being fed is nothing but a bunch of touchy-touchy, feel good, politically correct pile of garbage. For example little emphasis on our Founding Fathers is given in many states and universities. Why? THEY OWNED SLAVES. Yes, they did, but they put together the best system of government the world has ever seen. Revisionist historians want to go back to Jamestown and blame this country for every conceivable ill. Many of these historians such as Michael Bellesiles of Emory University wrote a complete book of lies about the Second Amendment, The Arming of America. He got a Pulitzer for the book. It was discovered that his research was so specious that the prize was withdrawn and he was fired. He was so anti Second Amendment that he was willing to put his career on the line and lie about it. I have an idea this is but the tip of the iceberg. Our students are being fed lies, yes lies, about our history. This is a book that would be required reading in my American History classroom. If there are those who get all chilled by the mention of the Christian faith, then don't read it if it offends you. I taught a month long unit on the US Constitution each year to my 8th graders. They practically had to memorize it. They were tested over and over again and were required to do additional research. That was several years ago, and my former students STILL REMEMBER those precepts. Again, this book needs to be read by every American citizen, liberal or conservative, elephant or donkey. We need a new American Revolution, a patriotic one. Too many people in our country (like leeches) draw from the blessings and benefits of living in this country and wouldn't raise a finger to support or defend her. I honestly believe if we were to face a crisis such as World War II, we would hear a giant sucking sound, the rush of our "citizens" running to Canada and Mexico.

Back to Basics, January 25, 2010
Being British, and involved in politics over here, I was very keen to read this book, to see the ingredients that the founding fathers mixed together to create such an incredible country.

As I have read the book, I have been in awe at the incredible restraint and foresight that these men had. I am sure they were truly inspired, as where the others who contributed - as the Constitution was by no means the work of one man.

I am saddened and worried by the drift from the founding ideal, to policies and politics that have been proven time and time again not to work.

As a friend of mine said, the problem you get with Democracy, is when people realise they can vote themselves money!

It is my hope that the people of America have a "second Revolution", a return to the basics, and the simplicity of the Constitution - because truly it is only this way that America can get itself out of the crippling debt and over regulation it is finding itself in.

This really should be compulsory reading in schools, and colleges - but of course the liberal left would have a heart attack if that was to happen, as the book mentions God!

If you can do it once, you can do it again! So go for it, and get back to the basics that made America Great!

THIS IS THE ONE WITH GLENN'S FOREWORD, March 18, 2009
This is the edition that has Glenn's foreword. This version is the book Glenn gave to all of his studio audience and held up during his "WE SURROUND THEM" event on Friday March 13th. Folks should feel free to buy either edition, but keep in mind if you want Glenn's foreword and the updates for 2009 then you will probably want this one. Its ironic that even though Glenn featured this edition, the old NCCS edition is the one that has shot to #1 on the Amazon best-seller list. Congratulations to NCCS we wish them the very best! Just make sure as a buyer you know which one you are ordering becuase there are two distinct editions (the 30th Anniversay updated edition and the 25-yr-old original) I say get which ever one suits your fancy.

Fantastic smart easy read history, April 28, 2009
Great, accurate, smart, factual, interesting, easy to read and understand history. One of the best I have ever read. I would recommend to any U.S. citizen and anyone wanting to understand how our Government was formed based on freedom, equality, justice and humanity.

Like Updated Version Better, March 24, 2009
I own both the original book and CD, and the updated 30th Anniversary edition available only from PowerThink. I like the additional commentary by Glenn Beck and it's nice to have the Declaration and the Constitution in one place. The artwork on the anniversary edition cover is excellent. I believe that The 5,000 Year Leap should be required reading in America's schools and colleges. Like all of the products I've purchased from PowerThink, this anniverary edition packs more bang for the buck than what you find with other publishers.

a must read for every American, May 2, 2010
This book is clearly written, very practical and informative, and I am now reading it with my 7th grade grandson. Reading this book will provide a clear understanding not only of the founding and the founders of our great nation, but also how unique America is in the entire history of the world. I have always been proud to be an American, but this book educated me, filled in gaps in my knowledge of history that I didn't know were even missing, and reaffirmed my conviction that I must be the best American that I can be; I must be a better patriot today than I was yesterday. It is imperative that my firm convictions be based in truth-- and that I have the courage to stand on those convictions. I must be an educated and faithful voter.... and then stay in touch with those who represent me in my government. I agree with Thomas Jefferson: When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. Amen and amen.

Finally know what it is to be an American, October 7, 2009
I did not learn this in Social Studies. Maybe it should be required reading.
Just getting into the book I am in love with it already. Reading a few pages, and glancing through the book, I find it an easy read. As Americans, we need to understand the Why--why does it work?
If you know the why, then we can not be easily led astray.

It belongs next to The American Patriots Almanac by William Bennett, Rediscovering God in America by Newt Gingrich, Common Sense by Glenn Beck
(I already put Arguing With Idiots on that shelf, there is a space for Becks "An Inconvenient Book" as well)

This book has: the Declaration of Independence, the U. S. Constitution, Common Sense by Thomas Paine, and 101 Constitutional Questions to Ask Candidates.
It states the task set before the Founders, and the 28 principles after that.

Yes, it is WORTH the extra pennies to have all the content. It is a book to be celebrated.

Best read in a long time., April 2, 2010
I remember when schools used to teach civics and US government and at least some history. This book reacquainted me with the founding principles of this country and of the incredible men who dreamed of an entirely new system of government. It also unfortunately pointed out how far we have strayed from those principles. I recommend this book for everyone regardless of political party or ideology. It will make you stop and think. ... Read more

Editorial Review

With her trademark style, wit, sensitivity, and spontaneity, Maira Kalman guides a whirlwind tour of American democracy.

And the Pursuit of Happiness is beloved artist and author Maira Kalman's yearlong investigation of democracy and how it works. Energized and inspired by the 2008 elections, on inauguration day Kalman traveled to Washington, D.C., launching a national tour that would take her from a town hall meeting in Newfane, Vermont, to the inner chambers of the Supreme Court.

As we follow Kalman's wholly idiosyncratic journey, we fall in love with Lincoln alongside her as she imagines making a home for herself in the center of his magisterial memorial; ponder Alexis de Tocqueville's America; witness the inner workings of a Bronx middle-school student council; take a high-speed lesson in great American women in the National Portrait Gallery; and consider the cost of war to the brave American service families of Fort Campbell, Kentucky. The observations she makes as she travels charm and inform, and-as we have come to expect with Kalman-the route is always one of fascinating indirection.

Kalman finds evidence of democracy at work all around us. And the cast of characters we meet along the way is rousing good company, featuring visits from Benjamin Franklin, Eleanor Roosevelt, and many others. And the Pursuit of Happiness is a remarkable tribute to our history and a powerful reminder of the potential our future holds, from a true national treasure. ... Read more

Reviews

The Pursuit of Our Humanity, October 17, 2010
I am just now ordering this, but I already know it's great because it's from the pieces Maira did for the New York Times. They are wonderful, almost stream-of-consciousness illustrations with words that always touched my intellect and my humanity. The themes are mostly from U.S. history, and they always sneak up on your mind and emotions in unexpected ways. I frequently posted a comment at the Times after reading one of these, thanking her in one way or another for what she did. You cannot go wrong ordering this book. In these cynical times, it's good to have intelligent observations that move us in a positive and non-manipulative way. Thank goodness for talented folks like Maira Kalman.

A breath of fresh air!, October 29, 2010
At a time when everyone around me seems to hate how the United States has become the Not "it" country. I found the book that restores my love for it.
Being a student that wants to change this country for the better, this book shows me what it was before this mess came around. This book has humor,art history all mixed with a feeling of warmness. Great thanks to the Colbert Report for introducing me to this amazing artist and writer.

Unique View Of History, November 28, 2010
And The Pursuit Of Happiness is artist Maira Kalman's celebration of democracy and the founding fathers. Part art book, part graphic novel, the reader will be drawn through her exploration of what democracy means in the United States, and learn about the lives of many of the prominent men who created our amazing system of government.

Many readers will recognize Kalman's unique artistic renderings. She is a frequent provider of New Yorker magazine covers. She illustrates children's books, and her work has been featured in museums and by designers in their lines. She uses vibrant colors and Grandma Moses-like depictions of scenes for striking illustrations that are memorable. Inspired by the inauguration of Barack Obama, this book is her tribute to the democracy and the people that made his election possible.

There are chapters devoted to various Founding Fathers. The book is organized by months. January is devoted to the Obama inauguration. February is devoted to Abraham Lincoln while March celebrates the philosophical underpinnings of democracy and its forms such as town halls. April is about the laws of the land. May discusses our military and the price we owe these brave defenders of freedom. June discusses Thomas Jefferson and his many interests, while July is devoted to Benjamin Franklin and other scientists and inventors. August is about the explorers who discovered America and the issues surrounding immigration today. September talks about cities; specifically New York City. October covers Congress, while November is devoted to our national foods. December is reserved for George Washington.

This book is recommended for all readers. Everyone will learn new facts and the knowledge is imparted in a breezy fashion that make the learning fun. The illustrations are vivid, brilliant, amazing. Maira Kalman has created a visual feast and we are the richer for it.

fabulous, November 25, 2010
I am an avid Maira Kalman fan -- her words, her art, her children's books. While waiting for the release of this volume, I took an unexpected trip to San Francisco and stumbled upon an exhibit of Kalman's work at the Contemporary Jewish Museum. Nothing could compare to seeing the original works, and having this book as a keepsake upon my return home. Her wit and wisdom is a sheer joy; her art inspirational!

Perfect, October 16, 2010
Another tour de force from our very own National Treasure! This is a wonderful, beautiful, joyous book.

Loved it, November 14, 2010
Was so excited when this little piece of eye candy showed up. Loved it, as I've loved all her work. A little history, a little sightseeing, lots of paintings. Loved it. ... Read more

Editorial Review

A classic since its original landmark publication in 1980, Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States is the first scholarly work to tell America’s story from the bottom up—from the point of view of, and in the words of, America’s women, factory workers, African Americans, Native Americans, working poor, and immigrant laborers. From Columbus to the Revolution to slavery and the Civil War—from World War II to the election of George W. Bush and the “War on Terror”—A People’s History of the United States is an important and necessary contribution to a complete and balanced understanding of American history.

Reviews

A teacher of American History's POV, February 1, 2000
For several years of the last decade, I taught Advanced Placement U.S. History at a high school in northern Virginia. When I began the course, Zinn had already been assigned by my predecessor, and I needed a counterpoint to the main text (Bailey and Kennedy's bombastic, traditionalist, and short-on-social history "Pageant of the American Nation"). Zinn's deftly written book provided a fortunate antithesis to the "march of presidents and industrial titans" approach to American history. I found many chapters of this book to be such excellent stimulants to class discussions that I extended their use into my non-AP U.S. history classes, where students, many of whom could not otherwise have cared less about history, found themselves reading an interesting and provocative historian for the first time in their lives. Many of the best discussions I ever had with my classes (both AP and "regular") began with assigned chapters from Zinn. From there, it was an easy step to move on to the idea of historiography (the history of how history has been interpreted) and to decoupling my students from thinking of the textbook as revealed wisdom.

Yes, this book has its faults, as many of the previous reviews point out. It is very left-leaning. It does sometimes omit factual points that do not support its line of argument. It does sometimes verge on equating the misdeeds of American leaders with the horrific malevolence of the leaders of totalitarian states. It does romanticize its heroes.

For all that, though, this book is an excellent introduction to U.S. history if read as a contrasting voice to more traditional narratives. It is a fine and vigorous antidote to the excessively reverent tone of many high school textbooks. It conveys a sense of moral passion that is often lacking in these texts, which are typically take great pains to offend no one, particularly regarding events within living memory. Not all contemporary texts are this bloodlessly terrible, but many are. One of the best things about Zinn's histories is that he leaves in the drama that the standard texts insist on draining out.

"A People's History" begins with a bold thesis, and keeps it at center stage--namely, that those with power and wealth consistently extend it to others only when the situation has reached the level of deep crisis, and only with the minimum and uppermost fraction of the discontended needed to co-opt them and defeat the dissent of the remainder, often also turning otherwise natural allies into antagonistic contenders for "table scraps" from the banquet in the process. And as Zinn argues repeatedly, this grudging and incomplete inclusion, made reality by the courage and convictions of average men and women, has been the engine that has driven most if not all extentions of both liberty and equality in U.S. history, and that this is a continuing and unfinished process, awaiting future generations of idealists possessing the courage of their own convictions. I admire this book (and this author) for inculcating this idea among young readers.

For young adults who have an interest in U.S. history, or for parents who wish to engage their teen's interest in history, this book is a great place to start. It also might be the start of a few conversations at home about justice, fairness, equality, morality, the probity of leaders, etc. Since it argues more from a passion for justice and equality, a sense of burning indignation, and a highly debatable point of view, those desiring balance should pair it with something less withering in its assessment toward the history of the American state. This is an excellent history for the newly interested, or for those readers looking for an alternative perspective.

Raises important questions, terrible scholarship, January 5, 2002
THE GOOD: Professor Zinn raises important questions that test our long held assumptions about American history, and for this--the questions--the book should be read and discussed vigorously. The book is also very readible, with a flowing, yet serious style.

THE BAD: Unfortunately, the book suffers from two fatal flaws, and for this reason does not belong in a classroom (college or otherwise). First, Zinn fails to cite adequately his sources (no footnotes or endnotes), leaving the reader with only a vague sense of his source material. This is particularly unacceptable for a work that admits to be controversial. His excuse, in the preface, that the footnotes would be too voluminous, is lame at best. Witness Pulitzer winning historian McCullough's use of sources in his much acclaimed JOHN ADAMS.

Second, in presenting his evidence, Zinn fails to quantify meaningfully the culpability of those historical figures he wishes to evaluate from the 'people's' perspective, nor does he even discuss the limitations or challenges posed by the evidence, nor does he sufficiently discuss his methodology used for reaching his conclusions. Mostly, he simply cites judgments made in secondary sources. Any college student can do that, and we should expect more from a Harvard professor.

For instance, in his chapter on Columbus, he indicates that two years after Columbus landed on Hispanola the native Arawak population had nearly all died. He also cites evidence of some gratuitously harsh treatment by the Spanish-- but he does not really indicate the degree to which these events were isolated or the norm. Specifically: did the Arawaks perish as a result of systematic slaughter or from disease transmitted from Spanish soldiers? If only, say, 20% were slaughtered and the rest died from disease, our moral judgments would be different than if the case were reversed. This historical method characterizes his use of examples throughout the book: anecdotal pieces without proper context. To the extent Zinn fails to quantify or even discuss the problems of quantification (however crudely) he is really just putting on a slight of hand. He invites the unsuspecting (or unsophisticated) reader to adopt inferences that might not be warranted or which the reader's emotions might have predisposed her.

Hence, though well written and fascinating for the questions it raises, the book fails to make its case stick and can be misleading. Read it, but with extreme caution, and try to recognize the slights of hand for what they are. It's a pity: his inquiry is important, but his method undermines his case.

Flawed but still worth a read, June 17, 1999
I'm going to partially disagree with the reader from Australia and agree (in part) with the reader from Key West, and probably offend both in the process. Oh well. Nothing personal, of course. What this book adds to the discussion of social history is a needed examination of long neglected issues of class in America, and how those pressing factors are often submerged in hyper-patriotism or blind faith in capitalism. That's very important, and that still doesn't get into the history textbooks. And the fact that Zinn is talking from the Left is, I think, not as important as the fact that his leftist perspective illuminates shadowed areas of history -- Cherokee culture in the 1830s, the Great Railroad Strike of 1877 (the best section in the book), or peace movements during World War II. That's important. The problem is that everything else he said could be found in the history textbooks I studied in elementary school, high school and college in the 1980s and 90s. Reading the book last month, I was more surprised by how much of Zinn's work is put into American History textbooks (in an admittedly abbreviated form) than is left out. Class struggles are, by and large, omitted, but everything else -- Indian genocide, the horrors of the Middle Passage, cold-hearted union crackdowns -- I studied in sixth grade. Zinn is not the corrective to traditional textbooks now; he writes them. There wasn't anything particularly radical in this book for me -- nothing I hadn't read before, anyway. Its cutting edge feels dulled by the passing of decades. And it should be noted that Zinn's biggest flaw is that he reduces complex personalities into archetypes of what he thinks they should be -- so we hear awful things about Andrew Carnegie, but nothing about his philanthropy; we read a wonderful reflection on W.E.B. DuBois, but nothing about his anti-semitism (as seen in "The Souls of Black Folk"). But you could dig up these flaws in any book as ambitious as Zinn's. I like the suggestion that this be read in counterpoint to Johnson; I've been meaning to do that. Zinn's class corrective is very important; and if he overstates the case at times, he at least makes a noise few others have bothered to sound.

Good Scholarship, Worthwhile, September 24, 2001
Even people who hate Howard Zinn admit that he's a good scholar. But many people hate him, for sure--and you have to remember that when you're reading some of these reviews. On the other hand, most of the reviewers seem to be communists themselves, and so their gushing reviews should surprise no one.

I recommend the book with some reservations. Agree or disagree, perspectives like Zinn's keep us from becoming ignorant victims of ideological propaganda.

I recommend it because it is a great, well-informed, honest and self-conscious dissenting opinion. Anyone who wants to consider themselves educated needs to consider dissenting opinions frequently. But I have reservations. Most importantly, Zinn's purpose is not to introduce someone to American history. He assumes his readers already know the basics. Of course, many people do not. It's not a history of the US; it's a series of contentious corrections to the history traditionally taught in American classrooms. (Why did the Colonies defeat the British? What caused the depression? Why did Nixon visit China? Unless you know this much, this book isn't yet for you.)

Some reviewers complained about Zinn's tone. Zinn is an average writer; better than many academics but worse than any good writer.

Other reviewers seemed to assume that either communists or far-right conservatives aren't "students of history." But of course some are. Zinn and Newt Gingrich are both well-informed scholars.

(If it matters to you, I am neither communist nor right-wing; I'm just not a political thinker. I'm American, and I think Americans--all of us--can be proud and thankful; but we should recognize that our government and politicians have never been perfect. Ideologies often serve to control people, so dissenting opinions are vital for freedom's perseverance. But democracy and moderated capitalism have often succeeded in blessing their people, while communism has evidently failed everywhere, with more gruesome histories even than capitalism.)

Good critic sense, mediocre history, October 5, 2003
First of all I'm not american and I lack what Zinn often criticizes, a classic american hero-history, so my opinion on this book could be slightly different from an usual american reader review.
One of the reasons I bought A People's History is simply because I received a typical european education very focused on every aspect of main euro countries, say Western ones, with scarce notions about american history; for instance I was taught about the Revolution and the Intervention during the WorldWarII but not much more, and I was curious to learn something more specific especially about the epic figures of the Presidents and the Supreme Court, so I bounced on this book with absolute no clue about Zinn's political view.
I have just finished to read the 2003 edition, and this is what I think about this huge book,
Pros:
1)If you don't feel shocked and indignated by criticizing classic american heroes such as the Founding Fathers, Lincoln, etc or by talking openly especially about their mistakes and their bad decisions or policies, the book is indeed a good approach to build a true critic sense, for it makes you ask important questions and seek difficult answers, and this is crucial in history teaching. This is indeed important I repeat.
Cons:
2)Zinn tried to write in a novelist-style, concentrating on a topic and climating from the least to the most important things to say about, while commenting and drawing consequences, but at the same time forgetting completely about the time-line stream, the thing that probably most gives sense to history itself.
This can lead to a very frustrating reading, when you try to find out what happens before and what next, but you simply can't because here he talks about 1887, a line below about 1900, five lines below about 1870 and so on.
3)There are topics very well described along with most incomplete references, last ones especially about the 'rich and powerful' facts, who anyway still remain facts. So if you don't have a classic american education it's sometimes difficult to understand what's going on because everything's focused only and always on the same topics. Along with this you can't find a single note or precise account especially about statistics and statements, so you can never be sure if you can buy what Zinn says.
4)The last chapters of the book tend to fall either in utopistic dreams or melanconic complaining, and Zinn never gives a valid and possible alternative choice; I'll give you just an example: you can't criticize Clinton's policy of reducing the deficit if you omit what are the consequences in the long run of an increasing deficit caused by social either military expenses; it's not so easy as Zinn often says to spend money on social programs and yet promoting an economic growth while creating new jobs! In matter of fact, even if you can't accept this on a political or moral point of view, the economy grows and creates jobs as long as the corporations earn money so they can later invest.

In conclusion I can say I was disappointed from the book from a pure technical historic approach, but I consider anyway the book excellent, and I really mean it, to develop an independent and critic mentality, for actual national american media don't help in this, nor the history class the way is done in american schools, all this not depending on which political party you believe in.

My rating: 3 stars, good but not too much, don't make the mistake neither to be too much impressed nor to consider it junk

AN INTRIGUING READ, NOTHING MORE NOTHING LESS, May 27, 2003
A quick look at the reviews for this book will tell you just how difficult it is for a reader of Zinn's works to whistle and walk on. Either one ends up savagely dismissing him as a petty caviller, or extolling his brand of "eye opening" wisdom. I doubt I can add anything purposeful to this seemingly hot debate because I approached this book with a different intent altogether.

I wanted this page of history to answer some of my business questions. How America came from a nowhere nation of vagrant Arawak Indian tribes just a few centuries ago to being a commerical (ok, and imperial) superpower in our times. My interest was not to equip myself with geewhiz anti-US trivia (although I picked up a fair bit on the way, tra la) but to answer the atavistic question of what promoted capitalistic thinking, meritocracy, love of freedom etc in the United states more than the rest of the planet (assuming this is true in the first place).

And in that department, I have to say that this book left me startled. It might sound presumptuous but the quick answer is that there is nothing specific in the history or the anthropological station of US in this century and the last that may have accentuated its drive for capitalism. What's more, America was and is, just like any other country on the planet, subject to the exact same vagaries of civilization/humanity/bigotry/dogma that make and mar an empire every few centuries or so. I also recognize why this is very difficult for Americans to identify with or agree to, specially Americans who typify the inward looking solipsism of the current generation and perhaps the last 2 or so.

I recommend this book highly as a VIEW of historical events that are difficult to deny occured. Whether the guardians of the old order spring into an attack or not this is bound to yank a lot of people (me included) out of a langour of perspective.

Not all books need to be read to be "liked". Even a book that makes you constantly revulse in disagreement is worth a read for that precise reason. 5 stars from me.

A note on revisionist history, March 26, 2003
Howard Zinn's A PEOPLE'S HISTORY is probably the most famous example of revisionist history. What is revisionist history? Well, most importantly, it is an attempt to show important historical events from the perspective of those who have not typically written history, for example women, African-Americans, poor and working-class people, gays and lesbians, among others.

Take, for example, Zinn's very brief analysis at the end of the book about the Clinton years. The popular press portrayed, consistently and repeatedly, the 90s as a decade of prosperity and a booming stock exchange, with poverty nowhere in sight. The 90s dawned as communism, it's enemy, collapsed. The 90s was the alleged triumph of capitalism. But Zinn looks critically at just who "triumphed" and what kind of "triumph" it was. He gives us different "dispatches" from the 90s, voices not likely to be heard in The Wall Street Journal: workers displaced from good-wage blue-collar jobs as those jobs moved overseas thanks to free-trade agreements; welfare mothers supporting families on minimum wages because the public believes they had to "work for their check" while the defense budget soars; the degradation of public schools and services; chronic poverty among African-Americans.

What this revisionist history of the 90s does is two-fold: 1) it creates an alternative narrative of the 90s, as a decade in which the social safety net was sacrificed to fill the coffers of the highest 1%, and 2) in creating this coutnernarrative, Zinn revealed how "constructed" this official history is, that is, that any history that claims the 90s as the "triumph of capitalism" is able do so only by ignoring and suppressing those other dispatches from the 90s.

So the claim that Zinn is biased is, therefore, irrelevant. History, as Zinn himself claims, is constructed from an endless supply of evidence and events. The historian operates on assumptions (that is, ideology), to create history. Zinn is quite upfront that he is "anti-capitalist" and frankly, I think he bleakly illuminates the endless pain capitalism has wreaked on the majority of the population while a tiny minority lives off the fat. To point out Zinn's bias is merely to help him make his point. The reality is that the left is aware of its ideology; the right pretends its ideology and history is merely "natural."

An insightful rendering of American history, October 31, 2002
This book has left several impressions on me. First, it's hard to get through, due both to its content (disturbing) and its style (dry, with a tendency to tell each chapter in the same formulaic method).

Aside from those two criticisms, the account is fascinating. From the beginning, you're wretching at the accounts told of Columbus' barbarism, and soon begin to see the propaganda the American school system has taught us as just that.

