Government and Politics Books

There are many books that have been written on the subject: from Bill Sammon's book "At Any Cost" on the right to Alan Dershowitz' "Supreme Injustice" on the left. Sabato's is a rare thing, a book that tries to be impartial, and succeeds.

It has chapters by legal advisors to both Gore's and Bush's sides in the legal wrangles that followed the election, as well as journalists and academics. If you want to know what happened, as seen by all sides, this is about the only book that will tell you that.

The only negative point I can make is a printing job that is somewhat careless; missing apostrophes abound, and my copy has two of one page and is missing another. But that does not bear on the book's merit itself.

Will only political junkies or long-ago residents of Florida (I plead partly guilty of the first and fully guilty of the second), appreciate this book? I think not, but it does help to have given up excessive idealism ("Politics is so corrupt!") and excessive cynicism ("People are so corrupt!") in favor of an occasional visit to realism.

With the media giving us mainly--and often only--sensation, and seeing law as a struggle by imperfect human beings to create some justice in the world, I liked best the stories told by the attorneys for both sides.

Not long before the chads stopped swinging in the last presidential election, pundits and pollsters were sharpening their wits and dusting off their finger pointing apparatus. Their goal was to isolate the who, what, where, why, and how of the controverial election results in Florida. That election brought everybody who was anybody, including the Supreme Court, to the edge of their seats for days. The indefatigable Sultan of Soundbites, UVA Professor Larry J. Sabato, had seen enough and done enough in politics to realize this was history, and deserved to be given a thorough investigation. So he collected a group of insiders and commentators to take their best shot at turning over stones and writing about what crawled out. The result was Overtime! The Election 2000 Thriller. No casual or serious student of US history should be without a copy. Congratulations to Dr. Sabato and Joshua Scott, his coauthor and editorial assistant from the UVA Center for Governmental Studies on a job exceptionally well done. Buy this book for yourself, and at the reasonable price, grab a couple copies for friends as well. It's guaranteed to reveal facts that even the media savvy US public has not to this point realized. Alyson L. Taylor-White, Editor, Virginia Review

Overtime is a great look back it this election. For me, it was interesting to go back and put the whole campaign/election in perspective from start to finish. It's also nice to read a book like this that seems to be written from a non-partisan viewpoint. Sabato presents both sides of all the issues and is equally critical of both campaigns. In about 12 years when my son is taking his high school civics class and needs a topic for a book report or paper - I will dust off this book and hand it to him. On a side note, I recently saw Mr. Sabato speak at a conference I attended. If you ever get the chance, go see him! He is very informative and quite humorous.

Ever since Theodore White died, I've been searching for a political author who can communicate the excitement of a campaign while grounding his or her work in facts. I've found him: Larry Sabato. I've read several of his books such as Feeding Frenzy, and I've been impressed. But OVERTIME is his best yet. He's put together an all-star team to tell the truth about the incredible election of 2000. Unlike a lot of the other books on 2000, he leaves out the spin and bias, and he focuses on reality. Who needs spin when you have the most dramatic election in modern American history? OVERTIME helped me to really understand the most historic election of my lifetime. It's the best book out there on 2000---BY FAR.

everybody knows that the zionists have destroyed the peaceful palestinian community and replaced it with a violent police state intent upon extermination of the indigenous inhabitants of the so called holy land. this book details the sixty plus years of jewish inhumanity and criminality towards all people who are not part of their exclusionary cabal, including jews who don't agree with the concept of a jewish only state. the whole edifice is base upon lies and will soon be over. long live palestine!

When reading this book you will stare into the face of an evil so disturbing it is not recognizable as human. The sheer hatred and malice of official Israeli government policy toward the indigenous people of Palestine exists on a scale not even duplicated in Nazi Germany.
People in the west only think they know what racism, belief in racial superiority and ethnic cleansing/genocide is. These concepts have been taken to a level by the Israeli government that even apartheid South Africa would have envied and are made all the more insidious because they are being carried out under cover of the stalling tactic known as the "peace process".
The author does not draw conclusions for the reader, this is a book about facts and Palestinian daily life (and death) under official Israeli government policy.
If every American read this book and understood what billions of our tax dollars (annually) in the form of so-called "aid" are supporting there would be hell to pay in Washington and Tel Aviv.
This book will make you sick, it will make you cry and it will scare the be-jesus out of normal minded people to see the depths of depravity, inhumanity, and evil that can lurk in the hearts of a people consumed with their own superiority and determination to be separate and set apart from their fellow human beings.
The state of Israel is NOT a democracy. It is an apartheid terrorist state executing holocaust on an innocent people whom it does not believe has a right to exist. I repeat, Israel is not a democracy. It puts Nazi Germany to shame for it's acts of inhumanity, terrorism and war crimes against the Palestinian people for the crime of being non-jews. Even Nazi Germany was not allowed to practice it's evil for 60 years!

This is an excellent account of personal stories of
individual Palestinians living in the territories.
For instance, the book begins with Sam Bahour- a
Palestinian who was told to leave the West Bank
by the State of Israel through the prism of the
Palestinian Authority. Sam recounts renewing a
number of personal visas over a period of time.

According to the author, the Israeli military
must give its permission for work permits in order
for Palestinian farmers to grow crops on the land
on the west side. Approximately 40% of the West Bank
is subject to an Israeli infrastructure and the military.

According to the UN Rapporteur on Human Rights, Israel
continues to build walls along the West Bank. In the
future, the Israelis will be able to stop communication
between the Palestinians by simply closing strategic
bridges and tunnels. Currently, there is a wall under
construction circa Jerusalem.

The book is replete with heart rendering pictures of
Palestinians importuned on long lines at checkpoints
together with extensive traffic jams. Overall, the work
presents a side of Palestinian life not well known
in the Americas or elsewhere for that matter.

