Politics Books

This is truly inspiring. It will open your eyes to the world of Washington and inspire you to make a difference. Please visit the the web site for Americans for Limited Government in which Sen. Coburn was chair

This book, based on the reviews here, is self-righteous pablum with little factual substance. A better, book, one that I've actually read, is Chris Edwards - Downsizing the Federal Government (Cato).

This is one of the most rewarding and enlightening books I ever read. It was a real sleeper as far as publicity goes, but everyone should read this book. Liberals who just scrunge up their faces when they hear Senator Coburns name, should think again and read this book. Senator Coburn is a very conservative republican, but he does not rail against liberals or democrats in this book. He must have rightly figured to do so would tag the book as a typical partisan effort. Instead he exposes what the Republican party establishment does and goes after Republican leaders. He only mentions Democrats when he has to in relaying information about any particular congressional bill. He surely didn't win any friends in congress when he exposed the inner workings of that body. Politicians quickly (if they didn't sart out that way) transform into playing the power game. Everything becomes about power and not what is best for the people. The bribes, strong arm tactics, threats, play along to get along, we'll do the right thing later, gotta secure power now kind of shenanigans. You definately do not have to agree with Tom Coburn politically to appreciate this book. It's great to get a birds eye view on why our government does not work. I can see what congress is doing and not doing now and understand why thanks to having read this book. The establishment doesn't want you to read this book, but do yourself a favor and read Breach of Trust. We need to shake things up in Washington and elect new people. In fact Mr. Coburn talks about the 20-25 in congress who stick to their principles and truley work to do the right thing. It's good to know who they are. Let's get a majority like them. To get a feel as to how to do that it helps to read this book. This is eye opening stuff. Thank you, Senator Coburn.

Wow, and Wow again!!!! This book makes a lot of sense, no matter what your party or political viewpoint.

As a business owner who, like most, has a low opinion of Congress, this is a must read. Voters' approval ratings of Congress are widely reported to be in the low twenty percentile, are now are the lowest in history, and are still dropping. Congress is clearly broken. This unique book explains why it's broken, with many revolting but compelling examples.

And it also shows us a way to fix today's out of control, unaccountable government. It suggests practical methods for fixing Congress before matters get even worse. The author deserves a medal for responsible public service, and this book deserves to be read and understood.

John D. Trudel

This is an extraordinary book, an easy to read book, which is organized to provide 10 truths, 3 myths, 4 dangers, and 5 actions that citizens can take to restore the integrity of the Congress (both Senate and House).

The author's conclusions, based on his experience as a three-term Congressman, are consistent with both the recent polls that show that Americans damn both the Democrats and the Republicans as corrupt and ineffective at representing We the People, and with books such as Peter Peterson's "Running On Empty: How The Democratic and Republican Parties Are Bankrupting Our Future and What Americans Can Do About It."

As a moderate Republican, I found this book representative precisely of the vision I signed up to in the 1970's--smaller government, less waste, more discretion to the states.

Two quotes really stand out:

xix: "Although the events o September 11, 2001 have focused the public attention on the threat of international terrorism, the greatest threat to the continuity of our form of government is our government itself."

79: "What makes this [Party Line] mentality dangerous is that when the team is held together by careerism and mindless partisanship, individual members are punished for thinking for themselves [or their Districts]. When members can't think for themselves their constituents are deprived of honest representation."

The book itemizes the positive aspects of the "Contract with America" that the Republican class of 1994 hoped to achieve, and blasts Newt Gingrich for failing to honor the contract and failing as a leader.

Robert Novak is to be complemented for his superb foreword and his support of this book.

All of my reading suggests that America is ready to demand that the bulk of their representatives follow the example of the Member from Vermont, and declare Independence from the two corrupt incumbent parties. America appears to be ready for a new political party that will restore government of, by, and for the people. This book is a good starting point, and makes the case for discarding both parties as being so corrupt and unrepresentative as to be beyond salvation. We are on our own.

Rosenberg demonstrates the extraordinary ability to reveal a nation's history through an anecdotal tale of one of its citizens. She begins with these individuals to show you the end product _ then retraces the steps of Latin America's dark, recent history to show you how a nightmare became real. Rosenberg not only tells the story of the downtrodden and displaced, but also the story of the "victors," or the elites. It would be difficult to sympathize with anyone responsible for the murder and torture that has plagued Latin America this century, yet Rosenberg reveals the fears of the persecutors, valid or not, with the same perception with which she portrays the persecuted. In addition to nightmarish governmental indifference and inhumanity from all sides, Rosenberg sums up each country's recent history in a brief and concise two or three pages. As a student of, and journalist in, Latin America, "Children of Cain" remains my most worn and dog-eared reference book. I see the faces Tina painted everywhere I go. Neophytes who yearn for a basic understanding of Latin America and seasoned scholars alike will come away with a better understanding of these national histories that seem so foreign. Reading "Children of Cain" will put everything you read afterward into context.