With that said, I think it would be wise to view this in its context. It is not the be-all-end-all account of American history. It should be balanced with other perspectives. To come away believing America an evil empire I think would be to lose sight of the reality of our history: namely that despite the corruption and evil, the principles written down in our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights have lived up to their true promise and continually get closer to their ideal. An informed electorate is essential to a functioning democracy, and the facts presented here go a long way towards helping Americans confront their dark past and learn from it, rather than trying to sugar-coat it to prop us up as an honorable Christian nation with a right to arrogance. The truth is nothing to fear. Still, I recommend trying a conservative viewpoint after this, like Paul Johnson's "A History of the American People". That way you'll come away with both sides of the story, rather than an overly slanted perspective. As in all things, don't ever fear a dissenting opinion. Fundamentalism from the right _and_ left is dangerous. Keep an open mind and weigh both side's arguments for yourself before you join a bandwagon

After reading this book, I've become more skeptical of patriotism based on the founding father's genius and benevolence, but much more proud of the achievements of regular Americans who often gave their lives fighting a corrupt government that used religion and money to support the rich and exploit the poor. Americans do have a history to be proud of, but the over-riding theme that I came away with was that it is possible for Americans to make a difference in their government and the world today. We need to take action and contribute to making this country great, not just rest on the acheivements of those who came before us and made our country what it is.

A note to all those critical., April 19, 2004
I have noticed a lot of critics saying that this book neglects to mention America's achievments, that it is biased, liberal, radical, revisionist, communist..ect. But the point that these people are missing is that this book is intended to be biased. It is intended to be read as a supplement to the standard textbook American history. For my High Schol U.S. history course, we read this book as well as a more traditional and general text. This allows us to view American history with a very open and critical mind. It allows us to question history as well as the historian reciting it. What Mr. Zinn is trying to do is give us an alternate perspective upon America. A perspective that many of us are blind to. This book is to read with an open mind. Not with a liberal or conservative one. Whether you agree with Howard Zinn or not (I know I have disagreeded with him many times during the course of this reading as well as been in total concensus with) this book provides insight into America's past that many people need to hear. One certainly shouldn't jump to the conclusion that this book is the true American history because it is a very specific and biased one. The book should be read with a traditional history in mind. But one should also not disregard the ideas that this text has to offer. Obviously it has flaws. It was writen by a singal person with his own perspective on America. But every history book I have ever read (as a high school student that is many) has its flaws and its bias. That doesn't invalidate what information it has to offer though. I believe this book should be a standard in classrooms to be read with a more standard U.S. text.

The revenge of the marginalized!, May 19, 2000
A great many people who have reviewed this book seem to be surprised and appalled that Zinn has focused on the dark side of the American story. This should have been painfully obvious from the title- The 'PEOPLES' History of the United States. I'm more surprised that so many people have reserved so much invective for an author who dares to write a history from the perspective of the marginalized majority of this country- a large group who haven't always been on the recieving end of the American dream.

Yes, this book is biased, but so is every flag waving history book I was forced to read when growing up. Kudos to Zinn for providing a counter balance to tear jerking stories of honest, kindhearted pilgrims searching for religious freedom.

This book will be hard for some to swallow- especially those who have been raised on the jingoistic pap that many of our educational institutions call history. But this book is important and a must read for the serious student of American history. The old cliche' that 'history is written by the victors' is true and this book is the voice of those who were under the boot. Read it! ... Read more

Editorial Review

A groundbreaking work that identifies the real culprit behind one of the great economic crimes of our time— the growing inequality of incomes between the vast majority of Americans and the richest of the rich. We all know that the very rich have gotten a lot richer these past few decades while most Americans haven’t. In fact, the exorbitantly paid have continued to thrive during the current economic crisis, even as the rest of Americans have continued to fall behind. Why do the “haveit- alls” have so much more? And how have they managed to restructure the economy to reap the lion’s share of the gains and shift the costs of their new economic playground downward, tearing new holes in the safety net and saddling all of us with increased debt and risk? Lots of so-called experts claim to have solved this great mystery, but no one has really gotten to the bottom of it—until now. In their lively and provocative Winner-Take-All Politics, renowned political scientists Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson demonstrate convincingly that the usual suspects—foreign trade and financial globalization, technological changes in the workplace, increased education at the top—are largely innocent of the charges against them. Instead, they indict an unlikely suspect and take us on an entertaining tour of the mountain of evidence against the culprit. The guilty party is American politics. Runaway inequality and the present economic crisis reflect what government has done to aid the rich and what it has not done to safeguard the interests of the middle class. The winner-take-all economy is primarily a result of winner-take-all politics. In an innovative historical departure, Hacker and Pierson trace the rise of the winner-take-all economy back to the late 1970s when, under a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress, a major transformation of American politics occurred. With big business and conservative ideologues organizing themselves to undo the regulations and progressive tax policies that had helped ensure a fair distribution of economic rewards, deregulation got under way, taxes were cut for the wealthiest, and business decisively defeated labor in Washington. And this transformation continued under Reagan and the Bushes as well as under Clinton, with both parties catering to the interests of those at the very top. Hacker and Pierson’s gripping narration of the epic battles waged during President Obama’s first two years in office reveals an unpleasant but catalyzing truth: winner-take-all politics, while under challenge, is still very much with us. Winner-Take-All Politics—part revelatory history, part political analysis, part intellectual journey— shows how a political system that traditionally has been responsive to the interests of the middle class has been hijacked by the superrich. In doing so, it not only changes how we think about American politics, but also points the way to rebuilding a democracy that serves the interests of the many rather than just those of the wealthy few. ... Read more

Reviews

Transforming American politics, September 16, 2010
This is a transformative book. It's the best book on American politics that I've read since Rick Perlstein's Before the Storm. Not all of it is original (the authors seek to synthesize others' work as well as present their own, but provide due credit where credit is due). Not all of its arguments are fully supported (the authors provide a strong circumstantial case to support their argument, but don't have smoking gun evidence on many of the relevant causal relations). But it should transform the ways in which we think about and debate the political economy of the US.


The underlying argument is straightforward. The sources of American economic inequality are largely political - the result of deliberate political decisions to shape markets in ways that benefit the already-privileged at the expense of a more-or-less unaware public. The authors weave a historical narrative which Kevin Drum (who says the same things that I am saying about the book's importance) summarizes cogently here. This is not necessarily original - a lot of leftwing and left-of-center writers have been making similar claims for a long time. What is new is both the specific evidence that the authors use, and their conscious and deliberate effort to reframe what is important about American politics.

First - the evidence. Hacker and Pierson draw on work by economists like Picketty and Saez on the substantial growth in US inequality (and on comparisons between the US and other countries), but argue that many of the explanations preferred by economists (the effects of technological change on demand for skills) simply don't explain what is going on. First, they do not explain why inequality is so top-heavy - that is, why so many of the economic benefits go to a tiny, tiny minority of individuals among those with apparently similar skills. Second, they do not explain cross national variation - why the differences in the level of inequality among advanced industrialized countries, all of which have gone through more-or-less similar technological shocks, are so stark. While Hacker and Pierson agree that technological change is part of the story, they suggest that the ways in which this is channeled in different national contexts is crucial. And it is here that politics plays a key role.

Many economists are skeptical that politics explains the outcome, suggesting that conventional forms of political intervention are not big enough to have such dramatic consequences. Hacker and Pierson's reply implicitly points to a blind spot of many economists - they argue that markets are not `natural,' but instead are constituted by government policy and political institutions. If institutions are designed one way, they result in one form of market activity, whereas if they are designed another way, they will result in very different outcomes. Hence, results that appear like `natural' market operations to a neo-classical economist may in fact be the result of political decisions, or indeed of deliberate political inaction. Hacker and Pierson cite e.g. the decision of the Clinton administration not to police derivatives as an example of how political coalitions may block reforms in ways that have dramatic economic consequences.

Hence, Hacker and Pierson turn to the lessons of ongoing political science research. This is both a strength and a weakness. I'll talk about the weakness below - but I found the account of the current research convincing, readable and accurate. It builds on both Hacker and Pierson's own work and the work of others (e.g. the revisionist account of American party structures from Zaller et al. and the work of Bartels). This original body of work is not written in ways that make it easily accessible to non-professionals - while Bartels' book was both excellent and influential, it was not an easy read. Winner-Take-All Politics pulls off the tricky task of both presenting the key arguments underlying work without distorting them and integrating them into a highly readable narrative.

As noted above, the book sets out (in my view quite successfully) to reframe how we should think about American politics. It downplays the importance of electoral politics, without dismissing it, in favor of a focus on policy-setting, institutions, and organization.

First and most important - policy-setting. Hacker and Pierson argue that too many books on US politics focus on the electoral circus. Instead, they should be focusing on the politics of policy-setting. Government is important, after all, because it makes policy decisions which affect people's lives. While elections clearly play an important role in determining who can set policy, they are not the only moment of policy choice, nor necessarily the most important. The actual processes through which policy gets made are poorly understood by the public, in part because the media is not interested in them (in Hacker and Pierson's words, "[f]or the media, governing often seems like something that happens in the off-season").

And to understand the actual processes of policy-making, we need to understand institutions. Institutions make it more or less easy to get policy through the system, by shaping veto points. If one wants to explain why inequality happens, one needs to look not only at the decisions which are made, but the decisions which are not made, because they are successfully opposed by parties or interest groups. Institutional rules provide actors with opportunities both to try and get policies that they want through the system and to stymie policies that they do not want to see enacted. Most obviously in the current administration, the existence of the filibuster supermajority requirement, and the willingness of the Republican party to use it for every significant piece of legislation that it can be applied to means that we are seeing policy change through "drift." Over time, policies become increasingly disconnected from their original purposes, or actors find loopholes or ambiguities through which they can subvert the intention of a policy (for example - the favorable tax regime under which hedge fund managers are able to treat their income at a low tax rate). If it is impossible to rectify policies to deal with these problems, then drift leads to policy change - Hacker and Pierson suggest that it is one of the most important forms of such change in the US.

Finally - the role of organizations. Hacker and Pierson suggest that organizations play a key role in pushing through policy change (and a very important role in elections too). They typically trump voters (who lack information, are myopic, are not focused on the long term) in shaping policy decisions. Here, it is important that the organizational landscape of the US is dramatically skewed. There are many very influential organizations pushing the interests of business and of the rich. Politicians on both sides tend to pay a lot of attention to them, because of the resources that they have. There are far fewer - and weaker - organizations on the other side of the fight, especially given the continuing decline of unions (which has been hastened by policy decisions taken and not taken by Republicans and conservative Democrats).

In Hacker and Pierson's account, these three together account for the systematic political bias towards greater inequality. In simplified form: Organizations - and battles between organizations over policy as well as elections - are the structuring conflicts of American politics. The interests of the rich are represented by far more powerful organizations than the interests of the poor and middle class. The institutions of the US provide these organizations and their political allies with a variety of tools to promote new policies that reshape markets in their interests. This account is in some ways neo-Galbraithian (Hacker and Pierson refer in passing to the notion of `countervailing powers'). But while it lacks Galbraith's magisterial and mellifluous prose style, it is much better than he was on the details.

Even so (and here begin the criticisms) - it is not detailed enough. The authors set the book up as a whodunit: Who or what is responsible for the gross inequalities of American economic life? They show that the other major suspects have decent alibis (they may inadvertently have helped the culprit, but they did not carry out the crime itself. They show that their preferred culprit had the motive and, apparently, the means. They find good circumstantial evidence that he did it. But they do not find a smoking gun. For me, the culprit (the American political system) is like OJ. As matters stand, I'm pretty sure that he committed the crime. But I'm not sure that he could be convicted in a court of law, and I could be convinced that I was wrong, if major new exculpatory evidence was uncovered.

The lack of any smoking gun (or, alternatively, good evidence against a smoking gun) is the direct result of a major failure of American intellectual life. As the authors observe elsewhere, there is no field of American political economy. Economists have typically treated the economy as non-political. Political scientists have typically not concerned themselves with the American economy. There are recent efforts to change this, coming from economists like Paul Krugman and political scientists like Larry Bartels, but they are still in their infancy. We do not have the kinds of detailed and systematic accounts of the relationship between political institutions and economic order for the US that we have e.g. for most mainland European countries. We will need a decade or more of research to build the foundations of one.

Hence, while Hacker and Pierson show that political science can get us a large part of the way, it cannot get us as far as they would like us to go, for the simple reason that political science is not well developed enough yet. We can identify the causal mechanisms intervening between some specific political decisions and non-decisions and observed outcomes in the economy. We cannot yet provide a really satisfactory account of how these particular mechanisms work across a wider variety of settings and hence produce the general forms of inequality that they point to. Nor do we yet have a really good account of the precise interactions between these mechanisms and other mechanisms.

None of this is to discount the importance of this book. If it has the impact it deserves, it will transform American public arguments about politics and policymaking. I cannot see how someone who was fair minded could come away from reading this book and not be convinced that politics plays a key role in the enormous economic inequality that we see. And even if it is aimed at a general audience, it also challenges academics and researchers in economics, political science and economic sociology both to re-examine their assumptions about how economics and politics work, and to figure out ways better to engage with the key political debates of our time as Hacker and Pierson have done. If you can, buy it.

(RIch) Winners Take All, September 14, 2010
Many people have observed that American politics and the American economy reached some kind of turning point around 1980, which conveniently marks the election of Ronald Reagan. Some also pointed to other factors such as the deregulation of stock brokerage commissions in 1975 and the high inflation of the 1970s. Other analysts have put the turning point back in 1968, when Richard Nixon became President on the back of a wave of white, middle-class resentment against the 1960s. Hacker and Pierson, however, point the finger at the 1970s. As they describe in Chapter 4, the Nixon presidency saw the high-water market of the regulatory state; the demise of traditional liberalism occurred during the Carter administration, despite Democratic control of Washington, when highly organized business interests were able to torpedo the Democratic agenda and begin the era of cutting taxes for the rich that apparently has not yet ended today.

Why then? Not, as popular commentary would have it, because public opinion shifted. Hacker and Pierson cite studies showing that public opinion on issues such as inequality has not shifted over the past thirty years; most people still think society is too unequal and that taxes should be used to reduce inequality. What has shifted is that Congressmen are now much more receptive to the opinions of the rich, and there is actually a negative correlation between their positions and the preferences of their poor constituents (p. 111). Citing Martin Gilens, they write, "When well-off people strongly supported a policy change, it had almost three times the chance of becoming law as when they strongly opposed it. When median-income people strongly supported a policy change, it had hardly any greater chance of becoming law than when they strongly opposed it" (p. 112). In other words, it isn't public opinion, or the median voter, that matters; it's what the rich want.

That shift occurred in the 1970s because businesses and the super-rich began a process of political organization in the early 1970s that enabled them to pool their wealth and contacts to achieve dominant political influence (described in Chapter 5). To take one of the many statistics they provide, the number of companies with registered lobbyists in Washington grew from 175 in 1971 to nearly 2,500 in 1982 (p. 118). Money pouring into lobbying firms, political campaigns, and ideological think tanks created the organizational muscle that gave the Republicans a formidable institutional advantage by the 1980s. The Democrats have only reduced that advantage in the past two decades by becoming more like Republicans-more business-friendly, more anti-tax, and more dependent on money from the super-rich. And that dependency has severely limited both their ability and their desire to fight back on behalf of the middle class (let alone the poor), which has few defenders in Washington.

At a high level, the lesson of Winner-Take-All Politics is similar to that of 13 Bankers: when looking at economic phenomena, be they the financial crisis or the vast increase in inequality of the past thirty years, it's politics that matters, not just abstract economic forces. One of the singular victories of the rich has been convincing the rest of us that their disproportionate success has been due to abstract economic forces beyond anyone's control (technology, globalization, etc.), not old-fashioned power politics. Hopefully the financial crisis and the recession that has ended only on paper (if that) will provide the opportunity to teach people that there is no such thing as abstract economic forces; instead, there are different groups using the political system to fight for larger shares of society's wealth. And one group has been winning for over thirty years.

Adapted From Baseline Scenario Website

The Culprit: Enormous and Growing Inequality of Incomes, September 17, 2010
In Winner-Take-All Politics, two political science professors explain what caused the Middle Class to become vulnerable. Understanding this phenomenon is the Holy Grail of contemporary economics in the U.S.

Some may feel this book is just as polarizing as the current state of politics and media in America. The decades-long decline in income taxes of wealthy individuals is cited in detail. Wage earners are usually subjected to the FICA taxes against all their ordinary income (all or almost their entire total income). But the top wealthy Americans may have only a small percentage (or none) of their income subjected to FICA taxes. Thus Warren Buffett announced that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. Buffett has cited income inequality for "poisoning democracy."

When you search the `Net for Buffett quotes on inequality, you get a lot of results showing how controversial he became for stating the obvious. Drawing attention to the inequity of the tax regime won him powerful enemies. Those same people are not going to like the authors for writing Winner-Take-All. They say these political science people are condescending because they presume to tell people their political interests.

Many studies of poverty show how economic and political policies generally favor the rich throughout the world, some of which are cited in this book. Military spending and financial bailouts in particular favor the wealthy. Authors Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson document a long U.S. policy trend favoring wealthy Americans. This trend resulted in diminished middle class access to quality healthcare and education, making it harder to keep up with the wealthy in relative terms. Further, once people have lost basic foundations of security, they are less willing and able to take on more risk in terms of investing or starting a business.

The rise of special interests has been at the expense of the middle class, according to the authors. Former President Carter talked about this and was ridiculed. Since then government has grown further from most of us. Even federal employees are not like most of us anymore. In its August 10, 2010 issue, USA Today discussed government salaries: "At a time when workers' pay and benefits have stagnated, federal employees' average compensation has grown to more than double what private sector workers earn, a USA TODAY analysis finds."

An excellent documentary showing how difficult it is to address income inequality is One Percent, by Jamie Johnson of the Johnson & Johnson family. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, by Pulitzer Prize-winner Jared Diamond Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed shows examples of what can happen when a society disregards a coming disaster until too late. I hope that Winner-Take-All will prompt people to demand more of elected officials and to arrest the growing income gap for the sake of our democracy.

A Compelling Book, September 21, 2010
Even if you disagree with the implications, the book is very convincing that:

1. The richer you are, the more you have benefited from economic changes over the past 30 years.
2. The poorer you are, the worse your economic life has become over the past 30 years.
3. The previous two conclusions are largely the result of government policy.
4. If we want to avoid becoming a Latin American economy where the rich get richer and the rest suffer, we need to change government policies.

I am convinced that these 4 "facts" represent our current reality.... and that we need to address them. The book is required reading for anyone interested in federal tax or regulatory policy.

Interesting and Timely, but Also Off-Base in Some Regards, September 15, 2010
The thirty-eight biggest Wall Street companies earned $140 billion in 2009, a record that all taxpayers who contributed to their bailouts can be proud of. Among those, Goldman Sachs paid its employees an average $600,000, also a record, and at least partially attributable to our bailout of AIG, which promptly gave much of the money to Goldman. Prior to that, the top 25 hedge fund managers earned an average of $892 million in 2007. "Winner-Take-All Politics" is framed as a detective story about how we got to inequality levels where the top 300,000 (0.1%) receive over 20% of national income, vs. 13.5% for the bottom 180 million (60% of the population).

Between 1947 and 1973, real family median income essentially doubled, and the growth percentage was virtually the same for all income levels. In the mid-1970s, however, economic inequality began to increase sharply and middle-incomes lagged. Increased female workforce participation rates and more overtime helped cushion the stagnation or decline for many (they also increased the risk of layoffs/family), then growing credit card debt shielded many families from reality. Unfortunately, expectations of stable full-time employment also began shrinking, part-time, temporary, and economic risk-bearing (eg. taxi drivers leasing vehicles and paying the fuel costs; deliverymen 'buying' routes and trucks) work increased, workers covered by employer-sponsored health insurance fell from 69% in 1979 to 56% in 2004, and retirement coverage was either been dropped entirely or mostly converted to much less valuable fix-contribution plans for private sector employees. Some exceptions have occurred that benefit the middle and lower-income segments - Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), Medicaid, and Medicare were initiated or expanded, but these have not blunted the overall trend. Conversely, welfare reform, incarceration rates rising 6X between 1970 and 2000, bankruptcy reform, and increased tax audits for EITC recipients have also added to their burden, Social Security is being challenged again (despite stock market declines, enormous transition costs, and vastly increased overhead costs and fraud opportunity), and 2009's universal health care reform will be aggressively challenged both in the courts and Washington.

Authors Hacker and Pierson contend that growing inequality is not the 'natural' product of market rewards, but mostly the artificial result of deliberate government policies, strongly influenced by industry lobbyists and donations, new and expanded conservative 'think tanks,' and inadequate media coverage that focused more on the 'horse race' aspects of various initiatives than their content and impact. First came the capital gains tax cuts under President Carter, then deregulation of the financial industry under Clinton, the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, and the financial bailouts in 2008-09. The authors contend that if the 1970 tax structure remained today, the top gains would be considerably less.

But what about the fact that in 1965 CEOs of large corporations only earned about 24X the average worker, compared to 300+X now? Hacker and Pierson largely ignore the role of board-room politics and malfeasance that have mostly allowed managers to serve themselves with payment without regard to performance and out of proportion to other nations. In 2006, the 20 highest-paid European managers made an average $12.5 million, only one-third as much as the 20 highest-earning U.S. executives. Yet, the Europeans led larger firms - $65.5 billion in sales vs. $46.5 billion for the U.S. Asian CEOs commonly make only 10X-15X what their base level employees make. Jiang Jianqing, Chairman of the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (world's largest), made $234,700 in 2008, less than 2% of the $19.6 million awarded Jamie Dimon, CEO of the world's fourth-largest bank, JPMorgan Chase.

"Winner-Take-All Politics" also provides readers with the composition of 2004 taxpayers in the top 0.1% of earners (including capital gains). Non-finance executives comprised 41% of the group, finance professionals 18.4%, lawyers 6%, real estate personages 5%, physicians 4%, entrepreneurs 4%, and arts and sports stars 3%. The authors assert that this shows education and skills levels are not the great dividers most everyone credits them to be - the vast majority of Americans losing ground to the super-rich includes many well-educated individuals, while the super-rich includes many without a college education (Sheldon Adelson, Paul Allen, Edgar Bronfman, Jack Kent Cook, Michael Dell, Walt Disney, Larry Ellison, Bill Gates, Wayne Huizenga, Steve Jobs, Rush Limbaugh, Steve Wozniak, and Mark Zuckerberg).

Authors Hacker and Pierson are political science professors and it is understandable that they emphasize political causes (PACs, greater recruitment of evangelical voters, lobbying - eg. $500 million on health care lobbying in 2009, filibusters that allow senators representing just 10% of the population to stop legislation and make the other side look incompetent, etc.) for today's income inequality. However, their claim that foreign trade is "largely innocent" as a cause is neither substantiated nor logical. Foreign trade as practiced today pads corporate profits and executive bonuses while destroying/threatening millions of American jobs and lowering/holding down the incomes of those affected. Worse yet, the authors don't even mention the impact of millions of illegal aliens depressing wage rates while taking jobs from Americans, nor do they address the canard that tax cuts for and spending by the super-wealthy are essential to our economic success (refuted by Moody's Analytics and Austan Goolsbee, Business Week - 9/13/2010). They're also annoyingly biased towards unions, ignoring their constant strikes and abuses in the 1960s and 1970s, major contributions to G.M., Chrysler, and legacy airline bankruptcies, and current school district, local, and state financial difficulties.

Bottom-Line: It is a sad commentary on the American political system that growing and record levels of inequality are being met by populist backlash against income redistribution and expanding trust in government, currently evidenced by those supporting extending tax cuts for the rich and railing against reforming health care to reduce expenditures from 17.3+% of GDP to more internationally competitive levels (4-6%) while improving patient outcomes. "Winner-Take-All Politics" is interesting reading, provides some essential data, and point out some evidence of the inadequacy of many voters. However, the authors miss the 'elephant in the room' - American-style democracy is not viable when at most 10% of citizens are 'proficient' per functional literacy tests ([...]), and only a small proportion of them have the time and access required to sift through the flood of half-truths, lies, and irrelevancies to objectively evaluate 2,000+ page bills and other political activity. (Ideology-dominated economic professionals and short-term thinking human rights advocates are two others.)

Interesting -- but the argument is not credible, September 23, 2010
This is a very interesting and well written book. The central argument is that growing income inequality is primarily a result of the political policies enacted since the Reagan administration.

The book makes many valid points, for example marginal tax rates on the wealthy have been reduced dramatically.

The problem is that the book discounts the impact of both technology and globalization, and I find that to be simply not credible. The evidence of factory relocations, service offshoring and automation are all around us.

I believe there is solid evidence that globalization and technology are the primary forces driving inequality. The problem is that for most workers labor is becoming less and less valued -- and as a result they have less bargaining power.

Politics is certainly important, and if we had had more progressive, countervailing policies, then we could have mitigated the impact of technology an globalization. Instead we adopted conservative policies that actually accelerated the push toward more concentration of income.

It is very important to understand what is going on here, because if technology is to blame, then it is going to get worse. Technology is moving faster than ever before, and we will soon have far more advanced job automation. More and more people are likely to find that they no longer have marketable skills. Politics may worsen that -- or fail to help -- but it is NOT the fundamental cause.

For the real story on what is happening, and more importantly, a look at what is likely to happen in the future, I'd recommend this book:

The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future.

Read "Winner Take All Politics" by all means, because it certainly raises valid points. But if you want to understand the danger we face in the next couple of decades, be sure to read "The Lights in the Tunnel".