The reader is left in a bind. That is, how could the
predicament be remedied? Ostensibly, these checkpoints
are in response to routine bus bombings and numerous
acts of disobedience by the radical Jihad and others.

Checkpoints and walls can come down when the requisite
trust has been earned on both sides. This process can
happen in response to peace and quiet as a prelude to
tearing down walls. I was struck by the long lines on
the roads and checkpoints. Alternatively, mass
transportation might be a better solution. i.e. monorails
Monorails travel overhead thereby obviating the necessity
for checkpoints.

At the heart of the matter is an unequivocal acceptance
of Israel's right to exist, as well as Palestinian rights
to self determination. Over time, the parties simply
must learn to live together (however hard this is to do) !

I've been studying the Israel/Palestine issue for almost 18 years now and I have been to the Occupied Palestinian Territories twice and I can't recall a single book that has taught me more about the conflict than this one. Instead of focusing on history, politics, and suicide bombers as most books do, this one documents the daily occupation and how it plays out in the daily lives of Palestinians. It is absolutely appalling and eye-opening. More than once, I'm sure my jaw literally dropped open when confronted with the realities of what the occupation means. This book should undoubtedly be on the reading list of every member of Congress and every American citizen.

I have been involved for some years in pro-Palestinian activism, and have read innumerable books on the subject. Nonetheless, Makdisi's book presented the stark facts of Israeli occupation with such vividness that I felt I was learning them - and raging and weeping at them - for the first time. There were times when Makdisi's sober, understated account of intolerable injustice forced me to put the book down; sometimes I didn't take it up again for days - but I always did take it up again.

Makdisi has an honourable pedigree: his uncle was the late Edward Said, for several decades not alone the leading advocate of Palestinian rights in the unfriendly environment of the USA, but also one of the world's leading intellectuals and literary critics. Makdisi is American-Lebanese-Palestinian, a mixture that renders him particularly qualified to approach his painful subject from a multitude of perspectives. As professor of English and comparative literature at UCLA and an expert on the poetry of English romanticism, he can hardly be caricatured by the ill-intentioned as some wild-eyed anti-Western fanatic (although given the bloodsoaked history of Western interference in the rest of the world, of which the fate of Palestine is a particularly poignant example, it's perhaps time that more conscientious Westerners adopted such "fanaticism").

"Palestine Inside Out" isn't a history of the Israel/Palestine conflict, although it necessarily incorporates much historical reflection, but an anlysis of the "facts on the ground" created by Zionism and its US and EU backers, whereby Palestinian Arabs - Muslims and Christians - are deprived of human and political rights while simultaneously being demonised for resisting this state of affairs. Makdisi sees that Israel, the US and EU (and indeed the PLO) have jointly rendered impossible the two-state solution they all profess to support. His conclusions about a political solution will be uncomfortable for those who have pre-formed views on the matter - but his premises are supplied by the aforementioned "facts on the ground", and I believe that none but the most ingrained prejudices can withstand such a marshalling of evidence.

It is on the reef of Palestine that all narratives of progress in the field of political justice come to grief, and it is Palestine that reveals most nakedly the hollowness and hypocrisy of Western rhetoric concerning democracy and the rule of international law.

"Palestine Inside Out" could be subtitled "The World Inside Out". Read it, and be inspired to protest and take action against the conditions - or against your governments' support for the conditions - that make such injustice possible.

As a self-professed muckraker, Anderson provides some new and even amusing insights into a clumsy government which, to the public's good fortune, is often its own worst enemy. He is particularly effective in providing the contrasting sides of J. Edgar Hoover, a tyrant on the one hand but a protector of the system (for varying reasons of his own) as well. Frankly, I learned as much about Drew Pearson as I did Jack Anderson, which I enjoyed as well. Overall, excellent reading.

An absolutely phenomenal read. Jack Anderson was a HUGE asset to the American public, and yet the vast majority of us never even knew it. We also had no clue of what was going on behind the closed doors of the White House, CIA, FBI, Senate, House, IRS, Pentagon...and on and on and on. Jack Anderson shaped national policy with his "Washington Merri-Go-Round" column. He rubbed shoulders with the likes of JFK, Warren Beatty, Robert Redford, LBJ, President Bush, etc. An unbelievable book which leaves you staring at your ceiling at night wondering what else is going on in Washington, D.C. and other places in the US & World that our government and leaders are involved in....most of which we are completely clueless to. If you have ever voted, you must read this book. THE best book I have read in years. Hands down!! This book has juicy secrets, how he got them, how he uncovered them, and all the messy details about how the truth would usually prevail. Jack Anderson is a National Hero. Without question.

Page 350 refers to ""the kidnapping of CIA Beirut Station Chief William Buckley by the pro-Iranian extremist group Islamic Jihad"" later tortured to death (P351) and then executed (P352) ""in retaliation for an Israeli air raid on the headquarters of the Palestinian Liberation Organization in Tunis.....

During that period, which followed the aftermath of the occupation of Beirut - the only Arab Capital ever to be entered by the Israeli Army - nothing could really dull the grief and anguish that swept the `ruined' city and the predominant feeling in Beirut had been one that while the niceties of diplomacy could no longer be observed, many people would now have to face their moment of destiny, come as it may.
For those who have lost scores of their love ones during the raging battles three years back, the capture of `CIA Station Chief' was a signal for wild rejoicing, because during Israel incursion into Beirut (in specific) the city was actually gripped by `spy mania.'
The lack of enthusiasm of Beiruti masked in effect a vague feeling that, though pro-Iranian groups were now riding on the crest of a wave, retribution would follow if Buckley was harmed.
Unlike the Israelis, whose war machine so far consisted entirely of more action and less vainglorious boast, the American Administration remained lethargic and apathetic to this event.

Columnist Jack Anderson never suffered self-esteem or objectivity problems. Yet in his autobiographical Peace, War and Politics, Anderson displays humility and a degree of introspection that is shocking to anyone familiar with his often self-aggrandizing muck.

Anderson often pumped out scandalous drivel in which he conspicuously cast himself as the central figure. It could be speculated that if Anderson had not been such a successful publicity hound, he would have become a serial killer obsessed with newspaper clippings and broadcast reports of his crimes. Yet a decent and moral man emerges in this account of a colorful life.

Although several of Anderson's more convoluted conspiracy theories are rehashed (the JFK assassination chapter is incomprehensible), the book is mostly solid and an enjoyable read. Early chapters devoted to Anderson's boyhood in Depression-era Utah and his World War II adventures in China are excellent.

Anderson's running battle with the Nixon Administration, and his seething rage at what he saw as Jimmy Carter's hypocrisy and total incompetence, reveal a righteous indignation that is simultaneously tedious and fascinating. While he rightly condemns the excesses of J. Edgar Hoover, and even digs through garbage bins for dirt on the late FBI director, Anderson also is objective enough to admit the G-man never politicized his agency.

Anderson makes some very insightful observations. For example, he shares his fear that former Soviet scientists might one day assist rogue Islamic states. Written well before 2001, this and much more speculation about the aftermath of the Cold War proves well-founded.

The most surprising aspect of Peace, War and Politics is Anderson's self-deprecating humor. When potential sources offer juicy details for cash, Anderson humorously remembers he didn't have the funds to pay for them, and ethics were a secondary consideration. In addition to himself, Anderson reports on the foibles and strengths of his poorly paid interns and associates. Many like Brit Hume went on to become prominent reporters and broadcasters. The degree to which Anderson acknowledges these young, underpaid muckrakers is as admirable as it is surprising. Anderson also turns the spotlight onto a hypocritical national media that shunned him yet often followed his lead.

The highlight of the book is a very brief chapter about the return of General Anthony McAuliffe, whom Anderson describes as the most decent person he ever met, to a hero's welcome in Bastogne. Gen. McAuliffe is remembered for his reply "nuts" to a Nazi demand that he surrender his 101st Airborne troops and the Belgian town they defended during the Battle of the Bulge. McAuliffe tells Anderson that he "never cared " for General George Patton after Patton surveyed the frozen enemy bodies at Bastogne and commented "these are the types of Germans I like to see." McAuliffe, who commanded the troops who killed the soldiers, said the dead were mostly boys like the Americans who fought against them.

Given such humanistic insight into people, it is apparent Anderson never wet the bed into his late 20's, engaged in pyromania, tortured small animals in his youth, or fantasized about serial murder. No, if he hadn't become a muckraker, Jack Anderson very well could have been a Mormon church official albeit a very opinionated and self-absorbed one.

A very informative and influential book. I now know things about the goverment that I never knew before. My views on the goverment and on politics have now changed after reading this masterpiece of a novel. Everyone should read this superb book. I have read alot of books and this is one of my personal favorite books.

I ordered and read this book without total confidence, since it was written in 1999, and--as we will probably never stop hearing--things have changed considerably since 2001 (not for the better in the prison-industrial complex or in the sphere of social services).

But even 7 years after its publication, it holds up VERY well. And--sadly--the argument is not LESS cogent or the concerns less pressing.

Journalist Joel Dyer creates an informative, critical, and iconoclastic survey of the United States' criminal justice system in The Perpetual Prisoner Machine: How America Profits From Crime. Dyer persuasively argues that contemporary criminal "justice" is disastrously impacted by violent media content, a push for privatization; an increasing dependence of politicians upon public opinion polling and campaign finance. This has all resulted in an explosion in the American prison population. The rapidly increasing numbers of prisoners, parolees and probationers is not the result of increasing crime rates, but because sectors of the American economy and political power structure find mass incarcerations to be profitable. The Perpetual Prisoner Machine is very strongly recommended reading for students of the American criminal justice system, prisoner reform movement supporters, sociologists, cultural anthropologists, and political science students.

Dyer's well-researched expose reveals the inner workings of the nation's prison-industrial complex, the funding of which depends on the maintenance of a respectable, beneficent public image. He explains that real-world crime statistics do not support the war on crime's claimed need for massive increases in prison construction so, to justify the diversion of public funds into prison and jail expansion, politicians are relying on public opinion polls which reflect the pervasive societal effects of media-generated crime anxiety. Law makers, primarily right-wing, have responded to the public's media-hyped fears with reassurances in the form of hard-on-crime adjustments to the sentencing structure and consequent increases in law enforcement and prison spending, all financed by the angst-ridden taxpayers. Voters have been refusing to approve traditional general-obligation bond issues for increasing prison construction, so politicians are shrewdly using Wall Street intermediaries to divert tax revenues from public education and crime-preventive social programs into prison and jail construction by means of lease-revenue or lease-payment bonds, which are tax-exempt, high-interest debt-investment instruments issued without voter approval. These lucrative prison bonds reward the investor class with sizable profits from imprisonment, provide public-debt financing for construction of corporate-owned prisons, and they require taxpayers to repay more money than general-obligation bonds, which require voter approval. As major political campaign contributors, well-funded, right-wing special-interest groups such as police and prison-guard unions, and the NRA, back politicians who agree to promote hard-on-crime sentencing policies such as "three strikes," "mandatory sentencing" and "truth in sentencing," which substantially increase the prison population and sustain the widely held perception of increasing need for prison and police funding. As a result, the number of prisons and police have grown rapidly, and police and prison guard pay has increased substantially. In California, for example, a prison guard is paid more than a tenured college professor in the state's university system which, like those in other states, has been decimated by the diversion of public funds into the prison-industrial complex. By 1994, prison spending had begun to exceed education spending for the first time in America's history. I think Dyer presents a well-articulated argument, backed with well-researched facts and figures, supporting the assertion that the prison-industrial complex is a self-serving, socially and economically destructive part of an officially sanctioned assault on the poor and people of color.