4.5 stars-Wall Street speculators control both parties, September 19, 2010
This book basically argues that Wall Street controls both political parties through the use of massive campaign contributions and lobbyists who buy off both the Republicans and Democrats in the White House,Senate and House.This is essentially correct but obvious.Anyone can go back to the 1976 Jimmy Carter campaign and simply verify that the majority of his campaign funds and advisors came from Wall Street.This identical conclusion also holds with respect to Ronald Reagan,George H W Bush,Bill Clinton,George W Bush and Barack Obama.The only Presidents/Presidential candidates not dominated by Wall Street since 1976 were Gerald Ford,Walter Mondale,Ross Perot,Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan.
For instance,it is common knowledge to anyone who carefully checks to see where the money is coming from that Wall Street financiers ,hedgefunds,private equity firms and giant commercial banks are calling the shots.For example,one could simply read the July 9,2007 issue of FORTUNE magazine to discover who the major backers of John McCain,Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were.One could also have read Business Week(2-25-2008) or the Los Angeles Times of 3-21-2008.Through February, 2008 the major donors to the McCain campaign were 1)Merrill Lynch,2) Citigroup,3)Goldman Sachs,4)J P Morgan Chase and 5)Credit Suisse.The major donors to the Hillary Clinton campaign were 1)Goldman Sachs ,2)Morgan Stanley,3)Citigroup,4)Lehman Brothers and 5)J P Morgan Chase.Guess who were the major donors to the Obama campaign ? If you guessed 1)Goldman Sachs,2)UBS Ag,3)J P Morgan Chase ,4)Lehman Brothers and 5)Citigroup,then you are correct.

It didn't matter who became President-Hillary Clinton,Barack Obama or John McCain.All three had been throughly vetted by Wall Street.The campaign staffs of all three candidates ,especially their economic and finance advisors,were all Wall Street connected.Wall Street would have been bailed out regardless of which party won the 2008 election.

Obama is not going to change anything substantially in the financial markets .Neither is Rep. Barney Frank,Sen. Chris Dodd ,Sen. Kerry or Sen. Schumer,etc.Nor is any Republican candidate going to make any changes,simply because the Republican Party is dominated even more so by Wall Street(100%) than the Democratic Party(80%) .The logical solution would be to support a Third Party candidate,for example, Ross Perot .

One aspect of the book is deficient. True conservatives like Ross Perot,Pat Buchanan and Lou Dobbs have been warning about the grave dangers of hallowing out and downsizing the American Manufacturing -Industrial sector,with the consequent offshoring and/or loss of many millions of American jobs,for about 20 years at the same time that the " financial services " sector has exploded from 3% of the total service sector in 1972 to just under 40% by 2007.This is what is causing the great shrinkage in the middle class in America .

Must reading for those concerned with economic equity, December 2, 2010
The book offers a revealing review and analysis of the politics behind America's shift from a nation of middle-class opportunity to one of �ber-rich privilege. Convincingly tossing aside the usual culprits--globalization, technology, educational decline, China, etc.--the authors illustrate the bipartisan nature of this swing in economic reality, with flashpoints occurring in the Carter and Clinton administrations when Democrats held sway, not during the popularly suspected Reagan and Bush-I regimes.

The egregious role of money in our political system--surely to be amplified following the recent Supreme Court decision allowing unfettered use of corporate funds in political campaigns--looms large in the analysis. It helps explain why both parties have abandoned economic fairness in favor of the have-it-alls, but party strategy and effectiveness on the ground also have played their role.

Although much content is disheartening for those concerned with decency and fairness in the economic lives of all Americans (and amazingly light in terms of prescriptions for change), it is certainly important fodder for those who favor a Congress concerned about the middle-class instead of the already very rich.

Great title; reasonable arguments, September 16, 2010
Some of the authors' positions may come off as slanted, but overall their arguments appear to be sound. Read this book along with "What Greenspan Can't Tell You", Jan '08, which addressed many of these issues (and many others), and argued how the imbalances in the system would lead to an imminent crash of the real estate and stock markets.

Timely and Important!, December 10, 2010
I give this book five stars because it is well written, well researched, AND because it is IMPORTANT! If every American were to read this book the political discourse would change significantly for the better. The book is very informative and (although I have not checked all of the references) it seems to be factual and fair. Any political biases of the authors seems to me to be restrained by facts and the desire to arrive at an accurate description of reality. ... Read more

Editorial Review

In 2008 , the presidential election became blockbuster entertainment. Everyone was watching as the race for the White House unfolded like something from the realm of fiction. The meteoric rise and historic triumph of Barack Obama. The shocking fall of the House of Clinton—and the improbable resurrection of Hillary as Obama’s partner and America’s face to the world. The mercurial performance of John McCain and the mesmerizing emergence of Sarah Palin. But despite the wall-to-wall media coverage of this spellbinding drama, remarkably little of the real story behind the headlines had been told—until now.

In Game Change, John Heilemann and Mark Halperin pull back the curtains on the Obama, Clinton, McCain, and Palin campaigns. Based on hundreds of interviews with the people who lived thestory, Game Change is a reportorial tour de force that reads like a fast-paced novel.

Reviews

Changing your opinions of politicians and a great gossipy read!, January 11, 2010
"Game Change" was not even on sale and it was already roiling the political waters with its shocking revelations. There is a rich tradition of books about presidential campaigns that break news not revealed during the campaign and "Game Change" has PLENTY of revelations. The one getting a great deal of play was Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's inappropriate racially tinged comments about candidate Obama, which managed to be kept under wraps, while then-Senator Biden's made their way out. 2008 was the year of "Candidates Gone Wild," saying ridiculous and inappropriate things like Obama's comment on people clinging to their guns, religion, and bitterness. But there's so much here that never got out. Like Elizabeth Edwards, who has carefully cultured a public persona as the victimized suffering wife, belittling her husband John as a "hick" and in private launching into obscenity laced tirades at him and about him. Heilemann and Halperin examine both sides of the race and there are plenty of great gossipy stories on both sides, as well as other shocking revelations, such as how rushed the selection of Governor Sarah Palin as Vice-President was. We already knew that virtually no one in the Republican leadership was consulted over the choice and only know do we learn how rushed the decision was and how little thought or consideration was truly given to the choice. Moreover, the choice was primarily tactical in nature, designed to knock the Obama campaign off balance and off guard. Only after Palin was selected did the McCain campaign realize that they had made a huge tactical error they could not undo. The ensuing problems within the McCain-Palin campaign are chronicled here, but considering how much press there was at the time there's little here that breaks new ground. It is however a very great, gripping recounting of the chain of events.

Obama comes off every bit as stage-crafted and stage-managed as Ronald Reagan ever was. Heilemann and Halperin aptly capture the duality of his persona; on the stump Obama is well spoken, on message, cool, calm, and collected. Off the stump he is profane, prone to quick flashes of anger, and at times tentative and uncertain. Hillary Clinton comes off pretty much as was covered in the press at the time, but what IS news is her unsurprisingly blunt comment to Obama that she "cannot control her husband". Bill Clinton gets almost as much print here for his wildly inappropriate comments on the stump and in private about Candidate Obama and it's clear to see that what undid Hillary wasn't her efforts, but those of her husband. We get the clearest glimpse into Obama's hard sell when he talks Hillary Clinton into ending her campaign and into becoming Secretary of State as well.

"Game Change" answers many of the questions you had about the campaign, but which were never answered, like Rudy Giuliani's foolish all-or-nothing gamble on the Florida Primary and why he truly got out of the race, the Democratic conclave that prodded then-Senator Obama into the race in the first place, and so much more. Reading "Game Change" is like reliving the campaign all over again, but THIS time with the insider knowledge of details that were omitted by the campaigns and the press. If anything this will not only enlighten you but enrage you, as the media and the press clearly are NOT doing their jobs at all. All of this SHOULD have made it's way into the news during the campaign and yet it didn't. Truth is stranger than fiction, and with truth written this well, who needs fiction?

We're All Human -, January 11, 2010
"Game Change" is about the 2008 election. The most obvious question is "What could be new in this book - the campaign was already covered in incredible detail for nearly two years by bloggers, national media, local media - anyone with a camera and/or a link to the Internet. The answer is that most of the material concerns previously unreported personal details rather than much in the way of national policy or any sort of analysis of the electorate. The result is that whether you like it or not, "Game Change" has put the nation back into a supercharged 'gossip mode,' combining high-level scandals in the Clinton, Edwards, and McCain campaigns, with allegations of presidential unfitness in the Clinton, Edwards, and McCain-Palin campaigns, along with a bit of racism thrown in for good measure. This volatile mixture has since been ignited by "60 Minutes," "Good Morning America," and other TV interviews. Initial reaction from those named in the book has largely been denial, except for Senator Reid regarding his comments on Senator Obama's relatively benign blackness not being an impediment for the presidency. Denials, unfortunately, will probably go unrebutted - the book makes extensive use of unattributed quotes and deep-background interviews that don't permit fact-checking.

Sarah Palin clearly provides the juiciest material, mostly from McCain's campaign manager Steve Schmidt. It's a strange position - he led McCain to Palin, then lambasts her unfitness and poor preparation, and finally ends up admitting that without her it would have been worse. Regardless, it's scary to see how close she came to being a heartbeat away from the presidency, despite barely understanding what the Cold War was all about, not understanding why there's a North and South Korea, or even what the Federal Reserve does. Palin even believed that Saddam was behind 9/11. "Game Change" also contends V.P. Cheney thought she was a poor pick. Worse yet, some contend she had bipolar symptoms - perky at times, catatonic at others. McCain operatives clearly had not done their vetting homework, then tried to make up for it by shielding her from the press - no open press conferences, and planning to make her a ceremonial V.P. in the event the McCain-Palin ticket won. Palin's real attraction was being a female - Schmidt et al somehow hoped that disillusioned Hillary supporters would flock to Palin.

Surprisingly, Elizabeth Edwards doesn't come off well either, given problems with cancer and a philandering husband. Instead, we learn that she was seen by insiders as an abusive, intrusive, paranoid, and vindictive crazy-woman, not the public persona of valiant and heroic. Elizabeth also referred to her husband back in 2004 in front of others as being her intellectually inferior - something that hard to accept at face value given his success as a trial lawyer. Naturally, John Edwards doesn't come out well either, though its surprising how badly he did. There was the obvious problem with his affair with a publicist; worse yet, his attempts to sell his endorsement to Obama in return for first the V.P., then the Attorney General positions. Obama, in return, responded that if he took such a deal he himself wouldn't deserve to be president.

Hillary Clinton was the smart-money choice for the Democratic nomination early on. However, some party leaders worried about her polarizing effect, as well as old baggage from the Bill Clinton presidency. Thus, supporters that the Clintons thought they could count on worked quitely to pord Obama to run - hence, Reid's ill-fated thoughts on a 'light-skinned Negro.' Hillary Clinton's supporters, not surprisingly, also had concerns about Bill's womanizing possibly affecting the campaign. To their relief they found that only one of the rumors was likely true - surprisingly, it never became an issue. Bill did cause/acerbate a serious problem, however, in his early discussions with Senator Kennedy - the former president's negative and racist comments about Obama offended Senator Kennedy deeply. On the other side, Mrs. Clinton's reaction to the loss in Iowa, however, did make some of her supporters wonder if she was stable enough to be president. "Game Change" also reports that Hillary had a staffer attempt to obtain Caroline Kennedy's endorsement - making it easy for Caroline to refuse the call and ignore Hillary. Interesting factoid - Hillary was talked out of running in 2004 by Chelsea, who recommended completing Hillary's Senate term first. If Hillary had won the 2004 nomination, it's not likely that Obama would have been offered the keynote speech, and . . . . Regardless, Hillary also gets a black mark for thinking about her V.P. partner as early as 2007.

Then there's the scandal I just never would have suspected - Mrs. McCain. We already knew she had a prior problem with, and overcame a drug addiction. Now we learn that there's credible reason to believe she had a long-term Arizona boyfriend. Campaign aides reportedly forced the Senator to confront her on it (no names offered), and the book also reports that they often fought in public and that there was little warmth between the couple. (Based on reports elsewhere, that probably is true.)

Bottom Line: "Game Change" is readable, interesting, and unfortunate. Unfortunate in that we learn that many of those who would lead us aren't worthy of the responsibility.

Does it live up to the hype?, January 20, 2010
Amid the hoopla surrounding this book in the days prior to it's release, I couldn't wait to get a copy. Reading this book, I continually asked myself it was really worth all the hype or just a ratification of things I already knew. The last 10 years, the United States has been embroiled in such a divisive political atmosphere it comes as no surprise that most of the best-selling books are about politics and politicians ... intelligent books written about or by politicians have proven to be cash-cows that do nothing more than "energize the base" or fuel/ignite the opposition. "Game Change" gives me mixed feelings.

We should have known this was coming ... the implosion of political candidates is as entertaining as the losers that humiliate themselves on the American Idol auditions year-after-year. Years ago, a news periodical like Newsweek or Time would run juicy after-election articles documenting a defeated candidates horridly-run campaign that always included incidents of the candidate "losing grip" at one point or another. "Game Change" seemed to be nothing more than a compilation of such articles, but expertly welded together to create a generously smooth flow for the reader. In other words, other than the juicy details of the vitriol and carnage, the book didn't really reveal anything new about anyone or anything.

After all, the 24/7 news cycle already gives us more information than we need to know about all the subject matter in this book:

- we already knew obama was a "smooth operator"; intelligent and gifted at reading other people's speeches ... his outright cocky demeanor and his obvious, deep and admirable devotion to his wife and children.
- it came as no surprise that the facade Hillary Clinton publicly displays will never fully conceal the hostility simmering inside her or the holier-than-thou ego that creates a deep sense of distrust by others.
- is it surprising that John McCain is "out of touch" or that John Edwards is a narcissistic snake that is all style and NO substance?
- is there ANYTHING new (positive or negative) about Sarah Palin that hasn't already been revealed?

As a whole, "Game Change" seems to rehash many of the same stories that have been popular on most of the mainstream political blogs, which I felt was somewhat disappointing. For me, there are too few eyebrow-raising moments. If anything, the book reminded me of a movie trailer on TV that is so good you are enticed to actually see the movie in a theatre ... only to leave the theatre realizing the only good parts of the movie were in the trailer (the Harry Reid quote comes to mind).

However, what I DID enjoy about this book was:

1) it was definitely a very entertaining read ... after all, these politicians are just regular dopes like the rest of us ... they do and say stupid things ... and oftentimes, they don't always have their acts together ... in fact, I enjoyed the depiction of all these politicians displaying playground-level antics and tantrums.

2) the President has a penchant for dropping F-bombs, which I found humorous on a number of occasions

3) finding out how truly selfish, shallow and egotistical our political leaders really are.

4) how much all these people genuinely detest one another ...

5) the book is fair in that it doles-out dirt on everyone and really doesn't take sides (a truly refreshing change of pace)

Finishing "Game Change" left me with one huge question: With backstabbing, dirty tricks, lying and snickering being such a way of life for these people; how or why should ANYONE really trust ANY of them?

A raunchy romp into the dirty laundry of the high and mighty, January 11, 2010
We always wonder what's going on behind the scenes of an election and in the lives of the Washington elite. Most of us know, or eventually learn, that politicians are typically loathsome characters of few morals and mammoth egos who think nothing of lying, cheating and, in general, being insufferable human beings. And, we get a chance to see it all, up close, in this new book by political reporters Mark Halperin and John Heilemann. We get the opportunity to look behind the scenes and see these people as they really are. It's both fun and frightening. It's quite revealing. To wit . . .

Bill Clinton wanted Ted Kennedy to endorse Hillary. But instead, he angered Kennedy so badly that Kennedy went all out for Obama. Here's how it happened according to the book . . .

"As Hillary bungled Caroline, Bill's handling of Ted was even worse. The day after Iowa, he phoned Kennedy and pressed for an endorsement, making the case for his wife. But Bill then went on, belittling Obama in a manner that deeply offended Kennedy. Recounting the conversation later to a friend, Teddy fumed that Clinton had said,' A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.' "

Of course, we have to wonder if Kennedy was telling the truth or perhaps colorizing it to fit his own agenda since Kennedy was not a moral or virtuous man or one known for telling the truth. So, in reality, this story is secondhand. It could be false or it could be taken out of context. Or, it could be true.

On another matter the Clintons wanted to go after Obama's drug use. Can you imagine alleged coke sniffer Bill going after alleged dope smoker Obama? Well, that was going to be the way it went down if the Clintons had their way.

And . . .

Before BHO decided to run for president, the Obamas flew to Nashville, TN to get Al Gore's assurance that he would not run.

Among the things we learn . . .

When Obama asked Hillary Clinton to be secretary of state, she initially turned him down. Why? Bill's penchant for controversy. She felt it would interfere with her efforts in the job.

When President-elect Obama called her again to convince her to be his secretary of state, Clinton told him there was a problem. That great big mouthy problem was her husband. "You've seen what this is like; it will be a circus if I take this job," she said to Obama.

Clinton almost never admits this to anyone. And, Obama who seldom shows his vulnerable side, admits to Hillary that he needs her. He seems overwhelmed with the economy and all that's going on, all that faces him.

The McCain-Palin camp was afraid that Sarah Palin would screw things up because of the tremendous amount of information she needed to debate Biden. "The debate was going to be a debacle of historic and epic proportions...she was not focused...not engaged." She was not really participating in the prep, the authors add.

Sidebar:

In a recent news article Palin's spokeswoman, Meghan Stapleton, said in a statement: "The Governor's descriptions of these events are found in her book, 'Going Rogue.' Her descriptions are accurate. She was there. These reporters were not." Stapleton was talking about what was said about Palin in this book by the authors.

and then . . .

McCain aides confront Cindy McCain over reports that she had an extramarital affair.

The authors tell us that Hillary Clinton was so confident she would get the Democratic nomination that she had two top advisers planning her transition for after she won the general election.

They also point out that up until only days before the Republican Convention, Sen. John McCain was still thinking Sen. Joe Lieberman would be his running mate, until the "blowback" was so strong, they feared Lieberman would be rejected by the party, forcing the last-minute choice of Palin for the role.

Steve Schmidt, John McCain's former chief campaign strategist believes the Obama-Biden victory would have been even more lopsided without Palin on the Republican ticket, according to the book.

On John Edwards . . .

John Edwards went from being typically conceited to having megalomania. Women were always after him. He loved it and it fed his enormous ego. But it was also a problem for the campaign.

Edwards thought the contest would be between him and Hillary. The Clinton camp thought the same thing.

Edwards was normally warm to his staff. But he turned disdainful. He ignored and dismissed them. He even mistreated both staff and supporters. "You can't talk to people that way, "an aid told him after one of his displays. "People didn't like the new John Edwards."

Surprisingly, Elizabeth Edwards was fast to show John that she was his intellectual superior. She called him a "hick" in front of people and derided him for having "redneck parents." She called some staffers idiots. Her illness mellowed her in the early months of 2005 - but not for long.

While John's wife may have made him feel small, his new gal pal made him feel like a king. She told him that he had "the power to change the world," that "the people will follow you." She told him that he could be as great a leader as Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr. She told him, "You're so real. You just need to get your staff out of your way." She reinforced everything he already believed about himself. She told him exactly what he wanted and needed to hear.

No one gets off free in the book. The authors tell us that Senate Majority Harry Reid (D-Nev.) had referred privately to Barack Obama early in his campaign as a "light-skinned" African American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."

Ladies and gentlemen . . . meet America's elite.

This book makes Lady Chatterley's Lover as sexy as a high school algebra text book. It makes Madame Bovary look positively saintly. If even half of what this book reports is true, I've got higher forms of life on the bottom of my shoe than we've got running our country.

What a read. Gustave Flaubert couldn't have written it any better.

- Susanna K. Hutcheson

Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, John McCain, Sarah Palin - all new material. Unexpected., January 12, 2010
I was amazed that this book had so much NEW to say, after the plethora of books, commentaries and TV/print reporter opinions about the 2008 election. I thought that we knew everything about John & Cindy McCain, Sarah Palin, John Edwards and his wife, Hillary & Bill Clinton and of course Barack & Michelle Obama. But no. The authors provide tons of insightful material that gives more clues about why the Obamas won the election. The McCains were fighting furiously between each other, Mrs Edwards was not the nice person we all thought and the Obamas were even happier than they appear to be. The Harry Reid comment has captured the media attention this week but this unexpectedly good book provides valuable new material about one of the most historic elections in this country. Well done.Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime

Some real surprises, January 14, 2010
I think this book is a must-read for political junkies, but also for those who are interested in American politics but never knew how parties choose candidates, how caucuses work (and how candidates with little popular support get to be "kingmakers"), or appreciated how hard it is to be a presidential candidate, with punishing schedules, warring staff members and having to modify positions and even campaign themes at a minute's notice.

The single chapter on Sarah Palin doesn't tell us much we didn't know about her already or could be reasonably expected (loss of appetite, periods of depression, the rigors of the road, missing her baby and no understanding of how national campaigns work). It's interesting that she (and Todd) were so obsessed over her ratings in Alaska (which would not impact the election) versus in the Lower 48 (which would), and that she seemed ready and willing to change her positions if it helped the McCain ticket win the election (backtracking only when asked to do a TV ad in support of embryonic stem cell research). In fact, despite the revelation that Sarah Palin is not knowledgeable about American or World history or domestic or foreign policy, she comes off as rather more sympathetic when the urgency of her selection - giving her no time to prepare - is taken into context. However, it reinforces the belief - even among people like Karl Rove and Dick Cheney - that McCain only cared about winning the Presidency, and put America LAST. And that when he made the poor decision to leave his VP choice until the last minute then cynically choose Palin, when she faltered, he let his staff do the hatchet job on her.

The chapter focussed entirely on the Edwards was explosive - not for revelations about his affair with Rielle Hunter, but how the reality differs so much from the public perception...and especially Edwards' desparation to take any old job, offering to cut a deal with Obama to be his VP before Iowa and one to be Hillary's Attorney General after she won New Hampshire.

The real surprises included: Obama was the only member of Team Obama who sympathized with Hillary when she cried in New Hampshire (although she insisted privately that she never cried); Mike Henry intentionally leaking an internal memo to a member of Rod Blagojevich's staff; that Maureen Dowd was part of the inner circle which urged Obama to run for President; how Hillary's camp tried to get Bill Richardson and Joe Biden to get their delegates to move over to her side during the Iowa caucuses but was spurned; the Harvard Professor who knocked heads together when the Obama campaign was faltering; Lindsay Graham's intensive lobbying for Lieberman to be on the McCain ticket; how Democrats who publicly supported Hillary were backing Obama behind the scenes due to fear of retribution if Hillary won; the number of women with whom Bill Clinton was believed - by Hillary's campaign - to be romantically involved, and how important both potential First Ladies were in deciding who was in and who was out of favor. It's stressed throughout that Obama has a huge ego, but he comes off as one of the saner players in the craziness that is national politics. That said, he allowed his minions to covertly go negative on Hillary when he found out Hillary's supporters or her campaign were the source of every accusation, rumor and dubious story that made it to the internet (and some, eventually, to the MSM).

It's worth investing in this book (even if it's not on Kindle - can you Kindlers PLEASE stop rating a book you haven't read?) to learn how the whole selection and election process works - the behind-the-scenes manoevering, horse-trading and betrayals.

A wildly enjoyable read, January 16, 2010
Game Change is a great read. Regardless of who you voted for or supported, Game Change is a book worth reading. Exposing the behind the scenes events of the major Democratic and Republican players with a keen eye towards the details, conversations and motives, Halpern and Heilemann deftly provide an insiders view to the reader. This is one of those "can't put down" books that you will most likely finish within 48 hours of starting. Whether you are politically oriented or not, Game Change is well worth reading - and an added benefit is you'll have a better eye for what is happening in upcoming elections based on the insights gained in reading this eye-opening view of the 2008 Presidential election.

Personal Flaws and Uninhibited Ambition Mark This Shrewd Look Back at the 2008 Campaign Season, January 11, 2010
Regardless of your political preference, there was something inspiring about Barack Obama's election if only for the precedent he set for those outside of Capitol Hill's inner circle and for the resonating vision of change he conveyed. Perhaps to no one's surprise, the events that swirled around and eventually informed his victory were not as high-minded in motivation. A lot of the juicy details are provided by longtime political reporters John Heilemann (author of Pride Before the Fall: The Trials of Bill Gates and the End of the Microsoft Era) and Mark Halperin (author of The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008) in an intriguing, sometimes insightful and eminently readable chronicle of the events and personalities that shaped the 2008 campaign trail. As it turns out, the intense scrutiny of the public spotlight was far more forgiving than one would have expected given the revelations presented. The Obamas come across quite well here, but other key figures - Hillary and Bill Clinton, John and Cindy McCain, John and Elizabeth Edwards, Sarah Palin - are portrayed far less flatteringly.