Joel Dyer has done an excellent job of nailing how Congress has abused the issue of crime in America and why we allow it. He's also provided an excellent argument for abandoning the private prison industrial complex and ceasing the attack on urban America and the mentally ill. As someone who works in business and in finance, it bugged my eyeballs when I realized what government is doing, allowing prisoners for profit. I've worked 32 years in a profit driven capacity and doing this with human beings, given what I know about shareholder driven environments, is unconscionable in my mind. To intentionally profit from another's pain and misfortune is heinous. America has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the worlds prisoners. We have over 1,000 prisons and 7 million people under penal control (2004). Over half of them non-violent offenders whose crime involves consenting adults (ie: life in prison for introducing a buyer to a seller of home grown pot in Indiana) or petty thievery (ie: stealing vitamins in California).

This is one of the most important books in many years that tells the truth about our prison system. We have over 2,000,000 citizens in prison in the land of the free. Most of these citizens are non-violent and about 15% are mentally ill in need medical care. With the tax dollars that we pay we treat some non-violent prisoners in ways that are just horrible. It is done by politicians who want to get reelected and understand a terrible fact that the uninformed citizens vote for politicians who advocate building more prisons and filling them to overcrowded capacity with more prisoners. Only a small percentage of the citizenship understand the terrible cost to our society with this practice. It is a cost in billions of dollars and much more. It is also a cost in respect, common sense, decency and the goodness of the American people.

On top of this, studies indicate that about 10 -15% of prisoners are completely innocent and had absolutely nothing to do with the crime that they were put in prison for. This is because juries do not understand and respect the bedrock of the system which is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." The large amount of reasonable doubt that is ignored by juries is shocking to the conscious of any good person.

Thank God for Said. He explains so eloquently the Palestinian cause in a way we never hear from the maintream media. This collection of essays, though 400 pages, hangs together very well.

If there is any cause in this whole wide world where the obvious, glaring injustice of it all has been summarily ignored and dismissed by most of the world's leading intellectuals, it is the cause of the Palestinian freedom movement.

Said's (pronounced Sayid)--a Palestinian Arab of Christian descent--was that rare voice which informed the world of the Zionist duplicity, in a way that laid bare the untold sufferings of over 4 million of its inhabitants in the most lucid manner possible. For over three decades, Said's was a lone cry in the New Yorkian wilderness, which drew attention to the State of Israel's Ocean liner of lies ever since (and even before) it came into existence.

Said's pain and melancholy comes through, etched in every page of this book and makes for frightful reading. Given the supposed openness of the media in democratic nation-states, it's shocking how through over 5 decades, the combined might of Zionism's religious fanaticism, the traditional incompetence of ruling monarchies in the Arab world, the West's moral ambivalence to call the Israeli spade a bloody shovel and the Zionist lobby in Washington have been able to keep an entire nation of millions in a sort of permanent exile.

This book neatly divided in 3 parts critiques everything that is wrong and tragic about the Palestinian movement with merciless felicity and attention to detail that a proper understanding of this cause deserves. Of course, he is severe (and justifiably so) on Israel, but it is his attacks on the rest of the Arab world and the dishonest intellectuals of the western world that makes for fascinating reading. Truly, an intellectual like Said, rarely ever loses his relevance or goes out of fashion. This book is a priceless gem, to be read and re-read by anyone who wants to move beyond standard middle-east explanations, terrorism clichés and the rhetoric of "with us or against us".

If all could read this book, it might help meople to understand what is happening to the people of Palestine.

It is remarkable how relevant these essays seem still, even as they lead up to the era of the Oslo process, in the frozen present since 1967, or 1948. Sorting out the myths of the Arab-Israeli conflict can be a full-time job, and that's the problem. Said's witnessing of the issues since 1967 has always been one component of the unfolding tragedy. The Arab-Israeli conflict sometimes seems in a time warp, and the relevance of these essays endures, whatever one's perspective. Said's acerbic commentary seems to hover over the decades, and his personal account, to start the book, is a permanent record of those who endured the juggernaut.

Despite 40years of Israeli occupation, hundreds of illegal Israeli settlements, endless unproductive "peace process"-es, the Palestinians are no closer to genuine self-determination and nationhood. The Israel Lobby continues to wag the American dog. America's blind support of Israel and the billions of US taxpayer dollars continue to prop up the Israeli apartheid regime and make peace impossible.

It was hard for me to read these essays without getting angry: at the self-serving lies of Israeli apologists, at the cynicism of every US administration, at the sheer stupidity and venality of Palestinian leadership (so-called!).

Israel will never make peace with the Palestinians through negotiations as long as the US continues to subsidize Israel. Where is the incentive?

I fault Said for timidity in not elaborating on HOW Palestinians should prosecute their struggle. It is long past time that Palestinians accept that depending on their "Arab brothers" is going to get them nothing and nowhere. None of the essays helped me to understand how Said proposes to get Israel to allow Palestinian self-determination and statehood.

I also fault Said for his failure to mobilize any organized opposition the Israel Lobby in the US. Said may be much-celebrated in a certain small left-leaning ghetto of the intelligentsia, but he is a marginal figure in national politics and the debate (very little allowed) on Israel. The Lobby is powerful, yes. But the Israel Lobby does nothing illegal: it peddles influence and money and thereby influences politics in its favor, and nothing prevents a Palestinian Lobby from adopting similar tactics and emulating the Israel Lobby. The surest, perhaps the only, way to Palestinian self-determination is to change US policy towards Israel.

Ironically, this book was assigned to me as an undergraduate social studies major in the early 70's and like many lazy students, I tried my best to skim through the volume and to read no more of it than was absolutely necessary to be prepared for class and to pass the exams.

Now, over 30 years later, I have taken the book from my shelf, dusted it off, and actually read it cover-to-cover.

I am happy to report that it is a wonderful study of the period that clarifies the motivations behind the complex series of actions and reactions of those who lived through it.

At the same time I am extremely sad to report that it would have been a great read when I was twenty ... better later than never certainly applies here!

Despite the fact that this was first published in 1965, Freehling's work is still the source for the Nullification Controversy. To be sure, the book is at times tedious and because of the nature of nullification, at times it is very theoretical, but if you want to learn about nullification and the crisis that occurred because of it, read this book. I've read reviews of Freehling's other work where people complain of his writing style, but I thought this book actually read very well and Freehling explained things in a very concise, easily understood manner. At times, I must admit I found it hard to keep the theoretical aspects straight or all the players who were involved, but after reading this book, you will come away with an understanding of the nullification crisis.

"Prelude to Civil War" by William W. Freehling, © 1965, 1966

It seems that there was just not enough to keep these people from fighting. If it was not one thing it was another. This is the story of how South Carolina almost seceded from the Union alone in the 1830's. For some reason, that was not really clear to the participants, as well as me, why citizens of South Carolina got bothered by a tariff instituted by the federal government. There was some real problem with the slaves and the issue of freedom, and that got blown out of proportion by the fear of slave insurrection violence. There were some interesting sidelights to this story. It was a part of this argument in Congress that the famous Webster-Haynes slavery debate took place. It was also noted that slave owners understood Independence Day celebrations were not for everyone and they were troubled by trying to get the slaves to work (like it is any easier to get wage slaves to work either) and by the violence they sometimes used on them.
The problem that I saw through this book was the lack of adventure or other use of the energy the rich youth had: they were spoiling for a fight; as well as getting others to allow them (South Carolinians)to be themselves.

It is impossible in history to set a definite time for the beginning or ending of an event large or small. Many 19th century historians believe the Civil War began around 1776. Dr. Freehling is of this opinion but in this book he brings us closer to the main event for a start.
Why is this book important? First, it is written by the foremost historian of 19th century America. Second, while giving credence to the economic issues that covered the real causes of war, Dr. Freehling decimates the theory that the war was mainly a struggle over two unique economies and the support of states' rights. He shows clearly the real issue at hand was the threatened squeeze on the future of slavery. Third and most important the book gives us much to rethink in our evaluations and conceptions, offered in scholarly but very readable prose for which the author has become famous.
Put simply, if anyone is interested in American history and knows the author this book is a must have. No one who reads William W. Freehling wastes time or energy reading his work.

For the Civil War and Age of Jackson aficionado, this is an excellent book to read. One will not be able to fly through the 360 pages, but it is very enjoyable and full of great information about the Ante Bellum south as well as the country's political landscape in that era. We know little today about how close South Carolina came to seceding from the Union. The Nullification Crisis, while a mind-numbing subject in high school and college, is brought to life here in a way that is easy to understand and follow. Freehling did an excellent job of researching and explaining the many dynamics involved in the South Carolina society in determining who was for or against nullification, secession, preserving the union and protecting slavery and why. The interplay was fascinating and, though I couldn't recite it back to you, I obtained a lot of knowledge I had never been exposed to before.

With Ronald Reagan's passing, discussions turned again to our "best" or "great" presidents. Andrew Jackson's name is frequently included among our Top Ten by most historians, yet very few of us could say why he deserves to be so highly regarded. In books like this, we can see why. He is not what I would consider to be a likable man and definitely comes across as somewhat tyrannical (not just in this book), but one has to admit after reading this book that he handled the Nullification Crisis and its aftermath very deftly with a clear vision and objective: that allegiance to the Union comes first and preservation of the Union is paramount. He laid the groundwork for Lincoln's management of the Civil War, some 25-30 years later.

The book is well-annotated and, though more than 35 years old is still relevant in its ideas and also in the sources it directs us to for further reading.

Ideal for anyone who wishes to make a sensible remark to impress a lady or win the confidence of a potential ally.

Ask people what they know about Calvin Coolidge and you might get a response; "Hey wasn't he a President?" Yet few recognize him or know him as a witty man whose handling of the Boston police strike of 1919 would inspire Ronald Reagan to stand up to the illegal strike of the air traffic controllers in 1981.

When he died in 1933 it wasn't long that New Dealers and historians supportive to FDR and his programs relegated Coolidge to the ash heap of "historical life" a failure. However, Coolidge was far from it.

In many ways Coolidge espoused the Conversative views that caused many of us to admire Ronald Reagan. If you don't believe it then this is what Coolidge had to say about Freedom when nominated for President in 1924:

"I want the people of America to be able to work less for the Government and more for themselves. I want them to have the rewards of their own industry. This is the chief meaning of freedom."

You will not hear anything like this coming from any of the current candidates running for President in 2008.

The beauty of this compilation by Hannaford is that it relates so well to the political and social world of today. IMHO, Coolidge saw then the problems that face our nation today. Oh, yes, another beauty of this work, is that it is a very quick and entertaining read.

If you want a great breakdown on the political and personal philosophy of Calvin Coolidge this little book is a must have. Great quotes that give you a easy insight into the views of Calvin Coolidge.

This is a great addition to your library if you are a fan of presidential quotes or books. Coolidge's presidency has been reassessed as of late by many and has been the topic of a few recent writings. This is an even-handed look at Coolidge through his own writings, speeches and interviews.