To be sure, there is lots of good gossip to share, but credit needs to go the co-authors in providing the much-needed depth of political analysis to provide the appropriate context for the combination of observations and allegations that inform their account. There are no source notes offered at the end of the book, and the co-authors make extensive use of unattributed quotes and Bob Woodward-style deep-background interviews, which bring to question the veracity of some of the revelations. However, they manage to bring credibility to a narrative that reads like a Sinclair Lewis novel by referencing emails and interoffice memos and interviewing pertinent players like McCain's campaign manager Steve Schmidt. It is Schmidt who exposes Sarah Palin's inadequacies as a national candidate as McCain's handlers believed her to be "mentally unstable" showing bipolar symptoms, a revelation that came to light during the debate preparations and the infamous Katie Couric interview.

There is also the volatile Clinton marriage that introduced a level of political hubris to her dysfunctional campaign which led Hillary to ask Roger Altman, a Clinton confidante and deputy Treasury secretary in her husband's administration, to form a clandestine transition plan to the White House based on the assumption that she would win the general election. Obama had already been eliminated as a potential running mate due to his lack of experience. Later on, Bill's infidelity apparently reared its head yet again when she felt a need to form a "war room within a war room" for the sole purpose of managing the ongoing threat posed by Bill's sexual addictions. The irony is that Bill is portrayed as the driving force behind Hillary to stick with the race until the bitter end, and his approval meant a great deal to her at the end of the day. Her political career has been riddled with such misjudgments from missing her real opportunity in 2004 to missing out on an early endorsement from Caroline Kennedy.

Receiving a lot of undesirable press from the book are the racist comments from Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, who encouraged Obama to run early on, arguing that the candidate's light skin and eloquent manner should make him acceptable to the white masses. At least Reid has acknowledged the remarks and apologized. The book's most surprising sections are the ruthless dissections of the McCain and Edwards marriages. The McCains are portrayed as relatively estranged with wife Cindy accused of carrying on an affair with a long-term boyfriend. John Edwards comes off as even worse, a narcissist who was quite open about his infatuation with video maker Rielle Hunter and harbored self-delusional hopes of being Obama's attorney general. Wife Elizabeth, portrayed in the media as a valiant survivor of breast cancer and a philandering husband, comes across as an irrational shrew who constantly browbeat campaign staff. Through all this melodrama, Heilemann and Halperin manage to reveal a campaign season populated by key public figures compromised by their own ambitions and limitations.

Very informative, behind the scenes look at the campaign, January 12, 2010
Because of the long and credible history of the authors they were able to get the true behind the scenes look at the 2008 campaign. Their insight was not all new but it was good to see that a lot of the things I've read in bits and pieces were actually true, but then again, where there's smoke, there's fire usually holds true the great majority of the time.

If you love politics, whether you're a member of the Democratic or Republican party, you'll enjoy this book. You might not like reading the truth about your favorite politician but it's wise for all of us to remember that is what they are no matter how they try to come across.

For all of you giving this book One Star because it's not available on Kindle, do you mean to tell me you can't wait a month? Or is there some other type of behind the scenes work at hand here?

I read this book from cover to cover in one sitting and thoroughly enjoyed it. I don't usually buy political books but as I said they've established themselves as Washington insiders over the years and knew the people to talk to. It's worth waiting a month for the Kindle version. At least give the authors a chance, they don't deserve a one star review for the publisher's decision to bring it out a month later. Complain to Harper Collins if necessary but don't bash the authors!

Inside Story, January 11, 2010


A little more than 24 hours later, after the highlights of Reid's unfortunate remarks were reported, and he apologized, the book was released. Michael Steele, RNC, asked for Reid's resignation, after Steele's own remarks of 'Honest Injun' the week before. Pot/kettle? The book is full of the sort of information you might know if you were an insider in Washington, DC. But much of it occurs outside of Washington and out of harms way. Few are mentioned that know these facts first hand, so we must take it on faith, that these are true. Essentially, this book is an intimate portrait of the lives of those who ran for the Presidency in 2008 and some of the people surrounding them. Gossip, true, but much of it sounds true to life. Revelations abound and some of them are shockers.

The Edwards- John and Elizabeth. Elizabeth is the woman with cancer who has an unfaithful, jackass of a husband. She garnered all our sympathy and now we find out she was abusive to her husband all along. What an unhappy and miserable existence that family must follow.

The Clintons- Bill and Hilary- she, who decided she did not want the Secretary of State position after it was offered because of Bill. He was too much of a problem, and then Obama told her how much he needed her. She has turned out to be the most valuable of his cabinet. And, Bill's remark about Obama who would have served coffee in another time instead of becoming the candidate.

The McCains- John and Cindy- the kind of marriage that we didn't know about but had been whispered about- she cold and calculating, with a lover on the side. John may have followed the same path. It seems he spit out so many F Bombs, it filled a chapter.

Sarah Palin- as bad as we thought and worse, some staff members assigned to Sarah Palin by the McCain campaign discussed the "threatening possibility: that Palin was mentally unstable" and, yet without her, McCain would have lost by more.

VP Biden- how many goofs and mistakes would he make, yet to be decided.

Mark McGuire- he was not in this book, but he is the only one the media is decrying as a liar.

Lots of inside info that I will leave for you to read. Much of this is hearsay- that bothers me a bit, but yet, publishing lawyers must have fact checked what they could. Nothing here about policy, the personal lives and decisions of those that are discussed are on display. Somehow, this all feels real, like an inside look into the lives- the true personalities. Read at your own discretion, and believe what you will.

Recommended. prisrob 01-11-10

Language and Human Nature

Pride Before the Fall: The Trials of Bill Gates and the End of the Microsoft Era ... Read more

Editorial Review

Reviews

Good Summary of Health Care Insurance Issues, November 16, 2010
Wendell Potter was formerly in charge of public relations for Humana and then Cigna. Potter's intent in "Deadly Spin" is to expose the deceptive techniques of public relations in the insurance segment of health care. He does this quite well, and also provides readers with insight into the two events (the large turnout, including many with illusionary health insurance, for a free Pennsylvania dental and medical clinic; the death of a young girl after his employer dithered and delayed approving a necessary transplant) that turned him against continuing to defend the industry he had been part of for some 25 years. Potter begins by introducing readers to a sampling of tested phrases that have served the industry quite well, such as 'socialized medicine,' 'government-run' medicine, and 'government takeover' of medicine. Readers also gain exposure to other P.R. favorites, such as identifying with patriotism and the American way of life, testimonials, name-calling, smearing opponents (eg. Michael Moore and his "Sicko"), identification with plain folks, fake grassroot campaigns, junk science and statistical analyses, and euphemisms. A brief tour of the darker side of health insurance practice likewise is given - rescissions (retroactively canceling policies of those with large medical bills, using whatever pretext possible), and purging less than profitable accounts via large rate increases. Missing, however, is any comment on the fact that if the uninsured paid the same rates as insurance companies, much of the need for health insurance would go away, and a large proportion of medical bankruptcies avoided.

Universal health coverage began under Germany's Otto Von Bismarck in 1883, with Social Security following in 1889. The motivation was neither altruism or socialism, but to provide leverage against the labor and socialist movements of the day. Health insurance quickly spread - Austria (1888), Hungary (1891), Norway (1909), England (1911), Russia (1912), and the Netherlands (1913). Unfortunately, the momentum took almost 100 years to get to the U.S.

Some of the most disturbing revelations in "Deadly Spin" are that 'ObamaCare' is not a 'cure-all.' For example, it will not stop employers from only offering high-deductible plans such as the $30,000 for some families in Maine. Nor does it remove the ERISA liability protection for employer-sponsored plans. However, it will sharply reduce medical bankruptcies, the key reason for 62% of personal bankruptcies in 2007. Hopefully, it will also reduce the amounts paid for executive salaries and retreats - WellPoint spent over $27 million on staff retreats in 2007-08, while William McGuire, United Health CEO for 12 years, was paid almost $2 billion for his leadership ($620 million was 'clawed-back' because of fraudulent option back-dating). (Comparison: Dr. Donald Berwick, an extremely well-regarded expert in charge of care for the 103 million receiving Medicare or Medicaid, receives only $176,000/year.) Hopefully, the $52.4 billion spent on stock buybacks instead of medical care by the 7 largest insurers from 2003-08 will also either cease or be drastically diminished.

An important side effect of our market-based health-care system is the very high administrative overhead - about 31%, per some estimates, compared to 3% for Medicare. Duplicity and high lobbying costs are two more - America's health insurance plans donated $86.2 million to the U.S. Chamber's lobbying against 'ObamaCare' in 2009, while promising President Obama on tape that they were in support.

Mr. Potter is unquestionably qualified and sincere in his effort. Unfortunately, limiting the scope to his personal expertise both enormously understates the size of America's health care problem, and unfairly skews the focus towards insurance firms. The U.S. spends 17.3%+ of GDP on health care, despite not covering some 40-50 million. Compare that to competitors Japan (about 7.2%), Taiwan (about 6%), and China (4%). Reducing our expenditures to Taiwan's level would save about $1.7 trillion/year, and also reduce unfunded Medicare and other health care liabilities for retirees by close to $30 trillion. Most of the problem is due to excessive service charges (about 2X those of other nations), and excessive utilization by profit-maximizing physicians. Solutions require not just Potter's recommendations for limiting monopolistic practices by health care insurers (providers are also guilty) and mandating higher MLRs, but also restructuring health care to combine insurance and care provision in the manner of Kaiser Permanente (California), the V.A., the Cleveland Clinic, Mayo Clinic, Bassett Health Care, and Geisinger Health System. Physicians must be predominantly paid by salary, to discourage excess care. It will also require that the U.S. emulate every other developed nation that I'm aware of by mandating strict price-controls for medical services, and limiting the ability of drug makers to mislead patients and providers with overly expensive 'new' products that are no better than existing ones.

Fascinating glimpse at the "men" behind the curtain, November 19, 2010
Health care continues to limp on in the United States. We are ranked 46th out of all the Top 50 nations for health care in the world. Part of the issue is that health care is run like any other business and yet it isn't truly a business--profiting on someone's else's health or denying coverage for a pre-existing condition (or stating that a technique is experimental when, in fact, it isn't so as to deny coverage and keep the patient alive)is a form of gambling but it gambles with people's lives which makes it Wendell Potter worked for what he would probably characterize as the "enemy" now for over twenty years. As a PR executive he would weave lies into a positive "truth" for the company he worked for (Cigna) making it appear that they were always doing the right thing for their patients. Using statistics to lie is one thing (for example dropping people off the unemployment rolls that are reported to make it appear that the nation is covering when it isn't)but Potter would often twist the truth or help craft messages to appeal to middle America to scare the public from reform in health care.

One day Potter had an awakening and realized what he was doing was wrong leaving the industry that had nurtured him and becoming an advocate for proper health care and a government based system to force corporations to play fair. He just couldn't stomach hiding greed behind the veneer of double speak falling into a rabbit hole with language that only George Orwell would recognize. He chronicles his rise in the industry and his disillusionment and how the media is manipulated, patients, government to make decisions that are profiting major corporations at the cost of our health and lives. This is as much the story of his awakening as it is about the PR manipulation of the public around health care issues and trying to demonize the discussion of universal healthcare as part of the debate.

Potter's exceptional book "Deadly Spin" takes us behind-the-scenes into the wheeling and dealing that goes on with multiple PR flacks that try and spin doctor any change that threatens their profit as bad for the average consumer. Potter gives us a history of the PR game to help us understand WHY and HOW this is unethical (especially by the ethics guidelines dicated by the PR association).

The health care industry from health plans to pharmaceuticals have for too long had access to lawmakers (using the money that we pay them) to push forward their own agenda and "buy" politicians in Washington; that's nothing new it just just become more blatant than before. Using misinformation, front groups to suggest that any sort of reform is bad, these organizations have been directing America down a path with overgrown foilage and rough terrain where the patient must always suffer. Potter's book takes the curtain that these companies hide behind and let's us see the thought process, innner workings and how misinformation manipulates the public to make the wrong choices while allowing politicians to make those choices knowing they are wrong without ramifications.

Is "Universal Healthcare" the way to go? I don't know but I do know that the insurance industry is scared of it. Potter points out how people like him would manipulate the media and politicians to paint Universal Healthcare as "communist" or "socialist" in nature to taint any and all intelligent discussion about the positives and negatives scaring people away before dialog had even begun.

Potter suggests that having some sort of system like this in place would be helpful in redefining the way we take care of our health. The recent changes with Obama Care he points out aren't perfect but is a step in the right direction (--his complaint was that corporate America shaped it (this is Potter's opinion mind you I don't know that I agree with him on this point but it is food for thought).

I don't know that I agree with all of Potter's suggestions (for example I think that given our economy Obama Care should have been a lower priority--right in the middle of the worst economic downturn in ages-- and when it did become a priority it was so badly compromised that the changes--small as they were and some positive--are meaningless in the over all big picture)but I have to admire him for waking up from the money inspired opiate-like dream that has entranced everyone else in his former industry. I also feel that Potter would have done better to give us more in depth examples of why the system breaks down consistently but what we do get is pretty embarrassing.

Regardless of where you stand on healthcare-- if you believe or don't believe in universal healthcare--Potter's book is essential reading for understanding the flaws in our system and how corporate profit continues to dictate who gets coverage, who doesn't and why we are ranked so poorly compared to other nations when it comes to health care.

Recommended.

Fascinating, yet lacking look at Health Care PR..., November 11, 2010
I'll keep this short because, well, I can be lazy sometimes...
This book kept me engaged thoroughly enough that I finished it in two readings. It has interesting, relevant information on the history of heath care PR that does give a glimpse into what motivates these companies.
The problem is, most people already know or believe that money, profits and (sometimes) greed, is a detrimental factor behind the (sometimes) crappy service and treatment Americans can potentially receive.
While this book did keep me engaged, it did feel a little thin. Maybe it's more of the cynic in me but I really wanted something more damning of the current system and didn't feel it.
I personally did not like the reform enacted in this nation in the last year because of something the author touches on, the fact it won't do too much to control cost. I sort of wish this book did a better job of what could be possible remedies to that issue.

A quick point also; the author does not in any way shy away from showing his progressive nature, however, this book seems to be written well and in an even fashion, mainly sticking to policy and behind-the-scenes information over partisan bickering...

Anyways...I did rate it a 4, as it does have it's interesting moments and I do believe would be an interesting book for anyone not actually immersed and working in the health care or insurance process.

A gift to America from a very brave man, November 20, 2010
Thank you, Mr. Potter, for your bravery in speaking out against a very evil and powerful industry. Regardless of the outcome for the millions of uninsured and underinsured in America, I will always be grateful to you for fighting for what is right. Giving your book to my doctors for Christmas.

Great insights into an industry, November 27, 2010
As Wendell Potter writes, this is "like watching sausage being made". If you think we live in a democracy where all subjects are openly discussed, this gives you some additional information. There is indeed open discussion, but some voices are much louder than others and some are distorted.

What struck me most was Potter's description of how the health industry tried to neutralize Michael Moore's film "Sicko" and, in their words, "make him radioactive", i.e. inacceptable for journalists and politicians. BTW, Michael Moore currently has this book chapter as a sample read on his web site.

If you are interested in public relation and how public opinion is shaped, this is a book from a real expert writing openly about his experience. I bought the Kindle version because the paper version would have taken too long to deliver. Thank you to Amazon for the excellent Kindle App.

Should be required reading for every member of Congress, December 2, 2010
The title of this book, "Deadly Spin: An Insurance Company Insider Speaks Out on How Corporate PR is Killing Health Care and Deceiving Americans" is a bit off-putting. Reading it, I mentally prepared myself for a diatribe written by a disgruntled low-level employee out to get his pound of flesh. We all know that health insurance companies are in the habit of denying coverage and raising premiums, occasionally exorbitantly, but they aren't all that bad, right? Surely not as bad as the Wall Street firms that first took away our retirement savings and then our jobs.

I worked in the financial industry for 25 years. Nothing I saw there was as heinous as what is revealed in this book. Put simply, Wall Street may take away people's money, but health insurance companies take away people's lives.

Author Wendell Potter was an insurance company executive, heading up a PR department. For years, he participated in the shameless pursuit of profits over lives until he finally came face to face with the effects on real people of what he was doing. Visiting a clinic set up on a fair ground offering free health care to those who had no insurance and no means to pay for health care, he saw ordinary hardworking people reduced to being treated in animal stalls.

He has written about his experience in the health insurance industry, as well as his epiphany, in a straightforward manner, making it more powerful than if he had penned an hysterical screed. He takes us, step by step through the changes in the health insurance industry from a privately held companies offering true health insurance to the modern publicly owned companies whose focus is on profits rather than health.

The lengths to which health insurers go and the collusions in which they participate are extraordinary. They routinely deny coverage to people who need it and drop coverage of people who become ill. They hire outside PR firms who form bogus grassroots groups who lobby in favor of health insurers. They provide statistics to back up all of their false claims that any kind of healthcare reform is bad.

Potter devotes an entire chapter to revealing how health insurers torpedoed Healthcare Reform using all of the dirty tricks he had discussed in previous chapters. The reason we have no public option is because it would put the health insurance industry out of business prompting them to wage all-out war against it.

It took the death of a child who was denied a liver transplant to convince Potter to leave his job with CIGNA. He devotes his time now to healthcare reform advocacy and as a health insurance critic. He testified during the healthcare reform debates, but obviously not enough people listened to him.

In my opinion, this book should be required reading for every member of Congress. They need to know how they have been bribed and manipulated by the health insurers to do what's best for the health insurance industry instead of what is best for the people who elected them to office.

Must Be Good...Borders Didn't have it....., November 25, 2010
I tried to buy this at Borders at National Airport in D.C. this week, and it was "unavailable." The clerk could not say if that was because it had never been carried, or was sold out.

If it was not carried, perhaps like the movie, _Sicko_, it is too dangerous to have a wide distribution...makes me want to buy it all the more.

This book itself apparently provides evidence from Potter that censorship occurs in the U.S, but it is not lead by the government...Censorship is led by corporate insiders who prefer to make people hate the government so that people do not form unions to collectively bargain for better conditions from corporations.....all the corporations are in collusion, and they are far more powerful than any government....in fact, governments are just puppets of corporations, and do everything the corporations tell them to....

Need more evidence? Look no further than the U.S. Supreme Court _Citizen's United_ decision...

Eye Opening !!, December 15, 2010
I just finished Wendell Potter's book and, to be perfectly honest, am somewhat depressed about the state of politics and public decision making in our country.
As a former healthcare executive in a for-profit company, I do understand the pressures and ofttimes conflict between the best possible care and the most profitable course. "Deadly Spin" portrays this accurately but goes much farther to show exactly how public opinion is molded and how decision makers at all levels are motivated to do the companies bidding. This book shows how out of whack our whole manged care and health insurance industry is where a few companies control prices and costs on both sides of the supply and demand equation. I have purchased a quantity of this title and will send it out to friends with the caveat that they too pass it on. This book is a must read for Americans looking to understand what is really happening in Washington regarding current and future health care. Thanks Mr. Potter.

Best book I have read this year, December 3, 2010
If you care about health care, your kids health care, or hope to HAVE health care in the future, then read this book. We are being screwed in the name of profits

If the health care industry continues in it's current direction, the only people with health care with be healthy people. The rest with be governments problem

READ THIS BOOK, GIVE TO ALL YOUR FRIENDS, READ THIS BOOOOOOOOK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is nice to see acknowledgment of what has always been apparent to me..., December 2, 2010
This is not a great book, and like so many "issues" books, it tiptoes along, holding off on this or that great revelation. It's message can be easily summarised as - "The healthcare insurance industry is indeed just as greedy, self-serving, and unprincipled as most big businesses across the globe, and is apparently making its lies and misrepresentations work successfully." In other words, just because their business involves healthcare, it does not mean that they are concerned about people's welfare, or even their health. They are, like all insurance companies, primarily concerned with making the biggest profits they can. (Think of Bob's boss in The Incredibles...) They do NOT want the pressure of a cheap public health insurance option to keep them honest.

I did not find this surprising. Nor did I find the stories of the publicity management and news suppression surprising. Though it IS nice to have my suspicions validated!

However, the scariest part of this book is at its very end. Wendell Potter has put together the buying-up of the newspaper industry with the new age of spin-dominated politics, and warned us of a future with less and less honest information available to the masses. This is a threat in all areas of life, not just healthcare. If ranting politicos can convince the very people that need it most that public healthcare is bad, what CAN'T they convince them of?? It bodes very ill indeed.
... Read more

Editorial Review

When the delegates left the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in September 1787, the new Constitution they had written was no more than a proposal. Elected conventions in at least nine of the thirteen states would have to ratify it before it could take effect. There was reason to doubt whether that would happen. The document we revere today as the foundation of our country’s laws, the cornerstone of our legal system, was hotly disputed at the time. Some Americans denounced the Constitution for threatening the liberty that Americans had won at great cost in the Revolutionary War. One group of fiercely patriotic opponents even burned the document in a raucous public demonstration on the Fourth of July.

In this splendid new history, Pauline Maier tells the dramatic story of the yearlong battle over ratification that brought such famous founders as Washington, Hamilton, Madison, Jay, and Henry together with less well-known Americans who sometimes eloquently and always passionately expressed their hopes and fears for their new country. Men argued in taverns and coffeehouses; women joined the debate in their parlors; broadsides and newspaper stories advocated various points of view and excoriated others. In small towns and counties across the country people read the document carefully and knew it well. Americans seized the opportunity to play a role in shaping the new nation. Then the ratifying conventions chosen by "We the People" scrutinized and debated the Constitution clause by clause.

Although many books have been written about the Constitutional Convention, this is the first major history of ratification. It draws on a vast new collection of documents and tells the story with masterful attention to detail in a dynamic narrative. Each state’s experience was different, and Maier gives each its due even as she focuses on the four critical states of Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Virginia, and New York, whose approval of the Constitution was crucial to its success.

The New Yorker Gilbert Livingston called his participation in the ratification convention the greatest transaction of his life. The hundreds of delegates to the ratifying conventions took their responsibility seriously, and their careful inspection of the Constitution can tell us much today about a document whose meaning continues to be subject to interpretation. Ratification is the story of the founding drama of our nation, superbly told in a history that transports readers back more than two centuries to reveal the convictions and aspirations on which our country was built. ... Read more

Reviews

The Politics Of The Constitution -- 1788, October 24, 2010
Until recently, there has been a dearth of books about the desperate political brawl to ratify the proposed US Constitution by the original thirteen colonies. There are many books about the creation of the document (think of the classic "Miracle At Philadephia" by Catherine Dinker Bowen in 1966) but precious little about the desperate fight among the thirteen states to pass it. Then, as now, there was debate among who advocate the primarcy of state's rights and those who favored a more centralized government after the debacle of the Articles of Confederation. The close affirmative votes in both Virginia (by a margin of 89-79) and New York (by a nail-biting vote of 30-27) showed that it could have gone either way.

Last year, Bruce Chatwick published "Triumvirate" about the efforts by James Madison, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton to coordinate the campaign to pass the Constitution. It is a shorter and more informal account of the same material covered by Pauline Maier in her 600+ page narrative entitled "Ratification." Both books focused upon the perilous passage by the big four states (Virginia, New York, Mass. and Pa.) while downplaying the role of the other nine states. Ms. Maier has a much more detailed account (with much smaller print type) with a larger focus upon the other major players than Chatwick's account. Both books are very readable with "Ratification" written in a more scholarly style. Regardless of which book the reader picks out, the story is compelling and dramatic.

THE Great Debate - Then and Now, November 21, 2010
I am only in the fourth chapter of this book (just as the public debate is heating up) but want to write this review, because 1) I can see the general form and substance of it so far, and (more importantly) 2) I get the feeling neither of the previous two reviewers have fully read it. (I say this because it is a long dense book but it was reviewed within a few days of publication, with neither review going into any details of the substance of the debates, nor how Maier distinctively presents them.)

I'll keep this short and simple for now and add an update when I finally finish.

What is so attractive about this book is how it purports to reveal a previously partially told story, one which we think is already complete and resolved, but is in fact still being debated today. Using extensive (all available) original sources, Maier turns her authoritative scholastic skills to perhaps the most important subject in our nation's history - the drafting and ratifying of our Constitution. For too long this has been an issue dominated by the (winning) Federalist protagonists - with scant or dismissive attention given to the (by implication disloyal, antagonist) "Antifederalists" (obviously not the name they chose for themselves), who ironically often took pseudonyms incorporating the name "federal", and were actually more federalist in really caring about a strong federation of states than the self-claimed "Federalists" were. The (centralizing) Federalist were unified mainly in wanting ratification to be a swift all or nothing proposal. The (decentralized) Antifederalist were anything but unified, which is why they lost.

One of the things I like about Maier's approach is that she doesn't obviously and overtly set up this dichotomy of ideologies and characters - as they (ideas and people) were apparently more complex and evolving in regard to this. It does become clear however that from the very beginning there were real and strong difference in people's vision for the new country. There was also an imminent need to 'make it work'. What resulted was a profoundly idealistic but practical and, yet also secretive, partisan and elitist, document pushed through without much faith or interest in the democratic process...

This is fascinating stuff! And it is perhaps even more important today as we look to move forward on a sound basis (needing to shore up our foundations), debating the same old issue of balance of powers between the government and the governed (expressed not just in the lopsided and formal arrangement of the separation of powers in the 'Three Branches of Government' - Legislative, Executive, and Judicial, but between the various States and the unified "Federal" government, and even more profoundly and directly between citizens and their elected & appointed officials and the hired bureaucrats (the 'hidden iceberg' part of the government) - how we actually express our individuality and exercise our power to check the collective realm by how we freely choose - think, speak, vote, rule on juries, shop and invest.)