Hannaford begins with a short discussion of the renewed interest in President Coolidge. He then moves onto a very abbreviated biography and a timeline of his life. After these 34 pages, the rest of the book is dedicated to quotes listed by subject. Each quote has its source and context (when appropriate) of the quip.

Through this book, you begin to get a little deeper understanding of Coolidge.

As history finally catches up with reassessing President Coolidge and putting him in his proper place, this small, thin volume of his quotations is a breath of fresh air, indeed, in these days of TV ops and media handling. Presidents are always a product of their times and Coolidge was of his. His calls for simplicity, decency, honesty and character would open a current President up to all sorts of cynics, but they ring true with President Coolidge. I do hope this little tome will help lay to rest many misconceptions. A must read. . .

ADDITION ON 9/9/08: I still have this little book and still treasure my copy. Over the past few years I've purchased several more to give away. So few people have real knowledge of Mr. Coolidge. This book reveals the depth of his feelings, so counter to public lore.

the forward starts off "(she) could have left russia--remember that as you read these journals." what comes across initially as anna's relentless account of putin's rise to autocratic dominance is more of an alarming and disheartening account of russia's systematic devolution where democracy, freedom of press and the semblance of a worthy society were fleetingly promised as they were taken away. incredible heart-wrenching accounts of the moscow theater and beslan school massacres as well as the two chechen wars.

A must read for anyone who wants to understand the "new" Russia. One hopes others will have the courage to take up Ms. Politkovskaya's crusade in exposing the corruption so rampant in Putin's (and now Medvedev's)Russia.

This is a riveting account of a life constantly in peril. The translation is equally outstanding, conveying both the "conversationalism" of a "diary" and the formality of the more essential elements.

Anna Politkovskaya's "Russian Diary" is a gold mine of information and provides unparalleled insights into Putin's Neo-Soviet Russia.

Many believe that Politkovskaya was murdered for her indepth investigative reporting into all aspects of Putin's regime. In this book she makes it clear that Russia is rapidly sliding into a dark and deep abyss.

Politkovskaya reveals the rampant corruption prevalent in the Russian government and its total disregard for the Russian population, human rights, and basic democratic principles.

"Russian Diary" is a first-hand account of the growing power of Russia's criminal community and its alliance with Vladimir Putin, the rampant greed and lawlessness of the new Russian business elite, the unbridled brutality of the Russian security services, and the gross incompetence of the Russian military.

Politkovskaya believed that Russia was headed for another major war in the Caucasus against the mountain peoples it has been terrorizing and murdering for the last decade.

This is a sad and depressing story that is all too familiar to those with firsthand knowledge of the Soviet Union and Russia.

For those who care about Russia, it is hard to put this book down. It is a compelling read. However, one cannot help read "A Russian Diary" without an overwhelming sense of sadness. We know how the story ends. The last entry in the diary was made in August 2006, and soon thereafter Anna Politkovskaya's life ends, murdered by unknown assailants in Moscow.

The profound nature of this loss comes across on every page of this book, as Ms. Politkovskaya carefully and without flinching describes contemporary Russian society, warts and all, as perhaps no other journalist left living can. This book brings the reader a first-hand look into the tragedies of Dubrovka Theater and the school siege at Beslan. And also chronicles the seemingly endless war in Chechnya. She asks hard questions of the Russian government and its apparent failure to manage these matters.

As great of a loss as the death of Anna Politkovskaya is, her dairy is a reminder of perhaps the greatest tragedy and missed opportunity in the last quarter of a century. With the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia had the opportunity once and forever to move into the family of democratic states. This book documents that although there are elections, this has not really happened, not even close. What we have now is a tightly controlled state governed by an intelligence oligarchy with a fondness for the Soviet past, which has restricted rather than expanded civil liberties and workers' rights. These restrictions have been justified in the name of protecting national security and the promotion of state controlled capitalism. "A Russian Diary" documents how the Russian people are languishing with a government seemingly disinclined to tackle the serious social welfare problems that are besetting the country.

This book is commentary on the Russian government, but it also asks tough questions of Americans and Western Europeans. What could they have done differently to nudge Russia toward a democratic direction? Is it too late? Are we destined to regress into a more perverse version of the Cold War, with a Russian government mistrusting the West once again, but now empowered by oil and gas revenues?

I hope that is not the case both for Russia and the West. However, without Anna Politkoyskaya alive to point out the deficiencies in the Russian government and the shortcomings of the West, the unthinkable becomes possible.

This is usually the third book you read in a Political Philosophy course after "The Republic" and the "Nichomachean Ethics".

Locke comes to an understanding of "society", "government", and "property", among a number of notions central to our way of life. Doing that, he's also justifying them, as they exist. He states better and more clearly than anyone else what it is we think these things are and why we should view them as good. I don't know if anyone is thought to have done these particular things any better. (I guess I'm saying that Hobbes, Rousseau, etc., did other things.)

Lots of good stuff written here on this. Just think it's worth pointing out that Locke's argument for man's leaving the state of nature and his argument for the establishment of property are notoriously inconsistent.

The "state of nature" is more rhetorical device or thought-experiment than historical description. Nonetheless, it is essential to the argument.

Oh well. Plato's dialogues often end in despair.

I wish more people knew political philosophy. It would raise the general level of discussion. People would spend less time monkeying demagogues, charlatans, and hucksters.

Good edition too.

John Locke (1632-1704) wrote "Second Treatise of Government" in 1690, it was the main political philosophical source that our "Founding Fathers" went to in writing the "Declaration of Independence" and in forming our government. I think you should know something of Locke to understand what influenced his thinking. His father was a small landowner, attorney, Puritan and his political sympathies were with the Cromwell Parliament. Like Hobbes, Locke attended Oxford Univ. and did not think much about the curriculum or his professors. Most of his education came from reading books in the Univ. library. Renee Descartes and Sir Isaac Newton's writings greatly influenced Locke. Like Hobbes, he took a tutoring job teaching the son of the 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, and traveled Europe. His friendship with the Earl was beneficial in obtaining government appointments. During the political unrest in England, (1679-83) he fled to Holland because his liberal notions put him at odds with the government.

Locke writes the "Second Treatise of Government" to justify the Revolt of 1688 and the ascension of William of Orange to the English throne. The book argues against two lines of absolutist ideas. The first is Sir Robert Filmer's "patriarchal theory of divine right of kings; secondly, Hobbes argument for the sovereign's absolute power in his book "Leviathan." Locke argues that government emanates from the people. Locke's treatise rests like other political writings on its interpretation of human nature. He sees our nature opposite the way Hobbes did, decent and not as selfish or competitive. Man is more inclined to join society through reason and not fear. Man prefers stability to change.

His very important contribution to "law of nature" theory was his bias toward individualism. In state of nature, before government, men were free independent, equal enjoying inalienable rights "chief among them being life, liberty, and property." Where have you read that before? Property rights receive much attention in this treatise. Locke argues that government based on consent of man can still preserve freedom independence and equality.

His political writing had immediate influence in the world and influenced our founding fathers in their struggle against tyranny. He is an excellent writer and his theories are easy to understand by the laymen. As a graduate student of political philosophy, I recommend if you have an interest in politics, philosophy, or government then you must read Locke's "Second Treatise of Government"

John Locke's Second Treatise on Government is the Natural Rights philosophy's greatest essay. Locke, an English freethinker, wrote both his Frist and Second Treatise on Government to refute the patriarchial and absolutist writings of Sir Robert Filmer. Locke clearly believes man is imbued with the natural right to life, liberty, and property. He believes men have a right to live free from tyrannical government.

Locke shows how when a government degenerates into tyranny the "people" have a right to revolt and throw off such government. Sound familar? Jefferson wrote these words into the Declaration of Independence. Locke believes that liberty is a man's right by his very nature of being human. He points out how that men come together to form a government, based upon a social contract, and that the rulers or government must abide by that contract or man returns to his natural state. In the natural state men are not bound to the current ruler but may institute new government for their security and protection.

Although he believed that government should not be changed lightly or on a whim, and believed that the ruler must violate the contract and usurp power, he nevertheless pointed out that government is of men, not God or gods. He repudiated the doctrine propagated by Filmer, that rulers are appointed to rule by God, ie: the Divine Right of Kings.

This "wee little book" as Jefferson put it, has had a tremendous influence on the Western world. Locke, a child of the English Enlightenment has caused conservatives and other tyrants, socialists and communists to shudder at the right to throw off tyrannical government. A truly great read.

In his book, Second Treatise of Government, John Locke (1632 - 1704) writes that all humans are born equal with the same ability to reason for themselves, and because of this, government should have limitations to ensure that people are free from the arbitrary will of another person, according to the laws of nature. Government, in Locke's view, is a social contract between the people in control, and the people who submit to it.

The editor of this edition, C. B. Macpherson, gives a little background and overview in his introduction to this book. He writes that the book "was directed against the principles of Sir Robert Filmer, whose books, asserting the divine authority of kings and denying any right of resistance, were thought by Locke and his fellow Whigs to be too influential among the gentry to be left unchallenged by those who held that resistance to an arbitrary monarch might be justified." (p. viii)
Locke's book served as a philosophical justification for revolting against tyrannical monarchies in the Glorious Revolution and the American Revolution. His book was practically quoted in the Declaration of Independence.

Locke lays out his basis for government on the foundation that people are able to reason. Because of this, people have inherent freedoms or natural rights. Though he believed in reason, Locke was an empiricist, meaning he believed that all knowledge of the world comes from what our senses tell us. The mind starts as a "tabula rasa", latin for an empty slate. As soon as we are born, we immediately begin learning ideas. Thus, all the material for our knowledge of the world comes to us through sensations. Nevertheless, Locke had an unshakable faith in human reason. He believed that people do learn what is right and wrong, regardless of what they choose to do. Locke believed that faith in God, certain moral norms and understanding consequences were inherent in human reason. So, even though people acquire everything they know about the world through the senses, they are able to think for themselves and reason at a higher level about what they learn.

Locke presumed that there are universally recognized principles and that the consequences are practically scientific. He was greatly influenced by Isaac Newton (1647-1727) who wrote The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. Locke took the ideas that there were "natural laws" in science and tried to extend that to society.

Natural laws, or rights, in Locke's view, are obvious and learned through human reasoning, and apply to everyone. They are also called "self-evident," which appears in The Declaration of Independence. All humans are created equal, and Locke bases this idea on the golden rule, that people are to do to others as they would have others do to them. Natural equality is the basis of the first and most important "natural law" which is to care for one another. (p. 9) Locke believes that with or without government, there were universal natural rights.

Without government, people are unprotected from harm by other people. Where there is no government, people are free to do as they please, even to harm others. In this state, natural laws still apply, such as the right of people to protect themselves and seek reparation for injuries done to them. However, people are naturally inconsistent in executing punishments, because they have a propensity to act out of hate or revenge. Therefore, laws are necessary in a civil society to fairly arbitrate justice. The purpose of creating a civil society is to avoid major conflicts and keep peace.
Thus, civil government is a "contract" between people to regulate their affairs fairly. According to Locke's theories, people enter into a social contract by forming governments that will preserve order.