Maier's writing style is dense and comprehensive, seeming authoritative to me (a nonacademic armchair historian), informed, thorough and balanced, yet also reading almost like a novel - a densely detailed, passionate and convoluted Russian novel.

Declaration wasn't enough. Let's ratify!, October 20, 2010
It was a conspiracy. The Adams cousins and their sinister cabal of patriots conspired to commit independence. That was July 2, 1776, and now it's September 1787 and the major league baseball playoffs begin soon. Wait, the World Series begins in October. Author Pauline Maier draws a timely and accurate comparison of the process of getting thirteen bodies to accept the work of the Federal Convention to baseball. In the Introduction to her latest book, Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788, she identifies politics as America's first national game.

It seems that Americans (as well as others) have a penchant for watching the same game played night after night, week after week, so it's only natural that the ratification process would garner so much attention in the 18th century. One Massachusetts observer commented that newspapers filled with news of the Constitution were "read more than the bible." I wonder if his last name was "Lennon".

A significant exception exists in the analogy. Suppose that the teams got together before each playoff series and re-wrote the rules. Talk about drama! Would the fans go for that? No wonder the individual state conventions and elections captivated the voters so thoroughly!

Maier begins the story near Christmas in 1786 as a retired general in Virginia rips open a letter that has awaited his hand several days, due to a winter storm. Readers will find it easy to suspend disbelief and take a step back in time as though reading fiction rather than well documented fact. Maier's writing is a confirmation of Barbara Tuchman's idea that a writer can build suspense even when the readers know how the story ends. Simply mention the outcome in it's proper place.

As the narrative continues through the individual state conventions, we are reacquainted with familiar famous names (Washington, Hamilton, Jay, and Richard Henry Lee) and we meet some of the less well known locals from the states (Elbridge Gerry, Nathan Dane, James Wilson, and William Findley among others). There was a Governor Clinton back then, too.

Maier's thorough research and planning (over ten years) along with her captivating writing style make for a compelling read with a story that will hold the reader's attention throughout its 400 plus pages.

Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788, contains over a dozen pages of glossy black and white photos and illustrations, six maps, and of course, the Constitution and First Ten Amendments. Release date is October 19, 2010 in hard bound, Kindle, and audio versions. [Note: The Preamble to The Constitution is often included in collections of great writing and was something we had to memorize in high school forty years ago. I hope today's high school kids know it, too.]

A battle for ourselves, December 9, 2010
We owe a huge debt of thanks to Professor Pauline Maier for taking the time to review the records of the various state ratifying conventions that led to approval of the U.S. Constitution. In college we read The Federalist Papers, and we talk about the constitutional debates (often from James Madison's notes), but we really do not focus upon the fact that what the men in Philadelphia did has nothing to do with what the various state conventions thought the constitution meant. From the beginning, the conventions were taken aback by the phrase "We the People," in the preamble, because of the significance it had for the creation of a government. Whether the people had such authority when the congress had authorized a mere tightening of the Articles of Confederation was not a foregone conclusion. It was clear that the Articles would not work. But, since the Articles often required unanimity, could something else be offered which did not? What impact would this new central government have on the economic or political well-being of a state. How would peculiar insitutions such as slavery be impacted. Is it necessary to have a list of protections from federal governmental action in the same way that many state constitutions had a bill of rights against the states? All of these questions are addressed by Professor Maier in a most approchable manner. Whether the reader is a scholar who reads the footnotes and makes additional personal commments; or, like me, someone who reads a lot of history and reviewed the footnotes for more detail, or for location of an interesting source; or, for many, who ignore the footnotes and just enjoy the book, this work is a pleasure. I have studied and written about Constitutional Law, in one way or another, for 37 years. It can be so dry that just the thought of picking up a text makes me thirsty. But, not so Professor Maier. I cannot honestly say that I had to stay up all night every night to finish the book. BUT, I can say that I kept wanting to find another stopping point, and another, until I realized it was so late I just had to stop if I was going to function the next day. This is virtually the only work of its kind. Professor Maier has filled an abyss in ratification material, and has made it fun to do so along the way.

Fascinating, November 28, 2010
I'm about a quarter of the way into the hardback and am thoroughly enjoying this book. I'm not a scholar and my rate of reading has been slower than usual because I've had to stop and look up some words to confirm, or learn, the definitions of same. That isn't necessarily a bad thing--they are great words, just not ones I use everyday! The author has provided an incredible amount of information and you can see that politics and politician haven't changed much from our country's beginnings. I don't know if the author intended it, but I have laughed out loud at some parts. I would recommend this book for the curious and those interested in american history, state's rights or the Constitution. The type is small, but if it were larger the book would be too big to hold comfortably.

A Great Story of an Overlooked Subject, November 29, 2010
Thank you Pauline Maier.
I consider myself fairly well read in the history of this nation, but I have to admit that for myself, I overlooked the ratification process. It was always sort of a "given" or foregone conclusion that the Constitution would be ratified, but hold the door. There was a lot more going on than most of us realize.
There was a lot of opposition to this new concept. There was a government in place under the Articles of Confederation, but it was crippled from the beginning, having little power to do anything, and requirements from all or large majorities of the states made the United States a loose knit nation with little power to provide any funds for governing and no power in the eyes of the rest of the world. The convention met, drew up the Constitution using the best minds of the nation and determined that ratification would be effective when nine states approved it. But, they went for all or nothing, meaning no amendments were to be allowed and the document must be accepted.
The Federalists did a good job of jamming it through Pennsylvania, controlling the press on the information about the debates, and other states followed, but Virginia held out, Massachusetts likely studied and debated more than any other state, and New York under George Clinton was very much a thorn in the side. There was even talk that New York City may break away if the state did not ratify. North Carolina and Rhode Island held out even after the Constitution became the law of the land.

While hindsight is twenty twenty, I have to appreciate the anti rafication folks on this one. While many wanted an enumerated bill of rights, their greatest concern was the taxing power of the new government and their fear of a standing army. When you see how this has developed over more than 200 years, you understand their wisdom. Could anyone at this time forseen the abuses the legislature and the executive have placed on the American people? We are literally taxed from the cradle to the grave. What started out as the idea that the government could operate on tariffs and imports, and the sale of Western land has been transformed into taxing income, everything you buy, own
and eventually they will dream up more taxes. And as far as a standing army, we, like Britain in the past, are well on our way to bankruptcy because of the extreme expenses we incur in life and wealth to be engaged in wars that we have no business in. So this book to me is just as relevent today as the ratification process was then.
We had a lot of people that rightly had reservations about this.

I wish we could further amend many things about this government. Pauline Maier has presented many ideas along with the history lesson.

good book, except for the very end, December 10, 2010
First of all, i cannot believe the reviewer who claims to have a PhD, who thinks most could not read this book, because s/he could barely get through it. That is what scholarship, as opposed to pop lit, is all about.

i thoroughly enjoyed Prof. Maier's book, until p. 467 of 472, not counting the appendix of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. On p. 466, Prof. Maier revealed that she is all in favor of the 14th amendment of the Constitution being applied to the states, a position characteristic of contemporary liberals. On p. 467, she states that "nevertheless, 'states rights today seem more firmly associated with the defense of slavery, disenfranchisement of black voters, and resistance to integration." This is a libelous slur, that 'anyone who disagrees with me and my pals are racists.' Granted, that the Constitution was between the fedgov and the people, that does not mean that any of the Founders were in favor of crushing the states; states and fedgov is the definition of federalism. Also on p. 467, Maier props up "women, racial minorities, persons without property," and concludes that "American rights and American freedom were not a gift of the country's 'founding fathers.' They are and always have been a work in progress."

This quote indicates that Prof. Maier is clearly on the side of those who disregard the words of the Constitution which she so well researched and desscribed, leaving it all up to the contempo feelings of judges who think they are smarter than Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and especially Madison. This is graphically illustrated by her placing the words 'founding fathers' in quotation marks, as if there any doubt about the legitimacy of that phrase.

But if you can skip the nauseating last few pages, "Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution 1787-1788" is worth your time.

Superb scholarship but not likely to be read, November 23, 2010
A highly valuable monograph but for specialists. I cannot imagine many people reading this dense book. I had to skim it, and I have a PH.D. ... Read more

Editorial Review

The Federalist Papers are a series of 85 articles or essays advocating the ratification of the United States Constitution. Seventy-seven of the essays were published serially in The Independent Journal and The New York Packet between October 1787 and August 1788. A compilation of these and eight others, called The Federalist; or, The New Constitution, was published in two volumes in 1788 by J. and A. McLean. The series' correct title is The Federalist; the title The Federalist Papers did not emerge until the twentieth century.
The Federalist remains a primary source for interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, as the essays outline a lucid and compelling version of the philosophy and motivation of the proposed system of government.The authors of The Federalist wanted both to influence the vote in favor of ratification and to shape future interpretations of the Constitution. According to historian Richard B. Morris, they are an "incomparable exposition of the Constitution, a classic in political science unsurpassed in both breadth and depth by the product of any later American writer."
At the time of publication, the authorship of the articles was a closely-guarded secret, though astute observers guessed that Hamilton, Madison, and Jay were the likely authors. Following Hamilton's death in 1804, a list that he drew up became public; it claimed fully two-thirds of the essays for Hamilton, including some that seemed more likely the work of Madison (Nos. 49-58, 62, and 63).
... Read more

Reviews

Serious Political Thinking, April 16, 2006
The new edition of THE FEDERALIST PAPERS edited by Clinton Rossiter and co. is probably the best paperback edition. Rossiter and Charles Kesler did a good job in presenting these papers, and their explanations and notes make this book clear for readers. THE FEDERALIST PAPERS alone are an important source of serious political thinking. In an age of almost unbridled political power, corruption, empire buidling, etc. THE FEDERALIST PAPERS are important reminder of what a Free Republic (not an empire) should be.

THE FEDERALIST PAPERS were written by Alexander Hamilton (1757-1804), John Jay (1745-1829), and James Madison (1751-1835). Due to concerns about the New York State legislators ratifying the The U.S. Constitution, these papers were journal pieces written to New York journals and newspapers to convince both the residents and state legislators to ratify The U.S. Constitution. One should note there were other published articles supporting ratification of The U.S. Constitution and other articles can be read in a text titled FRIENDS OF THE CONSTITUTION.

What is alarming about THE FEDERALISTS PAPERS is that they were written for most readers. If one were to write such articles these days, most Americans would not read them nor comprehend them. This is a sad commentary on Americans regarding serious political writing regarding their birthright. If THE FEDERALIST PAPERS were assigned to high school kids, whoever would make such an assignment would be fired or worse.

THE FEDERALIST PAPERS give important explanations of the separation of powers, limits of each branch of the central government (The Federal Government), and how political power should be used within severe limitations. These articles were a brilliant attempt to mitigate fears that The U.S. Constitution would give far too much power to the the central or federal government.

The late Clinton Rossiter had a useful suggestion for those who did not want to read all 85 of THE FEDERALIST PAPERS. He suggested that the best numbers were 1,2,6,9,10, 14, 15, 16,23, 37, 39,47, 49, 51, 62, 70, 78, 84, and 85. Those readers who read these numbered papers would probably want to read the remainder.

This newer paperback edition of THE FEDERALIST PAPERS has some valuable features to help the reader navigate complex political thinking. The U.S. Constitution is placed in the end of the book with page numbers of the book whereby the authors of THE FEDERALIST PAPERS refer to that section of the U.S. Constitution. This gives clarity as to exactly what the authors were arguing regarding specific sections of the proposed U.S. Constitution. Another important feature of this edition of THE FEDERALIST PAPERS consists of the notes. The men who wrote THE FEDERALIST PAPERS were learned men who had seriously studied history and political thought. The notes explain the examples of Ancient Greek and Roman History used to make some of the arguments. These notes also refer to examples of Renaissance and English History which were also used to make good arguments from historical examples. One could get first rate learning experience of Ancient Greek and Roman History as well as a better view of European Renaissance and English History.

Readers should not forget that the authors of THE FEDERALIST PAPERS were responding to the Anti-Federalists and their articles titled THE ANTI-FEDERALIST PAPERS. Too often the Anti-Federalists are referred to as obstrcutionists and narrow minded men. This is simply not true. The ANTI-FEDERALIST PAPERS were as well written and brilliantly argued as THE FEDERALIST PAPERS.
One should note that one of the major objections of the Anti-Federalists to ratification of The U.S. Constitution was that it did not contain a Bill of Rights. The Federalists took this argument seriously. Basically, one could argue that without the Anti-Federalists, there would have been no Bill of Rights. Ergo, without The Bill of Rights, there would have been no U.S. Constitution. The Anti-Federalists were very important in the ratification of The U.S. Constitution.

Anyone who wants to define who Americans should be should read THE FEDERALIST PAPERS. They should also read THE ANTI-FEDERALIST PAPERS and read clear, informed, and well written political theory from men who could actually think. Most political hacks and too many American citizens are not even vaguely aware of this important political writing. Yet, this political writing is the very best American political thinking in U.S. History. This reviewer highly recommends the Rossiter-Kesler edition of THE FEDERALIST PAPERS and other editions of THE ANTI-FEDERALIST PAPERS.

The rich keep getting richer..., November 18, 2000
and the Mentor Federalist Papers keep getting better. Yes, that's right. They actually managed to improve on it. The great new additions include the Declaration, the Articles, and an excellent new introduction by Charles Kessler. I think the killer feature for new readers will be the notes in the back, which, if you (like me) are shaky in your Greek history (and the finer points of European), do a great job of explaining allusions and references by the Papers. Be sure to use this feature -- there's no indication in the text that a note exists, but you should just look if you're unsure of a historical setting (or something similar), and there probably will be one.

On the minus side, I do miss Rossiter's introduction. It wasn't as good for laying out the plan of the work, but it should have been included (along with Kessler's) for its excellent overview of the contemporary situation and the philosophy behind the papers. Also, I feel that Rossiter's contents were slightly better than Kessler's. And, the page numbers are changed, invalidating older references to them. But all in all it's an improvement, and certainly the Mentor edition is the only one to have. Period. It's the one used by at least some of the Supreme Court Justices, and it retains that single dominating feature, Rossiter's cross-referenced Constitution (and index of ideas).

As for the Papers themselves, of course, they need no review. They are the first and ultimate Constitutional commentary, and fascinating reading besides. As literature they stand out for the exceptional style (all the more remarkable considering the haste in which they were written) and clear thinking, and more than any other book they define how the U.S. _should_ work.

All in all, this is one of the best book bargains on the market, that rare coincidence where best edition meets mass-market paperback. What are you waiting for?

-Stephen

The best edition of the Federalist Papers, May 13, 2000
This is the best edition of the Federalist Papers. It includes many extras, but especially useful is the text of the US Constitution with cross-references to specific pages of the Federalist Papers referring to that provision. I highly recommend the Federalist Papers generally, and more specifically this edition to anyone wishing to know more about the founding and ratification of the Constitution.

Vital to Understanding the US Constitution, July 10, 2004
The Federalist Papers is probably the most seminal discourse on the U.S. Constitution that has ever been written. While there are occasional inconsistencies and undoubtedly many of the founding fathers that took part in the Constitutional Convention and favored adoption of the Constitution would disagree with some of its contents, it is vital reading if one hopes to understand the original intent of the founders.

A Contention and a Suggestion, August 24, 2006
One of the reviewers below challenges the notion that the US was ever a Democracy, however, he (apologies if it's a 'she') is viewing the Federalist Papers from the perspective of modern times, and that is a fallacy in reviewing this work, but fortunately it's an instructive fallacy.

The issue with the Federalist Papers is that although it is the leading arguments for the creation of a more centralized government (to replace the Articles of Confederation which seemed inpractible), not all of these arguments were adopted in the Constitution, and some that were did not survive very long. As a result, you may get the wrong impression that the Federalist Papers=the Constitution. Remember, Hamilton's party, the Federalists, did not survive much longer after the defeat of Adams by Jefferson in the 1800 election. The populism of Jefferson and Madison were the ultimate winners *at the time*.

And my *at the time* comment is important. Nowadays the federal government of the US holds a superior and decisive position in the governing of its people; this has not always been the case. In the early-to-mid 19th century, federal power was severely limited when it came to internal affairs; most of the government was conducted at the local level, with some county and state control thrown in where applicable. So *at the time*, the fact that the Senate had 2 members from each state (and appointed by the state legislature) regardless of population was *not* a measure that was anti-democratic in purpose. Democracy existed because the government was predominantly local and the people were predominantly involved in its affairs.

Thus my contention; now for the suggestion: if your project is strictly to research the creation of the US Constitution, than the Federalist Papers by themselves are fine. If, however, you are more interested in how the Constitution affected American society at that time, I would recommend that you start by reading de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America", and working backwards. The immediate results of the Constitution are best expressed in de Tocqueville (he toured the United States and published his work in Europe within 50 years of the ratification) because its not the causes of the Constitution he is discussing, but its effects. After you have completed Democracy in America, then you'll be able to approach the Federalist (and of course the Anti-Federalist) Papers with the understanding of what worked, what didn't, and maybe what we need to work again for.

The best edition of a must read collection., May 4, 2000
The Mentor edition (used by Scalia among others) is by far the best edition of the Federalist Papers. It includes substantial amounts of related information, but of primary importance is the entire text of the Constitution with cross references to specific pages of the Federalist Papers on that topic. This is an extremely useful tool to anyone desiring to gain more knowledge about the Constitution and the founders intent, and it is especially useful to anyone taking a Con Law class.

In general the Federalist Papers is a must read for anyone interested in the founding of the US, or desiring to learn how our system of federalism, and separation of powers was intended to work. I recommend reading numbers 10, 49, and 78 first.

A stripped down edition the The Federalist Papers, April 25, 2009
Given my inexorably advancing age, my eyes are not what they used to be. I therefore welcome this version of "The Federalist Papers" in that while not a "large print" edition, the print IS larger and easier to read than elsewhere.

The book is of good quality and I expect it to last at least as long as me. The only reason I gave this edition four stars instead of five is that there is absolutely NO commentary. Many may declare this a feature and not a bug. However, new as I am to the actual text of these famous essays, a little guidance (if only a simple introduction) may have been helpful.

That said, there is endless commentary available from other sources including readily accessible material on the internet so this really isn't a problem.

I wanted a quality, hard copy edition of these essays and I got it.

Enjoy.

A necessity to understanding the founder's intent, May 4, 2000
This is a good edition of the Federalist Papers, the introduction by Gary Wills is excellent. However, I would strongly recommend purchasing the Mentor edition, as that edition contains the text of the Constitution, as does this edition, but the Mentor edition has cross-references to specific portions of the Federalist Papers which address that clause of the Constitution.

In general the Federalist Papers is a must read, no matter what edition you use, for anyone interested in the founding of the US, or desiring to learn how our system of federalism, and separation of powers was intended to work. I recommend reading numbers 10, 49, and 78 first.

Understanding The Founders Reasoning, August 2, 2005
Before the ratification of the Constitution of 1787, three of its Framers, Hamilton, Madison, and Jay, published a series of articles called The Federalist in a New York paper under the pen name of "Publius." These articles are now published as The Federalist Papers. Publius' intent was to defend the proposed Constitution by explaining its overall integrity and the republican government it would establish. Ironically, one of Publius' intents was to defend the Constitution against the argument it was too weak to withstand those who would subvert republicanism in favor of some form of aristocratic domination.

Sadly, not many read this work, despite the fact that it is one of the few documents that define what the founders' intent really was. This omission has not stopped many from espousing their (lack of) knowledge of that intent. The casual reader can be put off by the size of the work, 85 articles, and the seriousness of the articles. This work was intended for serous people. However, one can approach it with a pen and yellow highlighter and LEARN its wisdom or the more casual reader can let the Introduction guide them to the pieces that interest them.

These casual readers will learn The Federalist Papers are divided into two divisions, each with different themes. The first division addresses the issue of a "firm" and "well-constructed" Union as opposed to a lose confederation of states. This division then addresses how the constitution is protected from the founders' anticipated accidental and intentional threats and answers: what the respective purposes of the Union and the Constitution are; what should be done with society's will; the problem of politics; and even the issues of taxes and maintaining an army. All of these together described the function of government as defined by the Constitution.

In the second division, The Federalist Papers move from the basic function of government to the structure of the American government and using that structure to secure society's common good, the people's happiness, and the public good. All this is accomplished using a moderate tone that makes the reader part of the discourse and not the object of a lecture. This is a constitution aimed at the public in many ways.

So at heart, The Federalist Papers is a guide to the Constitution intended for the casual reader, a reader who can pick and chose those elements that are meaningful.

Adequate, August 21, 2001
This book is adequate. It contains the full Federalist Papers and a copy of the Constitution in the back, plus synopses of the content of each of the Papers. However, not much blank space is left on each page, making it difficult to write margin notes and underline. The paper and typeface are pretty low quality, a little better than newsprint. A good copy if you're not planning to spend a lot of time with the book, but if you are, go for another edition. ... Read more

Editorial Review

Reviews

Spurring on Energy Creativity, September 8, 2008
Friedman writes on world population, the increase of the global middle class, and the growing energy crisis. All of this has contributed to a world that is in desperate need of an energy solution. The thing I like about Friedman's approach is he's optimistic and he's practical. His major points are...

-- The battle over green (energy) will define the first part of the 21st century, just like the battle over red (communism) defined the last half of the 20th century.
-- Everyone needs to accept that oil will never again be cheap...
-- Off-shore drilling may be a temporary fix, but it's not the long-term solution.
-- The fossil-fuel age will end only when we invent our way out of it...
-- The last big innovation in energy production was nuclear power half a century ago, which is an important component to solving our energy problem, but we need additional solutions...
-- In order to further real innovation we need people "throwing crazy dollars at every idea, in every garage, that we have 100,000 people trying 100,000 things, five of which might work, and two might be the next green Google."
-- Friedman emphasizes the practical side of green - "It's the incredible sense of opportunity here. It's not just about saving the polar bears. It's not just about saving three generations from climate change. It's also about rising to the greatest economic opportunity that's come along in a long, long, time."

In the end, he is asking for collaboration and innovation. Of course that begs the question - where does the money come from for all of this? It's always easy to point at the government, but when we look at where real economic solutions have come from it's most often private industry. I wish Friedman would have written on how governments can create environments were private industry is incentivized to create, invent, and discover. Even so, Friedman's book is a needed wake-up call.

A useful book on energy and climate change, September 8, 2008
Overall it's a good thing that Tom Friedman has taken up the cause of renewable energy. This book is a useful contribution to the national debate over energy policy.

The cause of renewable energy should not be a "political" issue. It's an issue that liberals and conservatives should work together on. Many conservatives concerned about our country's national security are already becoming strong supporters of renewable energy here in America. I don't agree with some of Tom Friedman's past views on economics but this book quite frankly is truly inspiring (particularly the last chapter) and sets a positive tone for people to work together.

A key part of the book is the last part, specifically the last two chapters. Here's where he gets to the heart of the problem, political leadership and government policy. On page 375 he states that the needed energy revolution "will never go to the scale we need as long as our energy policy remains so ad hoc, uncoordinated". On page 407 he again emphasizes the need for a major concentration of federal government power to meet the challenge.

In his interviews with top business executives such as the CEO of General Electric Friedman makes it very clear that America is not going to be able to unlock the power of private industry in an adequate manner unless there are major changes in U.S. government energy policies.

Some say this is "tampering with the free market" but people should be aware that in energy as in all too many aspects of global environmental policy, there really is no purely "free" market. There are already huge subsidies for various industries.

It's very encouraging that the cause of American energy independence is becoming a mainstream political goal. People might also be interested in the fact that legendary oil man, Boone Pickens, is now investing huge amounts of money in renewable energy and is running ads on TV on U.S. energy policy. He has set up a web site too. Part of his energy vision can be read in his new book The First Billion Is the Hardest: Reflections on a Life of Comebacks and America's Energy Future.

I don't share a lot of Friedman's economic views but he is an intelligent journalist who previously wrote some excellent books on the Middle East. Friedman understands the disastrous geopolitical aspects of America's current addiction to foreign oil. He deserves credit for seeing that major government action is needed to reverse this.

Along with this book I would recommend Lester Brown's Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization, Third Edition. I have other relevant books in the lists on my profile.

Friedman's high visibility makes this book relevant even if you don't agree with him. He has access to many important people, and their comments are in the book. Thus, the book is also a way to see what certain leadership elements think about the subjects at hand.

I would recommend buying this book.

A Doable Win-Win Plan, September 8, 2008
In Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution--and How It Can Renew America, Thomas Friedman presents an irresistible opportunity for Americans--one that can save the planet and increase our wealth.

The world is flat because of globalization--which is good, as ideas and practices can spread effectively. What is not so good is that our world population is exploding and countries like India and China are seeing an increase in wealth and subsequent buying power, which puts more strain on the world's resources and increases global warming.

Friedman begins the book with a discussion of how America has changed post 9/11. He uses the example of the US consulate built in 1882 in Istanbul. The consulate was built in the heart of the city: "it was an easy place for Turks to get a VISA, to peruse the library or to engage with an American diplomat."

Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the building was closed and a nearly impenetrable consulate was built. This all but stopped visitors from visiting. Although the new building does protect against attacks, it isolates Americans and impacts on how we are viewed and how we see ourselves.

Friedman writes that he wrote the book because: "An American living in a defensive crouch cannot fully tap the vast rivers of idealism, innovation, volunteerism, and philanthropy that still flow through our nation. And it cannot play the vital role it has long played for the rest of the world--as a beacon of hope and the country that we can always be counted on to lead the world in response to whatever is the most important challenge of the day."

That challenge is global warming. He proposes we begin a massive project called "code green."

Friedman identifies three broad trends in our society:
1. The post 9/11 building of walls around us to protect Americans from foreigners.
2. Since the 1980's, politicians acting "dumb as we wanna be," meaning we will get to fixing the roads, global warming and other issues when we get around to it. This includes politicians like Bush "protecting us" from gas taxes and other unpleasantries to keep our standard of living, or the fact that we are in war and don't have to make any sacrifices (save the soldier's lives.)
3. Nation building at home. This is the one good trend Friedman sees and he writes about the plethora of innovative, imaginative souls who devote their energy to finding green solutions.

Friedman considers what is now called the green movement to be more like a green party. He cites several "green" books that include the words "easy" or "lazy" in the titles. The authors write books where: "everyone is a winner, nobody gets hurt and nobody has to do anything hard." I have read several of these books and agree--much of the advice is fluff.

However, I do see the recent deluge of books and articles on sustainability as changing the consciousness and buying habits of the country. Many people who begin by making "painless changes" get serious about the environment and one or two of them may be the next inventor of the solar-run car. I also believe that when millions cut down on the use of plastic and other nonrenewable resources, that it does make an environmental difference.

The increase in population and wealth and buying power all tax our already limited supply of petroleum, coal and gas--all substances that cause global warming and pollute our planet. Even if you didn't "believe" in global warming, it is a fact that petroleum--now needed in unprecedented amounts--is rapidly becoming an increasingly difficult product to procure. If you think spending $5.00 a gallon for gas for your car is a hardship, that price will be considered nothing in a few years. Folks, we are running out of time and oil.

Friedman gets that Americans can use the diminishing supply of nonrenewable resources as a means for an economic boom, for bridging the widening gap between Americans and the rest of the world and for drawing us together as a nation. Americans are an innovative and smart bunch of people and we need to get working on devising clean alternatives to fossil fuels. This will create more jobs, strong economic times and raised spirits.

Friedman presents a doable, win-win plan to raise wealth and to save the planet. A must-read.

By the author of the award winning book, HARMONIOUS ENVIRONMENT: BEAUTIFY, DETOXIFY & ENERGIZE YOUR LIFE, YOUR HOME & YOUR PLANET.

Top-down vision that avoids some fundamental issues, September 12, 2008
If you're not yet convinced that climate change is real or needs urgent and radical attention, this vision of a flat world -- with America on top -- may be able to change your mind. Maybe, thanks to huge sales, this book will able to open a lot of minds that needed opening; and that would be a good thing. Unfortunately, it won't open them quite far enough. While faulting others for not confronting the tough issues around climate change, Thomas Friedman (TF) avoids many of them himself.

Other reviews summarize some of the book's main themes. This long review will deal with some of TF's more striking arguments, good and bad, that most others have not yet commented on.

A. GOOD POINTS

Some points I especially liked: It's great that TF is so explicit about his exasperation at magazine articles and books offering glib solutions like "205 easy ways to go green." He'd prefer our leaders "propose the one or two hard ways that could actually make a difference" (@ 400). His proposal for how a Presidential candidate might defend the idea of a carbon tax (@265f) is what we ought to be hearing now, instead of "Drill, baby, drill!" His description of why the US military is enthusiastic about going green (@ 317-322) is fascinating. And he bravely makes strong arguments that government regulation can be a good thing in appropriate circumstances.

B. THE POINT OF GOING GREEN IS ... REGIME CHANGE?

One curious feature of TF's argument is its emphasis on America's going green as a means of promoting change in other countries. TF's "Laws of Petropolitics" (Ch. 4) purport to show how "freedom" (or sometimes "the pace of freedom" (@96)) in certain oil-producing countries waxes and wanes inversely with the price of oil. (I won't dwell on the speciousness of the graphs, which use undefined units and misleadingly truncated axes for "freedom," which is sometimes political and sometimes economic.) America should reduce its demand for oil because of our "need to drive reform in the Arab-Muslim world" (@108; I suppose that means we think non-Arab Iran is OK as is).

Moreover, new American technologies will reduce "energy poverty" in poor countries and enable the next Thomas Edison or Sally Ride who may be living there (Ch. 7 & @164). And the Chinese leadership will give its people freedom of speech because of our threats to "outgreen" that country (Ch. 16, esp. @ 367). Aside from these notes of noblesse oblige, TF's vision of other countries is only as competitors to America, not people with whom we should be cooperating (e.g., "America wins! America wins! America wins!" @ 242).

What does America get out of this? The first chapter promises to show how going green will lead to "nation-building in America" (@9). But TF never returns to that topic; the impacts on America that he describes all seem to be economic. He also promises we'll get "more and more knowledge-intensive green-collar technology jobs - which are more difficult to outsource" (@23). What do these turn out to be? Construction jobs installing solar panels and retrofitting buildings (@338).

C. GREEN'S IMPACT ON INCOME INEQUALITY

TF seems blind about the issue of income inequality, especially within nations. Only four pages of the book (< 1% of the text) even come close to talking about income inequality in America; these take the form of an interview with a community activist from Oakland, CA (@335-339). Those construction jobs are the punch line, presented as a boon to the urban poor. How about the rest of the book?

(1) TF regales us with a long utopian fantasy about the snazzy technology and perfectly working markets (unlike any in real life) of the "Energy Internet" (@224-236). He imagines "you" as having a real estate development job that you can telecommute to most days of the week. Too bad for folks who have manufacturing or minimum wage jobs, like the folks who flip your burgers; I guess he expects they won't read the book. Moreover, TF is excited by the idea that someday we'll all lease our household appliances instead of owning them (@71). A society of a few who own and the many who rent, even at the most basic levels of daily life? Sounds less like science fiction and more like a Charles Dickens novel.

(2) TF enthuses about imposing a $5-$10 per gallon tax on gasoline, and using that money to offset payroll taxes (@262). Let's check the math. When I lived in Silicon Valley, I went through about 20 gallons of gas per week - and I had a home office. TF's gas tax would have cost me $5K-$10K per year (to say nothing of higher pre-tax prices per gallon). Plenty of folks commute more than 1 hour per day, because their jobs don't pay them enough to afford to live in the communities where they work; but let's assume they use only as much gas as I did. According to the 2008 US tax tables, a head of household earning even $43K won't have $10K of tax to offset. Even a married couple filing jointly with income over $60K won't have that much payroll tax - but they might have to pay the gas tax for two cars.

(3) How about the day-trading class? According to TF, stock bubbles "have actually been a key driver of America's remarkable record of economic growth and innovation" (@259). The "overinvestment of billions of dollars in fiber-optic cable" left the infrastructure for low-cost Internet services after the bubble's 'pop'(@258). BTW, as I recall, that pop also resulted in a huge wave of job loss. It also wiped out the small investors who didn't have privileged access to IPOs, or the inside information to lead them to bail out ahead of the game. I suppose TF likes neutron bombs, too. And despite this, Americans' Internet access speeds are still way slower than those enjoyed in Japan and Korea.

(4) To be fair, TF is almost as blind about the poor in foreign countries. His fantasy beneficiary of green technology in the developing world is "Senhor Verde" (a Brazilian 'Mr. Green'), who has a 1,000 acre farm, with high-tech tractors and sprinkler system. But the mean size of a farm in Brazil is < 150 acres; and as a mean, that number is inflated upwards by some megafarms. Roughly 40% of Brazilian farms are under 10 (ten) acres. In Africa and many Asian countries, that percentage is closer to 80%-90%. See, e.g., the paper "Farm size" by Eastwood & al. of University of Sussex (2004), available in draft online. Bottom line: when TF talks about Mr. Green, he's talking about a rich dude.

TF's vision for the foreign poor is data centers set up by outsourcing companies, such as one he saw in a village in India (@166-169). One of his interviewees tells him, "[I]n the village, no one gives up these jobs." I'll bet. But keeping their jobs isn't necessarily up to them. Outsourcing work is especially vulnerable to being moved around the globe, according to the whims of the market forces that TF extols. See, e.g., Andrew Ross's outstanding "Fast Boat to China: Corporate Flight and the Consequences of Free Trade" (2006).

D. UNASKED QUESTIONS AND UNPURSUED CONCLUSIONS

The deepest problem is that TF doesn't question his key assumptions or pursue his arguments to their logical conclusions. Especially, he doesn't question whether American-style market capitalism might be part of the problem, beyond the fact that it relies on heat-based energy sources.

(1) GROWTH & GDP: "I start from the bedrock principle that we as a global society need more and more growth, because without growth there is no human development and those in poverty will never escape it" (@186). Growth in what? "Economic growth" usually means growth in GDP, and TF never indicates he means something else (see also his discussion of China @ 345f). The usual assumption (not stated by TF) is that higher GDP per capita (GDP/C) is associated with higher "welfare" or "well-being".

TF says "Too many environmentalists oppose *any* growth, a position that locks the poor into poverty" (@194). This is painting with a broad brush. First of all, GDP/C numbers don't tell you anything about how wealth is distributed. As Warren Buffett gets richer, our mean GDP/C goes up, but that doesn't mean your income goes up. In fact, check Wikipedia on "Median household income": although US GDP/C grew 67% since 1980, median real household income went up by only about 15%. Real median income is lower now than in 1999 - i.e., at least half of us are worse off since then, despite growth. Second, TF's blind eye overlooks that income inequality has been growing within nations, including the US. Based on US Census Bureau's computed Gini Index for 2007 (46.3), we're by far the most unequal of all developed countries. So it's not obvious exactly what growing GDP or GDP/C does for the poor.

Moreover, TF doesn't mention that GDP/C can grow because of bad stuff, such as the costs of treating disease and cleaning up pollution - not really well-being at all. Or that the supposed relationship between GDP/C and happiness as measured in surveys is at most a correlation -- not a causation, as TF's comment suggests. (Or that whether such a correlation exists at all is highly contested among researchers, and that even the papers arguing most strongly for it ignore other obvious factors, such the relationship between happiness and recovery from a devastating war.) Or that despite growth, income inequality can lead to unhappiness because of perceived relative differences, even if everyone's income is improving in an absolute sense.

Since so much of the book's attention is on America, not a "global society," you'd think that TF might specifically address the question of how growth benefits Americans. But aside from mentioning that to turn off growth would be "political suicide" for politicians (@64), he's mum on the issue. Bottom line from TF: growth is good for poor people somewhere, and for politicians in the US (or maybe everywhere).

(2) GROWTH & CONSUMPTION: TF is a fan of consumption. He argues, through the mouths of interviewees, that consumption is necessary to grow the economy (@194), that we can "consume more and conserve more at the same time" (id.), and that with the right carpet design, "not only would you be able to change your carpet as often as you wanted without guilt, but you'd be producing massive amounts of jobs in America" (@71). As for energy, he wants to see "huge demand - *crazy, wild, off-the-charts demand*" for clean power technologies (@244; emphasis in original). His Energy Internet technotopia is a paradise for consumers who love to choose service plans.

An interesting irony is that TF sees the main obstacles to changing America's energy mindset as lobbyists and failed political leadership (Ch. 17). Some American scholars of politics have observed that the same market forces that maximize our opportunities as consumers have sapped our power to effect political change as citizens, especially in the past 40 years or so. See, e.g., R. Dahl's "On Political Inequality" (2006) and "On Democracy" (1998), and R. Reich's "Supercpitalism" (2007). TF never questions whether the ultra-consumerism for which he cheerleads could be contributing to the political problem he complains about.

But considering that TF's theme is energy, it's also ironic that he ignores economists like Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen and Herman Daly, who have pointed out that unbounded growth and consumption run afoul of the laws of thermodynamics. Economic processes aren't different from any other kind of activity, in that they all produce physical waste, in the form of heat or stuff. Just as you can't have a perpetual motion machine, you can't recyle all of that heat or stuff. The more stuff you consume (or produce), the more waste that results. (Note that Communism, which emphasizes unlimited production, is no less dumb than gonzo capitalism in this regard.)

Yet while TF often stresses the urgency of addressing our energy problems -- e.g., quoting Dana Meadows, "We have exactly enough time, starting now" (@170) -- he doesn't want us to "opt for the drastic" by make any "radical changes in lifestyle" just yet (@194). Though he mocks others for their "easy" ways of going green, his prefers to stick his head in the sand rather than to ask whether our lifestyle has any physical limits.

(3) ARE WE REALLY GROWING ANYWAY?: I was very happy to see TF criticize economists' use of the word "externalities" to describe pollution, waste and CO2 emissions (@260). That terminology disguises such problems as trivial annoyances. Farther down the page TF says "We have been fooling ourselves with fraudulent accounting by not pricing those externalities. ... We rack up stunning profits and GDP numbers every year, and they look great on paper `because we've been hiding some of the costs off the books'. Mother Nature has not been fooled" (@260). Right on.

But now, as the Talmud says, let your ears hear what your mouth is saying. If our growth figures are "fraudulent" because we don't consider the true costs of pollution, biodiversity loss, etc., who's to say our economy is truly growing anyway? Or that the American versions of market capitalism and consumer lifestyle, both of which TF so staunchly defends, are really defensible?

E. CONCLUDING COMMENTS

I won't dwell on the many small quirky things that none of the zillions of people thanked at the end of the book were able to persuade TF to change, such as a mistake about when the current millennium began (@47) or an overly exuberant reference to "10,000 inventors working in 10,000 companies and 10,000 garages and 10,000 laboratories" (@ 244 - each of these people has a garage AND a lab AND a company?). But it's interesting that among those zillions of names the only Europeans seem to be some folks from a Dutch oil company.

Interesting because many of the questions TF doesn't ask are being asked in Europe. And not just from the political left. TF mentions French President Sarkozy as an admirer of America (@ 177). That same rightist politician has asked two US-based Nobel laureate economists to come up with an alternative to GDP, in order to get a better measure of well-being and happiness. Moreover, many European thinkers on issues of energy, economic growth and ecology (among them Andr� Gorz, Dominique M�da, Alain Gras) often start from a deep analysis of the nature of human work, and its spiritual meaning. TF's approach, in contrast, is entirely materialistic and technocratic. [UPDATE 2009/09: Two pertinent reports available online are the March 2009 report "Prosperity without growth?" from the UK Sustainable Development Commission, and the September 14, 2009 final report of the Stiglitz Commission appointed by Pres. Sarkozy. While the Stiglitz Commission focused more on measurement issues than on policy, the UK SDC report questions the policy of growth in great detail.]

The problem of human survival in the face of global climate change seems to call for cooperation, and some reflection about what we really want life to be. TF's proposal instead is for America to overwhelm other countries in international competition, with the help of market forces and smart appliances. Are "out-greening al-Qaeda" and "America wins!" really the best attitudes with which to approach this challenge facing all humanity (and, thanks to us, much of the rest of life on earth)? It's not clear to me that this is even good for Americans. We're humans, too, not just consumers and innovators.

I hope TF will win over some skeptics about climate change. But if we don't think more deeply, critically and globally about the solutions than he has, we could end up in a world that's hot, flat, crowded, hostile and lost.

Too much book, too little value, September 27, 2008
Tom Friedman has a great vision of future economic growth driven by energy technology. I enjoy reading his columns and watching his interviews. However, this book is far too long to get his message across clearly. I feel like have the book is him quoting experts to make an obvious point. For example, do we really need a whole chapter on biodiversity loss and his travels around the world to be convinced that there is a biodiversity problem? He takes far too long to get to his original (and valuable) ideas. I can read long books, but by page 150 (out of 400) I felt like I had read a lot but not gotten a lot that was new to anybody paying attention to climate change/environmental news at all. My advice to readers is to save their money and simply take a look at Friedman's past interviews and op-eds (all available online) to get his message.

Deeply Intriguing Ideas Buried by Breezy Style, November 20, 2008
Thomas Friedman's writing is new to me, and from the glowing reviews of this book I expected a little bit more. [Update to review: Deserves 4 stars.] I'm a climate change professional and one of those "revolutionary bureaucrats" that he praises in his book for doing the real work in protecting human health and the environment (thank you, Mr. Friedman), and I agree with 95 percent of his ideas and solutions - especially placing the true price of dirty fuel back onto the consumer (only then will people choose clean energy over dirty fuels). I originally gave this book three stars mostly because it felt like a review of things I've already read, and it could have been written a little better. However, the book earns five stars if it's one of your first three books on the impacts of global warming.

Although the book puts together important ideas, my primary disappointment with the book is that it reads like one especially long newspaper article, very light and breezy, and almost glib in tone at times. A much better book if you want more on climate change and its impacts upon human societies is "Hell and High Water - Global Warming, the Solution and the Politics - and What We Should Do" by Joseph Romm.

I've also read thousand-page compendiums on climate change, so to me, the science of global warming is incontrovertible. That part of his book didn't require convincing for me. I'm not an economist, so I could not evaluate his economical solutions to the degree I'd like, although I do agree that externalities should be included back into the price of everything, especially chemicals, fuels, or processes that are harmful to the environment. One of my main disagreements I have with Mr. Friedman is that growth in the third world is necessary or good. Even the author admits that the world can't sustain any more Americas.

At least Mr. Friedman is exactly spot on about how the "green revolution" is more of a "green party", where everybody gets to feel good without actually accomplishing anything. If we want to keep the world livable for us humans, I'm certain that big changes, painful changes will have to take place.

I am also fairly certain that voluntary behavior change will not be enough to limit carbon dioxide emissions into the air. Which do you think is easier?
1): Convince the average motorist that high-mileage hybrid vehicles are the best vehicle to buy (even though they cost more upfront); or
2): Mandate higher minimum fuel efficiency standards that all vehicles must meet.

Personally, I know fuel efficiency standards work, because they worked in the 1970s very well. As for voluntary behavior, what is the market penetration of hybrid vehicles? A lot less than 5 percent. I'm an environmentalist, but I will not buy a hybrid until the price of gas becomes very, very, expensive.

Stay tuned, I think climate change is the most important story of our times. In a few years, the economic downturn (in late 2008) will be in the past, gasoline will be at $7 to $8 per gallon, and we will still be trying to keep the planet from turning into a desert - only the later we start to make meaningful change, the more difficult it becomes.

Hugely disappointed, June 20, 2009
I was expecting this book to start talking about some solutions at least at the half way mark but it goes on and on giving examples after examples of how each part of the world is now hot flat and crowded. I think most of us got that point very early on in the book but the repetition was just not necessary unless there was a word or page target that Thomas Friedman was aiming for. By the time I reached to the solutions part, I was taken straight into this futuristic place where you had the intelligent grid that would reduce our energy consumption and solve all our energy problems. As I said earlier I was expecting to see varied solutions but was disappointed to go through so much repetitive info that i had no patience at the end to finish the last part.

A manifesto for our times, November 17, 2008
What a timely book! Following an election in which the future of the planet was hotly debated, the market is ripe for this accessible yet information-packed treatise on the perilous state of the environment, how we got here and how we must proceed if we are to avoid catastrophe.

Thomas L. Friedman, the Pulitzer Prize-winning foreign affairs journalist for the New York Times, is known for his ability to synthesize information from diverse sources. He uses the first half of the book to thoroughly convince us that we do indeed have a problem, and a very grave one. In his past books, Friedman has argued that globalization is "flattening" the world, making competition between countries more possible and more fair. China and India's booming economies are giving millions more people opportunities to move up to the middle class. These millions feel they deserve a better life --- better being defined as more comfortable, consuming more resources like their American brothers and sisters.

The problem is that we are quickly running out of the cheap, dirty fuel that allowed the first world countries to develop. But increasing carbon dioxide emissions from dirty fuels like oil and coal are contributing to what Friedman terms "global weirding." Add to this mix burgeoning population growth, and you get a world that is hot, flat and crowded. Friedman provides plenty of scientific support to back up his claims that life as we know it (cheap gas, cheap energy, a human-friendly climate) is endangered, one way or another. As he puts it, "if we don't make the hard choices, nature will make them for us."

The second half of the book is a guided tour through what some of those "hard choices" may be. "Green" must be more than a fad, he argues, and every magazine article that touts "easy" ways to save the planet does a disservice by trivializing what may in fact be deadly serious. Yet Friedman believes we are up to the task and that America must lead the way in both innovation and conservation. He describes a new Energy-Climate era in which information technology meets energy technology. In his vision, our washer, dryer and refrigerator become smart appliances that communicate with a revolutionized energy grid to buy electrons when they are cheapest. No matter whether our cars are plugged in at home or in a parking lot, they can both buy and sell electricity, depending on whether they need it or have it.

But to get to this sustainable utopia, our government and culture need to make investments now. We have to engineer our economy so that alternative energy innovations are made because industry knows they will be competitive. If that means keeping gasoline prices above $4/gallon in order to do so, so be it. If we doubt that will work, we need only look to Europe, where gas prices are astronomical and small, energy-efficient cars are the norm.

America must lead, Friedman argues, or we'll be forced to play catch-up with China and India. He introduces us to some American companies and universities already innovating toward a clean, sustainable future and examines what other countries are doing as well. We need a course correction, and with HOT, FLAT, AND CROWDED, Friedman has provided a manifesto for our times.

--- Reviewed by Eileen Zimmerman Nicol

Hot, Flat, and Crowded, February 15, 2009
The central argument in this book is that the market does not efficiently allocate investment to cleaner alternative fuels because of externalities associated with use of "dirty" fossil fuels. Externalities, in this context, are costs that are not paid by fuel consumers but rather by society as a whole (pollution) or even by future generations (climate change caused by CO2 emissions). Market participants don't factor these costs into their decisions because they don't have to pay them. This market failure creates an opportunity for the government to increase efficiency by raising the price of carbon-based fuels so that the price paid by consumers reflects their full cost to society. When alternative fuels are more price competitive, R&D will increase, and advances in technology will bring down the cost of alternative fuels. This is an eminently reasonable argument, and Friedman also does a good job of explaining how high oil prices strengthen authoritarian leaders in oil-rich states.

Much of the rest of his book is not as valuable. Friedman is highly critical of market processes - he sees market failures everywhere - but he seems to lose his critical judgment when he looks at government processes. He wants "revolutionary bureaucrats" to assume a much larger role in shaping investment decisions, but he blithely assumes that regulators are farsighted technocrats rather than self-interested political actors. Elsewhere, Friedman laments the need to obtain the support of citizens for initiatives that they will pay for. An entire chapter is dedicated to a fantasy that a benevolent dictator - whose views are identical to Friedman's - might dramatically increase environmental regulation over fossil fuels while weakening environmental regulation over nuclear power, electricity transmission lines, and the other infrastructure that Friedman needs to achieve his vision for a United States powered by "clean electrons."

Many of his arguments might also be criticized as poorly supported or unbalanced. Friedman is a popularizer and explainer, and the standard of evidence in a popular book need not be as high as in a book aimed at specialists. Still, his standard does not rise much above "I think that ..." or "someone I interviewed thinks that ...." This might not be such a big problem except that Friedman only interviews people that he agrees with. For example, in advocating that the news media should more actively promote the link between human activity and climate change, he cites the views of former Clinton administration official Jospeh Romm, who thinks that the news media underplay the link because they are overly concerned with their role as "honest brokers" of information. Maybe Romm and Friedman believe this, but I would guess that most people take a more skeptical view of our news media. Elsewhere, Friedman asserts that the "worst" fossil fuel companies "know their products are as harmful to society and the planet as cigarette smoking." This is a surprising statement, and it might even be true, but Friedman does not present any evidence for it. As a final example, Friedman calls Hurricane Katrina a "flashing red light" alerting us to global warming. Maybe Friedman is right, but in the absence of any evidence, readers might well conclude that the link he draws between climate change and this specific storm is speculative.

can the laggard lead?, November 11, 2008
When my family was in Germany in 1990, our friends pulled up to a stop light and obeyed a traffic signal that instructed them to turn off the engine to save fuel and spare the air. Brazil and Denmark have already attained energy independence from Middle East oil. Japan and Europe have fuel economy standards of 35 miles per gallon; the United States won't match that until 2020. In 2004, demand for scrap metal in China was so strong that manhole covers started disappearing from around the world; thieves stole them, chopped them up, and sold them to China. 150 covers went missing in Chicago. Every mile you drive your car you emit a pound of CO2 into the air (and China is adding 14,000 cars every day to its roads). Welcome to what Thomas Friedman calls Code Green.