Locke describes a civil government as being democratic with some checks to ensure that it does not overstep its boundaries, and having both legislative and executive powers. A civil government is democratic or representative, meaning laws are created by the consent of the people through the voice of a majority vote. The legislature should represent the people equally based on population. (Salus populi suprema lex) All people are subject to the law, including the rulers-no one is above the law. Even the legislature needs "standing rules" to keep it from over-stepping its boundaries. Locke advocated the principle of division of powers. Because the legislature only meets at appointed times to create or revise laws, there needs to be an executive power that is constantly enforcing the laws. So Locke describes a division of the legislative and executive powers.

In contrast to what was being claimed by the rulers of the time, Locke taught that the purpose of government is to serve and benefit the people and that it should be controlled by the people for which the government was made. His claim that people have the right to rebel against government was controversial. Second Treatise of Government served as a foundation for future political philosophies.

John Locke (1632-1704) wrote "Second Treatise of Government" in 1690, it was the main political philosophical source that our "Founding Fathers" went to in writing the "Declaration of Independence" and in forming our government. I think you should know something of Locke to understand what influenced his thinking. His father was a small landowner, attorney, Puritan and his political sympathies were with the Cromwell Parliament. Like Hobbes, Locke attended Oxford Univ. and did not think much about the curriculum or his professors. Most of his education came from reading books in the Univ. library. Renee Descartes and Sir Isaac Newton's writings greatly influenced Locke. Like Hobbes, he took a tutoring job teaching the son of the 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, and traveled Europe. His friendship with the Earl was beneficial in obtaining government appointments. During the political unrest in England, (1679-83) he fled to Holland because his liberal notions put him at odds with the government.

Locke writes the "Second Treatise of Government" to justify the Revolt of 1688 and the ascension of William of Orange to the English throne. The book argues against two lines of absolutist ideas. The first is Sir Robert Filmer's "patriarchal theory of divine right of kings; secondly, Hobbes argument for the sovereign's absolute power in his book "Leviathan." Locke argues that government emanates from the people. Locke's treatise rests like other political writings on its interpretation of human nature. He sees our nature opposite the way Hobbes did, decent and not as selfish or competitive. Man is more inclined to join society through reason and not fear. Man prefers stability to change.

His very important contribution to "law of nature" theory was his bias toward individualism. In state of nature, before government, men were free independent, equal enjoying inalienable rights "chief among them being life, liberty, and property." Where have you read that before? Property rights receive much attention in this treatise. Locke argues that government based on consent of man can still preserve freedom independence and equality.

His political writing had immediate influence in the world and influenced our founding fathers in their struggle against tyranny. He is an excellent writer and his theories are easy to understand by the laymen. As a graduate student of political philosophy, I recommend if you have an interest in politics, philosophy, or government then you must read Locke's "Second Treatise of Government"

This a sharp and well written monograph. Schattschneider's ideas of the "mobilization of bias" and politics as conflict as well as his critique of pluralism (or "groupist" theory) are well known and easy enough to summarize. For that reason I put off reading this book for years. That was a mistake. He explains his views better and clearer than text-book summaries and his critique is nuanced and quotable. The book is cheap and tiny - spare 10 bucks (used version) and an afternoon and enrich your understanding of politics.

I agree with other reviewers that this book is as great as political science gets -- I grant you that such is faint praise. I also agree that, having read it, one should move on to later treatments.

...Please find it in a library and let it drip off your brain like fine wine down your tongue....

I can only agree with the other reviewers. This is as good as political science gets. Pure brilliance.

When you have read this book - you really should! - then you can move on to more current studies that uses Schattschneider's ideas and develops them much further. Rochefort & Cobb: "The Politics of Problem Definition", Baumgartner & Jones: "Agendas and Instability in American Politics", Cobb & Ross: "Cultural Strategies of Agenda Denial" and Jones: "Reconceiving Decision-Making in Democratic Politics" should all interest you once you've fallen in love with the thoughts of Schattschneider. Your view of politics will never be the same again.

E. E. Schattschneider was one of the most important political scientists of the middle part of the 20th century. His work has had an influence on many analysts of politics. This slender volume, although brief, is one of his more provocative and influential works. Ideas from this book show up in the work of many others.

Let's take a look at just two of the many provocative points that he makes.

A central assumption underlying the work (Page v): ". . .the nature of political organization depends on the conflicts exploited in the political system, which ultimately is what politics is about." Understanding the scope of conflict is a central question in this book. Some want to keep conflict narrowly constrained and "private." If so, economic powerhouses will win out, because they would be dominant in that domain. Others, who wish government to get involved, try to broaden the scope of conflict so that political institutions get involved. If this is the case, then a different dynamic will be at work. In his view (Page 12), "Democratic government is the greatest single instrument for the socialization of conflict in the American community." By widening the scope of conflict, the people can become important players.

A second important argument that he makes represents a critique of the view that democracy is enhanced by the existence of organized interest groups, since these represent the views of many people and inject a democratic influence into the political process. Schattschneider demurs. First, the members of these interest groups are not typical of all people. In a famous line, he notes that (Pages 34-35): "The vice of the groupist theory is that it conceals the most significant aspect of the system. The flaw in the pluralist heaven is that the heavenly chorus sings with a strong upper-class accent. Probably about 90% of the people cannot get into the pressure system."

Anyway, this is a wonderful little book. Of course, there are some issues that emerge: sometimes arguments are not developed enough (brevity in this book is a plus, but it sometimes seems to leave some points "hanging"); he may downplay some positive aspects of the interest group system. However, in the main, his arguments remain as fresh today as they were when the book first came out, in 1960. Still worth a read!

I first read this book in college and have never forgotten it. During careers in politics, business and the church I've found myself returning again and again to Schattschneider's key themes. From his discussion of conflict and its scope to his simple point that whomever controls the agenda controls the outcome, Schattschneider has captured the essence of human interaction. Nearly forty years old, this is still a superb book not to be missed.