Friedman has his critics. His breezy style, jingoistic cheerleading, and free market optimism about profit-motives can be irritating. Others haven't forgiven him for supporting the Iraq war or for his rosy prognosis about globalization. He has a whole chapter in his newest book about why going green will never be easy, but he specifically denies that Americans need to cut their consumption habits because he believes that capitalism can grow a bigger and cleaner pie for all. Everyone knows that America is by far the biggest eco-laggard, but he insists that we can be the world's leader. In a critical review in The New York Review of Books (November 6, 2008: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22027), Bill McKibben describes Friedman's vision as a "green fantasia." In the New Yorker (November 10, 2008), Ian Parker contrasts Friedman's carefully crafted persona as your Average Neighbor with his own eco-footprint, namely, the 11,400 square foot mansion he and his wife built a few years ago.

Still, if our country has any hope for mobilizing the general public in an environmental movement that would match the urgency of the civil rights movement, Thomas Friedman is probably as good as it gets. He's won three Pulitzer Prizes, and his books have been translated into thirty-four languages. He's done his homework and traversed the globe. For many readers, whatever Friedman writes deserves careful attention, and with the current crisis that's a good thing.

The "flattening" of the world that he described in The World is Flat (which has sold four million copies), global warming, and the population explosion all converge, says Friedman, to create five key problems -- energy and natural resource supply and demand, petrodictatorships, climate change, energy poverty, and biodiversity loss. His book describes these problems with a blizzard of anecdotes, facts and figures, and then proposes how we can address them. Friedman sees both a global obligation but also a national opportunity for America to renew itself. There are many moving parts that must act in concert toward the same goal -- governments, international treaties, free market and profit-motivated innovators, laws and legislators on the international, national and local levels, industry regulators, NGOs, personal virtue, civic activism, and bold leadership. Friedman describes himself as a "sober optimist," but he admits that there's a very thin line between dire pessimism that we've reached an irreversible tipping point due to apathy and inaction, and optimism that human ingenuity can rise to the occasion. ... Read more

Editorial Review

A compilation of important American government documents including the Declaration of Independence, Constitution of the United States of America, the Bill of Rights and all amendments to the United States Constitution. An excellent educational reference tool to have on hand.

This is a DRM FREE digital edition (NO Digital Rights Management!), with linked Table of Contents. ... Read more

Reviews

A Must-Read For Every American To Ensure Its Survival, October 16, 2008
Recently, I purchased this wonderful offering at the listed bargain-basement price from Amazon.com - and thank goodness Amazon understands the singular necessity for providing these documents that form what all Americans have believed is our We-The-People Consitutional Democracy. My concern, however, is just how many Americans today have read this - and if not, why? It is astonishing to read even one sentence of the US Constitution for example and, given our dire national events in play, realize for perhaps a frightening instant that an issue for any state or federal appellate court might be: Does the US Consitution apply in any respect, anymore, to the way our three branches of government (the judiciary, the legislative and executive branches) work today? Or put another way, has the US Consitution become, in effect, null and void?! I cannot answer this question for anyone else - but if you care about America - please buy and read this small book...and then tell a friend who will tell another. Perhaps, one day enough Americans will have read it as a start to making it a reality as a matter of our everyday lives once again....

Durable Desk-top Edition, April 13, 2010
As for the content, what can anyone say about the Founding Fathers than what the Constitution they wrote and enacted ensured for us!

The book itself is the desk-top version of a pocket edition except built for page turning and margin notes. I penciled in the content at the top of each page to quicken my research.

Buy it.

Woody

Familiarizing Myself Again, September 27, 2009
I have recently left the Republican party and joined the Constitutional Party in hopes that a better tomorrow can be found for our government. I needed to remember "whereof I speak" so purchased this very good, concise issue that fits well into my briefcase. As a middle school teacher, I want to be ready with the truth, and not the tripe printed in the textbooks.

Very nice piece, November 16, 2010
Very happy with the overall presentation. No anti-american discalimer. The only thing I wish they had done, is put a heading over the pages to show when you were looking at the constitution, declaration, resolutions, etc. This would allow you to find these other works faster.

a-must-have, May 1, 2010
A document every American should have and understand. Also, should be required reading in our school systems.

Everyone should own a copy, April 10, 2010
Everyone should own a copy of our Constitution and READ IT! We have rights you wouldn't believe and the government is trying to take rights that are in the constitution! Every American should carry a copy.

Our Secular Bible, July 22, 2008
I decided to read this book because to me it is the best secular bible for Americans. It should be read by every secular American in the same way that the religious read the bible. I had lost my copies and this book includes them in one copy.

Next best book after the Bible., September 2, 2010
We need to know the details of our Constitution and what made America great. Especially when our freedoms are in jeopardy. ... Read more

Editorial Review

Jesse Ventura tells it like it is, and this time he tackles our government’s biggest secrets.In this explosive account of wrongful acts and on-going cover-ups, Jesse Ventura takes a systematic look at the wide gap between what the American government knows and what it reveals to the American people. For too long, we the people have sat by and let politicians and bureaucrats from both parties obfuscate and lie. And according to this former Navy SEAL, former pro wrestler, and former Minnesota governor, the media is complicit in these acts of deception. For too long, the mainstream press has refused to consider alternate possibilities and to ask the tough questions. Here, Ventura looks closely at the theories that have been presented over the years and separates the fact from the fiction.

In Ventura’s eyes, the murder of Abraham Lincoln and the assassinations of the Kennedys and Martin Luther King, all need to be re-examined. Was Watergate presented honestly, or was the CIA involved? Did the Republican Party set out to purposefully steal two elections on behalf of George W. Bush? Has all the evidence been presented about the 9/11 attacks or is there another angle that the media is afraid to explore? And finally, is the collapse of today’s financial order and the bailout plan by the Federal Reserve the widest-reaching conspiracy ever perpetrated?

“If you’re talking outspoken, unconventional, and no-holds-barred, you’re talking Jesse Ventura.”—Larry King
 
“I wouldn’t mind seeing Ventura run for president (or for senator, or dog-catcher, or whatever). In addition to talking conspiracy, he’s likely to raise all sorts of other trouble.”—Damon W. Root, Reason Magazine ... Read more

Editorial Review

America is under attack. Its institutions and values are under daily assault. But the principal culprits are not foreign terrorists. They are influential and powerful Americans secretly stirring up disunion and disloyalty in the shifting shadows of the Democratic Party. New York Times best-selling authors David Horowitz and Richard Poe (both former radicals) weave together riveting history, investigative reporting, and cutting political analysis to help expose and explain:

• The Shadow Party's plan to rewrite the US Constitution.
• How the Shadow Party overthrows foreign governments--and why it may attempt to use the same methods here.
• The vast network of private think tanks, foundations, unions, stealth PACs, and other front groups through which the Shadow Party operates in America.
• The network's voluminous contributions to the Democrats, which totaled more than $300 million in the 2004 elections, and its growing influence over the party's message and policy.
• The politicians on both sides of the aisle who have exchanged political favors with George Soros and his "government-in-the-wings."
• The Shadow Party's efforts to conceal its radical agenda behind the "moderate" pose of Hillary Clinton and other public figures.
• The radical network's plan to seize power in 2008.

Editorial Review

Thirty years of "crisis," mass unemployment, and flagging growth, and they still want us to believe in the economy. . . . We have to see that the economy is itself the crisis. It's not that there's not enough work, it's that there is too much of it.
—from The Coming Insurrection

The Coming Insurrection is an eloquent call to arms arising from the recent waves of social contestation in France and Europe. Written by the anonymous Invisible Committee in the vein of Guy Debord—and with comparable elegance—it has been proclaimed a manual for terrorism by the French government (who recently arrested its alleged authors). One of its members more adequately described the group as "the name given to a collective voice bent on denouncing contemporary cynicism and reality." The Coming Insurrection is a strategic prescription for an emergent war-machine to "spread anarchy and live communism."

Written in the wake of the riots that erupted throughout the Paris suburbs in the fall of 2005 and presaging more recent riots and general strikes in France and Greece, The Coming Insurrection articulates a rejection of the official Left and its reformist agenda, aligning itself instead with the younger, wilder forms of resistance that have emerged in Europe around recent struggles against immigration control and the "war on terror."

Hot-wired to the movement of '77 in Italy, its preferred historical reference point, The Coming Insurrection formulates an ethics that takes as its starting point theft, sabotage, the refusal to work, and the elaboration of collective, self-organized forms-of-life. It is a philosophical statement that addresses the growing number of those—in France, in the United States, and elsewhere—who refuse the idea that theory, politics, and life are separate realms.

Intervention series
Distributed for Semiotext(e) ... Read more

Reviews

Scary--NOT because of their plan, but because of their analysis of current events., October 22, 2010

All talk, no work, May 31, 2010
I personally believe in the ideals of anarchy, peace, equality, and so on. Ideals do not exist in the actual world. But I am against all authority, all governments, and robber barons, etc. However, if I work all day to chop fire wood, carry water and hunt, gather or harvest food, I have earned it. I do not owe you half - or any of the fruits of my labor. If you have been laying in the shade all day writing about equality and re-distribution of resources and so on and you try to take what I have earned with my own blood sweat and tears, then we will fight and I will win. I'll win because I'm stronger because I do honest work while you grow soft in your leisure. I'll win because bu necessity I have sharpened my wits, my ingenuity, my instincts, reflexes and so on because I have survived the survival game while you got high and sat around.

Here's my point. I have lived with plenty of people like the author(s) of this book. Talking and debating is one thing but when it comes to ACTUAL WORK, I have found (by personal experience) that 9 out of 10 of them will do ANYTHING other than honest work or even pick up their own garbage or clean a dish.

My peers - anarchists, "peace" people, "commune" people, "drainbows", hippies, Deadheads, etc. have great ideals but are far too soft, weak, lazy, selfish and naive to make any alternative society actually work.

Whether I agree or disagree with their ideals and goals is irrelevant to actual reality. The reality is that if you start a commune with 100 voluntary members, soon 10 good hard working people are going to leave because they can't possibly do all the work for the 90 other people who will sit around, try anything to get high, leave garbage around, never clean their own messes, etc. I am not speaking hypothetically. I have lived in such situations and it is just as predictable as any group of primates. Most people will avoid earning their share, even if it means that others will have to carry their weight. If they have dreadlocks, wear tie-die, go shoeless, sell crystal wraps or mushrooms on Phish lot, etc. they are actually even MORE likely to be be allergic to work than if they look like a "member of Babylon".

In these communal, non-authoritarian social experiments, once the food or drugs run out (about 24 hours), these people will quickly resort to charlatanism, theft, cheating, or any other means of getting food, drugs or money as long as it does not require honest work. Actual work is always avoided at all costs.

To the author(s) and similar persons I say don't just day-dream and write books (you miss-educated bourgeois wimps) and then live off the book sales. Start a commune, a farm, a village or something and DO THE WORK, yes, that's right, WORK, do actual LABOR, earn your food, your water, your warmth and shelter, make your own clothes, dig your own pits to poops in, and so on. It is likely you will crawl back home to mommy and daddy after one night, but if you happen to be the rare exception and achieve success at creating and sustaining a commune, and if after some years it still works and you have learned to recognize and eliminate leaches then - only then - write a book about it.

I recommend reading but not paying for this book. Paying for this book is just giving a handout to the author(s). Where I live, there are plenty of clean, well-fed hippie students who stand on corners with their hats out for money because mommy and daddy don't give them a big-enough allowance or maybe because they have to pay for their own food. Poor babies. I won't give them money because I am too busy working to earn my own money. For the same reason, I recommend that you do not give these lazy, whiny, weaklings your money for their book.

If I sound somewhat irrationally angry in this review it is due to real-world experience with such people.

Revolution Already Underway, August 16, 2010

Stupifying, pointless, and badly written, June 10, 2010

Sincere, if immature, theorizing, August 31, 2010
A manifesto on changing life as we know it. The authors' charges against corruption, stress, social anomie, etc., are well taken, but their solution(s) are inconsistent, contradictory, poorly thought out, and based more on ideological certainty than lived reality. All ideologies are forms of intellectual dishonesty, so to embrace an ideology is to erase ambiguities and feel certain that all questions, past and future, have already been answered. It's hard not to be self-deceptive in such a mind set.

Disturbing philosophy book/how to book, May 9, 2010
Short, concise and to the disturbing realistic future that may be at our doorstep if we fail to act immediately. That was an opinion, not an endorsement of the ideas presented in this book.

Goodbye Civilization, Hello Barbarism, Anarchy & Other Utopian Garbage, July 10, 2009
I'd heard that this was a very scary book. The French government had even jailed the members of the Invisible Committee of authors for Terrorism. I found the book incredibly na�ve. The most surprising lesson I gleaned from it was that French Socialism is not very popular in France among a large number of its residents. In fact the people sharing the beliefs of the "invisible" authors hate the government system. The book reads like a committee creation. It's an illogical and "pie-in-the-sky" utopian urban myth--ridiculous beyond belief.
The book itself is only136-pages long and most of it is not only boring, boring, boring but also silly. It's a reprint of a French publication and therefore reflects the warped world of absurd, obscure politics. I was surprised to learn that The MIT Press distributes it. It consists of an introduction and twelve chapters each with many sub-sections.
The text is obviously written by intellectual elites who think that they will take over the world and live in small rural communes once they have destroyed the cities. They laugh at the fact that all food production is handled by only 2 per cent of the population while at the same time mentioning several times that the members of their post-revolution communes will have to raise their own food in order to survive. This particular discussion reminded me of Mao's Culture Revolution and Pol Pots driving of all Cambodians out of the cities into the countryside to become serfs while systemically killing anyone who could read, write or had professional skills.
I could visualize the book's authors leading their small band of commune comrades out of the burning cities and suddenly discovering the armed farmers in the countryside weren't interested in surrendering their land to a bunch of lazy city folk. And of course, the radicals also assumed that while their revolutionaries were destroying the internet computer networks and all other modern communications and supply lines, they didn't accidentally cause a few of France's Nuclear Reactors to melt down and irradiate all of France and most of its neighboring nations.
So assuming these new revolutionary communes can take the farmland away from it's owners, then they would get to farm it. So instead of 2% of the population supplying all their food, most of the commune would be needed for basics. That would mean every comrade would have to work and here's some of what the book says about work.
"No question is more confused, in France, than the question of work. No relation is more disfigured than the one between the French and work. Go to Andalusia, to Algeria, to Naples. They despise work, profoundly. Go to Germany, to the United States, to Japan. They revere work."
"We accept the necessity of finding money, by whatever means, because it is currently impossible to do without it, but we reject the necessity of working. Besides we don't work anymore..."
These guys are going to make wonderful members of their Utopian communes after they have destroyed civilization and returned to the Stone Age. They have another subchapter entitled "Get organized in order to no longer have to work." Apparently they don't feel there will be any work involved in organizing an insurrection or revolution and then living in communes out in the countryside.
Mostly this book is like reading warped, misunderstood New Age Gobbly-Gook. The authors are so fascinated in listening to themselves expound their utopian theories that only the French elites would have the patience to wade through the pools of garbage flowing out of the sewers of these visionless amateur revolutionaries. They criticize Al Gore and his global warming theories as promoting only another form of capitalism using a crisis to further tax and control. They are equal opportunity haters. They hate the French government, they hate the educational system, they hate capitalism, they hate the unions and they hate the socialists as well as the rightists. They seem to hate, hate, hate everything and simply want to bring it down without any real vision to replace it with. Even their concepts of Communes are vague and sound like temporary alliances that would be in constant flux. it's not exactly going to appeal to masses of people who would just as soon settle for a job and some respect because they have much too much time on their hands.
Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" frightened me because his plan for destroying American Capitalism seems to have succeeded beyond his wildest dreams (please feel free to read my Amazon review of that manual for anarchy). One of Alinsky's biggest disciples is in the White House's Oval Office. This French revolutionary manual doesn't frighten me at all, although I can see why the French Government feels threatened by it. These malcontents are dangerous precisely because they just want to destroy, destroy, destroy. I've just finished reading Mike Dash's "The First Family: The Birth of the American Mafia." After Dash's excellent description of how the Mafia was organized in Sicily and then transported to America, I would predict that if these revolutionaries happened to live through their own violent French Revolution it would only be a matter of time before thugs organized like the Mafia would kill and enslave all of them and then the survivors would have a reason to work, if they wanted have enough to eat to barely subsist that is. These radicals would not even begin to approach the cold-blooded tactics of the Sicilian or Russian Mafia. The disorganized French anarchists would be murdered or enslaved before they knew what had happened. The mafia types aren't interested in destroying everything. They just want to make huge profits by allying themselves with the government, rich land owners and industrialists.
The items that most surprised me about this book were the naivety of the book's utopian authors, the obvious widespread unhappiness with French Socialism, and some of the popular political philosophies passing for logical thinking. One subchapter reminded me of a recent White House Chief of Staff's comment. The book heading was "Make the most of every crisis." That statement scared me a little, but the rest of the book is too boring and confusing to interest, much less inspire, many other revolutionaries.

The Coming Insurrection (Semiotext(e) /Intervention, February 6, 2010
This small book is a freighting and naive portal into the dissatisfaction many of the young diverse population in a socialized Europe, and in particular France, feels about their lives today and the future. The passion and the lack of sophistication are the main reasons for the appeal found in the many diatribes, sermons, pronouncements and hopes the Invisible Committee wanted to be expose by the light of day.

This book is long on emotion and bereft of any real direction. In fact it would appear that the authors are trusting to foster their absolute plan of anarchy from the whole cloth of group consciousness which will bring about the organization of the insurrection. Hmmmm? While you need a flashlight and a GP device to find your way through many of the disconnections, thoughts and aspirations embraced by this work the overall cohesiveness makes it an insightful look at many of today's young communal warriors. A world without money, possessions, status and human organization is not all they want. They want a reality with no work, no debt, no rules and none of the past failings of this species we call man. They are convinced no one is on their side and thus they are on the side of no one and express this isolation by advocating everything in the name of nothing.

Before you reach a decision about my lucidness; read the book and reach your own conclusions............

French foretell US future, October 25, 2010
This should be required reading for all American citizens and certainly all High School and College students. We do not need to repeat the mistakes that the French have made in allowing people from outside their country to migrate to their nation and setup communities that do not recognize local laws. Many "unelected officials" in the Obama Administration in the U.S. have similiar goals.

Worth reading (or listening to) regardless of your politics, August 24, 2010

Editorial Review

Reviews

This book BEGS to be Read - Understand the last 60 Years of American History!!!!

I approached this book with caution. It is a book of select letters written by the late Senator from New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan who served 18 years in the Congress. The Senator also happened to be a Harvard professor, and Presidential adviser to JFK, LBJ, and Nixon before serving in the Congress. He is brilliant, literary, funny, prescient, and perhaps even clairvoyant.


This book will have a limited audience because of the subject matter, and although it will not be widely read, it will be read by those who are widely read. Moynihan was a gift to all of us, and our society will sorely miss his wisdom, and his advice. This will be true regardless of what side of the political fence you come from.


The book is composed of letters, some 700 of the 10,000 that were available to the editor, Steve Wiseman. It was left to the editor, in his selection process to give us a flavor for who the Senator was, a man who never wrote his own biography. He did however author 18 thought provoking books, and it seems that the core of those books is revealed through these letters.


Each letter has a brief sentence or two introduction setting the time and tone of when it was written. Remember, you are reading the exact words that Daniel Moynihan wrote. There's no editing, so he sometimes appears to be years ahead of his time because in fact he was. Some of the words in the letters are not politically correct. The word Negro was in common usage 50 years ago, and everybody including Martin Luther King was comfortable with it then, and not now.


The book is a living testament to the POWER OF IDEAS, because that is what Moynihan was all about. I have been told by his fellow Senators that he was the most gifted intellect in the Senate in 50 years. There was no typical political phoniness in this man. You knew where you stood. He was opinionated, firm, and subject to change if you could show him that he was wrong.



The Senator demonstrated on page 499 that he was a class act. He and Senator Barry Goldwater were about as far apart politically, as you could be. At a Senate Select Committee on Intelligence when Goldwater was absent, the CIA tried to blame Goldwater, and stated that the Committee had been fully informed through Goldwater. Senator Moynihan knew this was not true. He told the CIA in no uncertain terms, "If you are going to brand Barry Goldwater a liar, you're going to have to get yourself another Vice Chairman (meaning he Moynihan would resign). CIA Director Casey apologized. It's all on page 499.



Here are just a few of the provoking thoughts you will find in this collection:


1) The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of society.


2) You might recall that back in 1990, when the Soviet Union was falling, no one in the CIA predicted it. They were all either asleep at the switch, or in denial. Senator Moynihan had predicted it very clearly in 1979, eleven years before. It's in the unedited letters, it couldn't be clearer, and everybody wants to know why he thought the CIA should be dissolved?


3) We all believe that Ralph Nader was the man who orchestrated the whole automobile safety movement in this country. It's not so. It's in the letters, Moynihan was there first. At that point Professor Mohnihan was instrumental in bringing Nader to Washington DC, and pushed for safety legislation before Nader got there.


4) He coined the term "iron law of emulation", which means he felt that bureaucracies or groups in conflict tend to become more and more like each other over time. He thought the Soviet and American policies on nuclear war were an example of this.


5) A month before JFK's death he wrote an amazing letter on October 22, 1963 on organized crime to the President. It is clear to me that he understood the threat of the underworld on our society like nobody else in government except for Robert Kennedy. This was a time when the FBI and Hoover denied that organized crime existed. This letter shocked me, look at page 63.



Daniel Patrick Moynihan was an intellectual, diplomat, professor, politician, and statesman. We are all better off for the life he lived, and we are very much enlightened by the energy and time it took Mr. Wiseman to put this collection together. He has done an admirable job. By the end of this book, one develops an extraordinary and in-depth feel for this most remarkable public man. Born dirt poor, shining shoes, the Senator left the planet a high brow intellectual with a deep love for his country. Read it at your leisure by your bedside, and be prepared to be enlightened. Thank you for reading this review.



Richard C. Stoyeck

Excellent Portrait
Daniel Patrick Moynihan was a brilliant, distinguished statesman who used the English language splendidly. His letters are a joy to read!!

Experience first hand the thoughts of a brilliant man
Moynihan wrote letter as reflections on his own thoughts; and as memos. Why else do you think he would have kept copies and left them to the Library of Congress?
The book illustrates how difficult if is to care for a stability of an institution.
Moynihan predicted in 1974 after India's first nuclear test that the issue of Pakistan nuclear would arise.
He his heart out to Nathan Glazer about being deceived/betrayed by Nixon
Moynihan is clearly possessing such personality traits as:
* Wide ranging intellect
* Eloquent
* Immense memory and ability to recite history
* Willing to take risks
* Non linear thinker, pulling things together from different thoughts
* Humor and willingness to fight back

"When words fail him, which is almost never, Moynihan does not mind making a point peripatetically: he will wander into the Security Council during a debate, walk around, sit down, get up, go out and come back in. "We sometimes feel that he does not take the Security Council seriously," complains one East Asian diplomat." Time, Jan 26, 1976

You might also like to read "Floccinaucinihilipilificationism: A Word as Big as the Man" By ALISON LEIGH COWAN, NYTimes blog at [...] ... Read more

Editorial Review

American Grace is a major achievement, a groundbreaking examination of religion in America.

Unique among nations, America is deeply religious, religiously diverse, and remarkably tolerant. But in recent decades the nation’s religious landscape has been reshaped.

America has experienced three seismic shocks, say Robert Putnam and David Campbell. In the 1960s, religious observance plummeted. Then in the 1970s and 1980s, a conservative reaction produced the rise of evangelicalism and the Religious Right. Since the 1990s, however, young people, turned off by that linkage between faith and conservative politics, have abandoned organized religion. The result has been a growing polarization—the ranks of religious conservatives and secular liberals have swelled, leaving a dwindling group of religious moderates in between. At the same time, personal interfaith ties are strengthening. Interfaith marriage has increased while religious identities have become more fluid. Putnam and Campbell show how this denser web of personal ties brings surprising interfaith tolerance, notwithstanding the so-called culture wars.

American Grace is based on two of the most comprehensive surveys ever conducted on religion and public life in America. It includes a dozen in-depth profiles of diverse congregations across the country, which illuminate how the trends described by Putnam and Campbell affect the lives of real Americans.

Nearly every chapter of American Grace contains a surprise about American religious life. Among them:

• Between one-third and one-half of all American marriages are interfaith;

• Roughly one-third of Americans have switched religions at some point in their lives;

• Young people are more opposed to abortion than their parents but more accepting of gay marriage;

• Even fervently religious Americans believe that people of other faiths can go to heaven;

• Religious Americans are better neighbors than secular Americans: more generous with their time and treasure even for secular causes—but the explanation has less to do with faith than with their communities of faith;

• Jews are the most broadly popular religious group in America today.

American Grace promises to be the most important book in decades about American religious life and an essential book for understanding our nation today. ... Read more

Reviews

An Extraordinary and Unique Achievement - Read It !!!!!, October 18, 2010


I for one was blown away by the contents of this book. Once I started reading, I found it difficult to put down and fascinating. I am now convinced that we are all walking around with presuppositions about religion and religious beliefs in America that are just plain wrong. Think about it. You're a smart, educated, well-read adult. You try to keep an open mind throughout your life, and then along comes this 550 page book and smacks you, and your belief systems right in the face. Everything I thought about our country's religious status is now subject to re-interpretation. Here's why:


The authors did very substantial research, over a period of years. It was painstaking, and brutally honest. They approach this project the way you would do a massive pharmaceutical drug research study. They did not inflict their own belief systems on what they found. There has been no study like this, anywhere approaching this effort in more than 50 years. At the same time, they made the book highly readable which for a research study is more than surprising.


If I had to compare this study to anything comparable, it would be the Master's and Johnson study on sexual practices in America published many decades ago. That study revolutionized our thinking about sexual mores in this country, and this study will do the same thing for religion. You do not have to follow this book in sequence. Go into the table of contents, find a chapter that interests you and you will be able to go into whatever depth you like. Read a few pages or read the whole chapter, just be prepared to realize that what we think is not necessarily what the rest of us are thinking, and believing.


Here are a few concepts straight out of the book that should pique your interest in reading more.


* One third to one half of all marriages in America are interfaith marriages. Wow, this is surprising. It is difficult to stay married to someone if you do not respect that person. These marriages are producing a powerful respect for other religions, and that's probably good for all of us.


* One third of all Americans have switched religions in their lifetime. I would never have dreamed the number was so large.


* The young are more opposed to abortion than their parents, and more accepting of gay marriage. I would not have believed the abortion statistic, but research is research.


* Fervently religious Americans believe that people of another faith can go to heaven. This is another mind blowing statistic because it implies that people are starting to treat other people's religions with the same respect they accord their own.


* I was completely taken aback with the following. I knew that in 1960 a number of Protestants (30%) said they could not bring themselves to vote for a Catholic (John Kennedy) for President. I was alive then, I remember. Did you know that in 2004 John Kerry, a Catholic took only half the Catholic vote in this country? The other half went for George Bush, an evangelical Protestant.


* Jewish people are the most broadly popular religious group in America. Statistics are clear on this, regardless of what the news media would have you believe. What's interesting also is that Mormons tend to like, and are most comfortable with other people's religions, and yet are the least liked religion themselves. This would imply that Mormons are the most accepting, and yet least accepted of the religions in America.



In summary I believe that you should be prepared to be amazed at your new understanding of who and what America believes in. It turns out we are the most religious country in the industrial world. Over 83% of us belong to a religion. More than 40% of us go to church almost every week, while 59% pray weekly, and one third of us read the scriptures every week, and 80% of Americans say that they absolutely believe there is a God. By way of comparison, 54% of the people in England never pray, that is true for only 18% of Americans. More than anything else, I was taken aback by the following. Almost 40% of Americans belong to a church or church group versus 9% for Italians, and 4% for the French. If you watch CNN when the Vatican elects a Pope, you see a million people in Vatican Square, you would think that 100% of Italians belong to the church.


Read this book and be prepared to be amazed at what you will learn. The authors did a superb job at wringing out their personal biases, and portraying religion in America in an honest, respectful fashion, and they deserve to be read for what they have accomplished in this highly readable book. Good luck, and thank you for reading this review.


Richard C. Stoyeck

Extremely good social science, October 23, 2010
With 550 page of text and another 123 pages of appendices, notes, and index this is an extensive assessment of the role of religion in American society. The information is strictly factual, measured from two major surveys led by the authors. In addition they draw on many standard sources, Gallup, the General Social Survey, the Pew Religious Landscape Survey, and others. The authors present the data,- the cross classifications, the correlations, the trend lines - in half page, black and white graphs. Emphasis is on four major religious traditions, Catholics, main line Protestants, evangelical Protestants, and the not religious, i.e. those answering "none" when asked their denomination. The authors make it clear that most of the "nones" do in fact believe in God; only a tiny number of Americans label themselves as atheists or agnostics. These four groups account for 90 percent of Americans. The Authors can classify individuals by the extent of their "religiosity" on the basis of how often they attend church and other variables.

The authors examine the role of religion by ethnicity, gender, denomination, and race. They ask how the womens revolution has impacted religion. They examine religion and social class. Most of all they devote a chapter to "Religion in American Politics" to bring out how the current period seems to have divided Republicans from Democrats. Yet over the long run, that is since the fifties, religious adherence has varied greatly.

The authors also examine religion and civic virtues. Interestingly they find, - and of course document, - that religious Americans are more generous, more civically active, more trusting and trustworthy, in short, better neighbors. On the other hand, religious Americans are less tolerant of others' views and have difficulty accepting dissent.

This is a very good book. The authors are the first to point out where they think their assessment is fully supported, and also warn the reader where the data are inadequate, and therefore the conclusions tentative. This is must reading to understand the complexity of religion in America.

comprehensive and thought provoking, October 12, 2010
This book is a treasure trove of observations about multi-denominational attitudes and behaviors and its intersection with political and social issues. But what I found most surprising and hopeful were the findings of integration across religious belief systems (e.g., the high rate of inter-faith marriages, friendships and shifts from one's parents' faith to another or no affiliation at all, etc.). As the subtitle suggests, faith does not only divide us, but in unexpected ways also unites us. A much needed message in today's volatile climate. The authors attribute this to a high level of religious tolerance. Unfortunately, they stopped short of distinguishing between religious tolerance and religious acceptance (tolerance involves "putting up with" people you disapprove of; acceptance involves refusing to pass judgment on people who are different from you). This would have been an important distinction as tolerance, with its condescending tone, is far less hopeful than acceptance. You can and must legislate tolerance while acceptance must come from the heart. And I believe that much of what they discovered was indeed religious acceptance. You'd have to go elsewhere for more on this distinction, such as another new book - Tolerant Oppression: Why promoting tolerance undermines our quest for equality and what we should do instead Keeping that in mind, the authors' application of religious distinctions and affiliations to a range of political issues including premarital sex, homosexuality, abortion, etc. spawned interesting observations. An important book.

An eye-opener, November 15, 2010
What we think about religion (ours and others) and what we actually know about religion are two very separate entities and that is a major presentation that appears in this new book, "American Grace". It's a timely book in many ways, but an educational one at all levels on this subject.

If there is one word I could describe about this book it would be "surprise". Each chapter contains more than one surprise... in large part about our pre-conceived notions of religion and its hold on American society. While it seems evident that younger people are much more tolerant than their parents are with regard to homosexuality, for instance, they are actually more conservative on the issue of abortion. And with all the reports of anti-Semitic activity over the years, who would have thought that Jews are the best liked religious group in the country?

These revelations abound in "American Grace" and while the authors could have merely offered up a dry, chart-driven look at religion (yes, there are many very intriguing charts!) they intersperse it with "vignettes" of Americans going through their daily and weekly religious activities. Yet, the best part of this book is showing us all up, in a sense...that we tend to know so little of other religions that when something is presented, the reader tends to drop his or her jaw in disbelief. "Really?!", could be a perfect response to many of their discoveries.

Unlocking what is behind religion is no easy task but authors Robert Putnam and David Campbell have done an extraordinary job of peeling away the layers of our own lack of knowledge and filling it with substantial insight. I highly recommend this terrific book.

Great blend of qual/quant, December 11, 2010
Putnam and Campbell offer a comprehensive if sometimes disjointed portrait of religion in America. The case studies and vignettes are fascinating, especially the Jewish and Mormon portions, and the statistical analysis is very accessible. It is a fun read and a good primer for someone interested in religion and politics. My only complaint is that the chapters don't always flow one from another. Still, this is a very well-researched and well written book.

Excellent analysis of American religious trends, December 9, 2010
This is a lengthy book but very well written and manages to keep one's interest. The different analyses of religious faiths in America were quite interesting. Some were quite unexpected, others predictable if one belongs to a religious comunity. I appreciated that opinions were backed up by the data from surverys, rather than made up whole-cloth. Survery data have their own weaknesses but data-based is a good start.
The book would be of interest to those in Administrative positions in the church, as well as to lay leaders who are curious.

Not much new, December 20, 2010
Like so much social science, it presents a boatload of statistics, but the analysis is shallow. Sometimes this is ok: Putnam's Bowling Alone was like this, but most of his research there was new, addressing then-neglected topics. In this case, the subject is well-worn. Consequentliy, most of the supposed "surprises" presented here are well-known to anyone even half-educated on the topic. More notably, most of the more significant information presented here is very widely available elsewhere -- including a lot for free on the internet, from such organizations as the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, as well as in previously published books and articles on religion and politics in America (often with more depth of analysis). It's just hard to see what this book adds, except for those who want the convenience of a whole lot of stats pulled together in one place in hardcopy form.

What's really needed is not so much more number crunching as more sensitive and philosophically/theologically/culturally rich analysis of matters of religion and politics in the U.S.

Statistics on top of statistics on top of statistics on top of.........., December 17, 2010
This book reads like a doctoral thesis. Basically it is 550 pages of research studies with little evaluation of the statistics. If you want to know the percentage of any given group on any given religious subject and how those percentages have changed and charts and graphs to show those percentages this is the book for you. If you love wading though numbers with little analysis of those numbers this is the book for you. If you want to impress people with the number of Mainline Protestants vs. White Catholics vs. Latino Catholics vs. White Evangelicals vs. Black Evangelicals vs. Mormons vs. Jews vs. Other vs. None broken down to those that attend always vs. sometimes vs. never on absolutely every religious subject this is the book for you.

If averages and numbers numb your brain after 100 pages or so avoid this book because that's all it is.

fabulous, December 18, 2010
An incredible book fot the student or pastor. Will make you stop and carefully think about the full import of your words and actions. ... Read more

Editorial Review

This primers tells the "have-nots" how they can organize to achieve real political power for the practice of true democracy. ... Read more

Editorial Review

Now, do not misunderstand me, America is great.

But we are fed up with being over-taxed and over-regulated.We are tired of being told how much salt to put on our food, what kind of cars we can drive, what kinds of guns we can own, what kind of prayers we are allowed to say and where we can say them, what we are allowed to do to elect political candidates, what kind of energy we can use, what doctor we can see.What kind of nation are we becoming?I fear it's the very kind the Colonists fought against.

But perhaps most of all, we are fed up because deep down we know how great America has always been, how many great things the people do in spite of their government, and how great the nation can be in the future if government will just get out of the way.

Our fight is clear.We must step up and retake the reins of our government from a Washington establishment that has abused our trust.We must empower states to fight for our beliefs, elect only leaders who are on our team, set out to remind our fellow Americans why liberty is guaranteed in the Constitution, and take concrete steps to take back our country.The American people have never sat idle when liberty's trumpet sounds the call to battle-and today that battle is for the soul of America. ... Read more

Editorial Review

This book has been specifically formated for the Amazon Kindle.

The Law, first published as a pamphlet in June, 1850.Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) was a French economist, statesman, and author. He did most of his writing during the years just before - and immediately following -- the Revolution of February 1848.The same socialist-communist ideas and plans that were then adopted in France are now sweeping America. The explanations and arguments then advanced against socialism by Mr. Bastiat are -- word for word -- equally valid today. His ideas deserve a serious hearing. ... Read more

Reviews

The most common sense logic written on government., January 18, 1999
I read this book in 1980; at the time I was chairman of the democratic party in my county. I really began to do some serious soul searching. I finally concluded I was going to leave my party, as It no longer represented it's founder Mr Thomas Jefferson. This small simple easy to read book totally changed my life That same year I met Jim Hansen, he was making his first run for congress from the state of Utah, I made a deal with him, I would vote for him if he would read The Law by Bastiat. He promised, and I did. I received a nice letter from Jim after he was elected. " Never read a book that has so impressed me". P.S. "Find Yourself another copy, Im keeping Yours". Jim.

Best three dollars ever spent. Ron Steele Moab, Utah

Should be required reading in Washington, D.C., January 31, 2006
What book is is important enough that I read it once a year? The Law by Frederic Bastiat. Written in 1848 as a response to socialism in France, this book essay is just as relevant today as it was then.

"What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Each of us has a natural right-from God-to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?

If every person has the right to defend - even by force - his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right - its reason for existing, its lawfulness - is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force - for the same reason - cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?

If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all."

My copy of The Law is filled with highlighted yellow phrases. Among them:

"But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.

How has this perversion of the law been accomplished? And what have been the results?

The law has been perverted by the influence of two entirely different causes: stupid greed and false philanthropy. Let us speak of the first.

Every legislator should be forced to read Bastiat's The Law once a month for their entire term and write a synopsis of how they have upheld the ideas contained within it. The tome should be taught in our school systems. It should be drilled into every citizen's head from birth until death."

When he was alive, Bastiat called the United States the one nation in the world that came close to applying law in a just manner. If he could visit us today, he would puke all over the steps of Congress. He would barf in the halls of the White House. He would upchuck in lobbyists offices all over Washington, D.C. When he was done throwing up, I do believe Bastiat would start a revolution.

He would definitely take on our current system of governance because we're turning into Socialism Lite 'Less Filling, More Taxes.'

"Socialists look upon people as raw material to be formed into social combinations. This is so true that, if by chance, the socialists have any doubts about the success of these combinations, they will demand that a small portion of mankind be set aside to experiment upon. The popular idea of trying all systems is well known. And one socialist leader has been known seriously to demand that the Constituent Assembly give him a small district with all its inhabitants, to try his experiments upon.

In the same manner, an inventor makes a model before he constructs the full-sized machine; the chemist wastes some chemicals - the farmer wastes some seeds and land - to try out an idea.

But what a difference there is between the gardener and his trees, between the inventor and his machine, between the chemist and his elements, between the farmer and his seeds! And in all sincerity, the socialist thinks that there is the same difference between him and mankind!

It is no wonder that the writers of the nineteenth century look upon society as an artificial creation of the legislator's genius. This idea - the fruit of classical education - has taken possession of all the intellectuals and famous writers of our country. To these intellectuals and writers, the relationship between persons and the legislator appears to be the same as the relationship between the clay and the potter.

Moreover, even where they have consented to recognize a principle of action in the heart of man - and a principle of discernment in man's intellect - they have considered these gifts from God to be fatal gifts. They have thought that persons, under the impulse of these two gifts, would fatally tend to ruin themselves. They assume that if the legislators left persons free to follow their own inclinations, they would arrive at atheism instead of religion, ignorance instead of knowledge, poverty instead of production and exchange."

Read The Law. It will change all your assumptions about what the role of government should be in your life in only 76 pages. When you're done, make your friends read The Law. If they won't, stop being friends with them. Send a copy to your Representatives and Congressmen and ask them what the hell they think they're doing with this country of ours.

On Amazon.com's scale of 1-10.........no less than a 12, January 28, 1998
To read this essay knowing nothing of the author or when he wrote it, one would never guess that it was first published 150 years ago. This book is as timeless as ANY publication in human history. Bastiat demonstrates a thorough and flawless understanding of both the bright and dark sides of human nature, of the essential role each has played in the growth and divergence of collectivist and (18th century) liberal ideologies, and most importantly, the resulting tendency for government, in all of its most common manifestations, to grow and for liberty to yield. The principles proffered herein are the very genesis of the body of thought most commonly attributed to such brilliant authors as Milton Friedman, F. A. Hayek, Adam Smith, and Thomas Paine. Bastiat was the consummate humanitarian, and a genius with no peer. If you read no other book during your lifetime, read "The Law".

PRINTING PROBLEM IN THIS ITEM, August 30, 2008
The substance of Bastiat's "The Law" is critical and accurate.

The good people at Cosimo Books, however, cut off the printing before the end of the book -- the penultimate section of the book ends in mid-sentence, and the last section of the book isn't there at all.

So I do very much encourage everyone to read Bastiat's "The Law," just don't buy this version from this publisher. (Buy it from the Mises Institute instead.)

Concise, Powerful, Elegant Defense of Liberty and the Law, August 11, 1999
When I read F.A. Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom," I thought I had read the most inspired and compelling book ever to discredit socialism and other collective-isms. I was wrong...very wrong. I cannot believe Bastiat wrote "The Law" in the middle of the 19th century since it has so much applicability to the 20th (and soon to be 21st) century. If ever there was a concise and powerful argument for defending Liberty and the Law against every social engineer, this has to be it (only 75 pages!). Bastiat is a master of words and the analogy. Every lover of freedom who wishes to get a nutshell understanding of why Liberty and Law matters ought to read this book. Every enemy of freedom (e.g. liberals, socialists, communists, etc.) ought to fear it.

A 19th Century Writer Gives Birth To 21st Century Ideology, May 23, 2001
Fredric Bastiat was a 19th century French law-maker, economist and author. He wrote a number of highly technical works of economic theory, books that are still considered valuable contributions to free-market economic thought. But his least technical work, a pamphlet called The Law, has proven to be perhaps his most enduring from a modern political standpoint.

Written in 1850, just two years after the French Revolution of 1848, the Law is part treatise and part polemic, an appeal to the French people reminding them of the proper sphere of the law and government and begging them to turn away from their descent into socialism. The Law is also a summary of much of what Bastiat considered to be important from his own work; at the time The Law was written he was very sick, and he would be dead within a year of its publication. As a French patriot, Bastiat was deeply moved by the disintegration he saw in French society.

As the last vestiges of the class-society were replaced and the new "democratic" order was being instituted, the State was more and more being used as a means by which groups of citizens (special interests) could plunder one another through taxes, transfer payments, tariffs, etc, committing what Bastiat calls "legal plunder." As he saw it, the law was being perverted into a so-called "creative" entity, through which controlling groups would seek to enforce their particular agendas at the expense and through the pocketbooks of the people in general.

Bastiat argues that the law should be properly viewed as the formal embodiment of Force. That is, human laws should be the organized and formal construction of justice. Just law, he says, is nothing more than the organization of the human right to self-defense. This is a surprisingly narrow definition, perhaps almost too narrow to be truly useful. But I can imagine that Bastiat wouldn't have seen much moral value in the philosophy of pragmatism; he certainly would have made a bad present-day politician, a "flaw" which I find highly admirable.

Bastiat is revered by many modern libertarians as one of the founding fathers of their ideology, and rightly so. But it seems to me that his work is more accurately anarcho-capitalist than libertarian. To say that Bastiat is arguing for "limited" government is a gross understatement. In fact, Bastiat seems instead to be arguing for the abolition of most all of what today we would call The Government. Many libertarians, for example, probably wouldn't argue the abolition of all forms of taxation on moral grounds. Personally I appreciate his definition of plunder as "...tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on..."

Obviously although Bastiat may not share the views of modern libertarians in every respect, they have much to respect in him. And of course, the average economic and social liberal won't care for him at all, as he makes a special point of going after the vast majority of liberal sacred cows. But more surprisingly, the Religious Right should be wary of taking Bastiat on as too great of an ally. Although Bastiat and his book have been instrumental in forming many right-wing/libertarian ideas about free markets and the proper role of government, Bastiat argues forcefully against the use of the law as a tool for the shaping of moral values. Jerry Falwell and Bastiat are notably out of step with one another. I can imagine that Bastiat would not have much use for the Congressional institution of days of prayer, or for teacher-led prayer in the public schools he so despised, for anti-drug and pro-abstinence programs, or for the ministerial functions that many politicians have sought to usurp.

Conservatives have an unfortunate habit of revering political figures. But as Bastiat says, "There are too many 'great' men in the world--legislators, organizers, do-gooders, leaders of the people, fathers of nations, and so on, and so on. Too many persons place themselves above mankind; they make a career of organizing it, patronizing it, and ruling it."

Bastiat didn't believe in the inherent value of rulers of men. Many conservatives hope that their sons will grow up to be leaders in a political sense. Bastiat believed that we would be better served if more people sought to be useful, productive, inventive and moral, instead of trying to lead all the rest of society. Society will function much more desirably when we relinquish the desire for power over our fellow men, and instead seek power over our own actions.

Although Bastiat's views on law and government may be too simplistic and dated to be implemented literally in a modern society, I believe that there is still much instruction to be had from this book. I would highly recommend it to anyone interested in developing an understanding of the roots of modern libertarian thought.

A great introduction to Libertarian Philosophy, July 11, 2000
Frederick Bastiat was a French Farmer in the first half of the 19th century who watched his country's government assume more and more power. That is what I thought made this book unique - In the first paragraph, he states his intent of the book to be an "alert" to his countrymen - which is probably why the book is so emotional as well as succinct.

Bastiat manages to describe the purpose of "law," from a religious standpoint, in the first 3-4 pages. The rest of the book is mostly specific details of how his description of the proper purpose of the law has been thwarted in France in 1850. Many of the same principals apply today.

For three bucks and an hour of your time, this book is guaranteed to engage you and make you think. In my experience, its ability to persuade people is uncanny.

Negative Rights Positively Explained, October 4, 2000
Does the government take care of you by making sure you are left free from interference by others? Or does it give form and substance to your freedom by making sure you are given, by the government, enough Maslowian scaffolding to get you within jumping distance of the last triangle of self-actualization at the top of the pyramid of your desires? That's always the question. I'd be free if only someone would pay off my mortgage, or do my homework, or abort my inconvenient child for me. Here in this book is a very good template to evaluate these alternative viewpoints, especially appropriate for smart high school kids, since it furnishes ammunition to carry them through most of the garbage they will find littered in their books, written on their classroom walls, and mincingly elaborated by their discontented, yet strangely power-hungry liberal law professors, all of whom will basically insist on refuting the truth of what Bastiat identifies as the central fact of state power: That the government is "not a breast that fills itself with milk." High school boys especially like that part. Yet this is what so many people think--and Keynes even monkeyed together some funny looking math to show how dollars taxed away and then re-spent by the government become supercharged, and are better for the economy than un-taxed and un-respent dollars held privately. Here is where he meets our Founding generation--all of whom saw how dangerous it was to cede too much function to any government, which of course would need more and more money to fund these activities. Am I straying from the point? No. Just look at our political contests: craven beg-fests for votes based on what the government can spend on you, or how the internet will bring it all "closer" to you. For your benefit. And if someone wants to take less from people in the first place, that's "spending [by the government] on the richest 1%"--who of course have had much more taken from them to begin with. Bastiat explains, in universal terms not hinged to any particular group of pilgrims, kings, or communists, how the law is enlisted in the plunder of the many by the few who control the law, and how law must be continually twisted into unjust forms to keep up the subsidies, the taxes, the programs, all designed to treat the same population differently. His greatest example, though, is to contrast liberty with the perversion of law, (and here he partakes in some cultural non-relativism) by using the image of a tribe of natives who flatten the noses, pierce the ears and lips, bend-up the feet, and depress the foreheads of their newborns, insisting these are signs of beauty. The same thing is done to our laws and our liberty by the socialist plunderers, according to Bastiat, unforgettably according to Bastiat. Would the next generation of any country be more or less likely to make a world-and-life-view out of sucking up to government employees for their prescription drugs, family planning, education, utility bill assistance, or internet domain monopolies if they read this book in time to become immune to the excuse-making and false moralizing of socialism? So do we put the govenment in charge of our kids, our sick grandparents, and our businesses, so we can finally be more "free?" You read Bastiat and be the judge.

Text also available on-line, December 20, 1999
The text of Bastiat's most prominent essays is available on-line, so you can make up your mind on your own. Start browsing from bastiat.org, it's well worth the trip. When you've read Bastiat, you'll just want to acquire a paper copy of the book, and you can still use digital copies to share it with other people.

Excellent !!!, October 20, 2004
I read "The Law" as part of my Civics course this year in highschool, and I'm SOOOOOOOO glad it was required. At 16, I'm scared to death at where my country is heading and this book contains the answers for a government and law system that'd make a country I'd be proud of in every way. This is a book I'd buy in bulk and stuff in newspaper boxes if I had the means -as it is all my friends are going to get it for Christmas along with a glowing report from myself. Heck, who needs to wait for Christmas, ELECTION DAY IS COMING!

This book was originally in a pamphlet format and is a wonderful short summary of what the natures of law and government are and what they should be. But because of this format, many of his arguements are brief, and he acknowledges that not all of them are complete.

He starts out stating the gifts of God to man are: life, liberty and property. Bastiat insists that man is allowed to defend himself, his liberty, and his property, and that "the Law" was created to ensure that society would be allowed to make use of their God-given gifts.

Then the he goes on to explain how "the Law" is abused by men. He states there are two basic ways of living, the first is to work hard and produce, and the second is to plunder and live off of others. When man finds that plundering is easier than work, he will plunder. The only thing that will stop him is if there are consequences that he will have to deal with and dangers that he must risk. Bastiat shows how tempting it is for man to use the law to plunder (how "legal plunder" is the taking of property, which -if done without the benefit of the law- would have been a dealt with as a crime). He goes on to explain how this "legal plundering" will ruin a society and cause economic turmoil.

Bastiat then goes into socialism, and how it plays out in society. He gives examples of various socialist writers, and points out how they view mankind as some raw material that is to be controlled and manipulated. Frederic Bastiat shows how they divide mankind into two classes, with themselves as the nobler of the two, and the rest of man as evil masses that are to be shaped and guided by their own uses of "the Law" and made to be good. They consider themselves to be above the rest, and capable of making better choices than the rest of the world.

Even though it was written in the 1800's, Bastiat writing is extremely relevant today, and deals with the issues of welfare, government schools, and other subsidies of the law that are not to be. He states that "the law is justice" and that "the purpose of the law is to prevent injustice from reigning" for justice only exists when injustice is absent. It clearly defines socialism for what it is and gives various examples of the results of it. This book has to be (as another reviewer has said) the liberal's worst nightmare.
SO READ IT! USE IT! SHARE IT! ... Read more