This is the second book by Tina Rosenberg I have read. The first one was Haunted Land about Eastern Europe after the fall of communism, which I also highly recommend. I'm so pleased with Rosenberg's style that I'm after her book on South Africa as well.

For almost a decade Rosenberg traveled through Latin America not shying away from really messy situations trying to make sense of a history of violence and very little respect for human rights. Tina experienced many of the situations herself such as being soaked with diluted acid by the police in the streets of Santiago, Chile, during marches against Pinochet or taking a nightmarish truck bed trip through guerrilla infested Peru. The Latin American economic, political and military elites also had their points of view captured by Rosenberg resulting, as far as I can tell, in a very well balanced collection of personal perspectives on the problem - violence in Latin America - intermingled with background historical information.

Rosenberg is very competent in summarizing the recent history and the roots of violence in Latin America. The author brings the historical review to life by interviewing perpetrators and victims. Violence in Latin America as viewed by Rosenberg emanates from a history of inequality. The native populations and the unwillingly imported black slaves and their descendants have been for five centuries exploited and victimized by greedy white Europeans. The resulting instable societies in turn fall prey of guerrilla groups, organized crime, drug lords, or the old fashioned military economic and political elites. The victimized population looses faith in the state and became passive or takes matters on their own hands solving social problems or even threatening or overthrowing governments. To tip the balance back the oligarchies can inevitably count on the CIA for supposedly counter insurgency help.

It's a chilling book with no solution on sight and Rosenberg didn't even include some remarkable facets of violence in Latin America such as domestic violence in a notably sexist society and the petit and not so petit common crime. Colombia is the first market worldwide for bulletproof cars - Brazil is the second.

It's an important book mainly for American readers since it shows the impact of American interference. Sadly it offers no solution - maybe there isn't.

Leonardo Alves - Tucson, Arizona - June 2002

I'm so glad someone recommended this book to me because I will never forget it, It's wonderful insight into latin America and it's societies. Great interviews and vivid desriptions of life in a place where life means so little to so many people.

GREAT BOOK, the best at capturing the feel of what it is like living in many of the Latin American countries. I do wish she had gotten the opinion of teh peasants more thought. She seems to interview ONLY those in power, while it makes sense since many poor people are scared to talk about the real situation due to the consequences it might bring. A must read for all those who think the Monroe Doctrine and US intervention are a good thing. A bit disheartning thought, leaves you with a bit of a feeling that many of these countrie are without help.

Not only has Ms. Rosenburg done a spectacular gob in writing an extremely readable book, she provides her audience vivid decriptions using a very personal approach that employs the use of specific people, their experiences and dilemmas. She also provides her audience with the neccessary historical and enviromental (social, politial and economic) information to put these personal and organizational accouts into the cotexts neccessary for reader to truely appriecate the psychology of the forces driving these extaordinary historical events.

Moreover, Ms. Rosenburg provides the reader with six different cases from six differnet countries. From Escobar's Medellin to Argentina's "Dirty War", she examines and analyzes different types of violence motivated by unique sets of circumstances.

I COULD NOT PUT THIS BOOK DOWN; A MUST READ FOR ANYONE INTERESTED IN LATIN AMERICA!

I am in school for Criminal Jutice and plan to start Police Academy in a few months. All I know about being a cop is that something is pushing me to do it. I am not fully aware yet of everything I am getting into, but something keeps me from giving up. This my life long dream and passion. After reading this book it gave me so much more courage and wisdom to know that I can make a difference. Most people would fear what Randy has encountered, but I pray to do the same things. I know it will not be easy, but with prayer and faith, anything can happen. This book was very educational to me, and I loved every story. Great job!! *Kerista*

The author Sgt Sutton is actually a lieutenant in my police agency and I, for one, feel priveleged we have a man that has gone through all this in this book as a head in my police dept! God bless him and officers all around this world!

This book is better than other cop memoirs because much of it is the unvarnished, unpainted skinny on real police work. Most of the stories are depressing and sad and frightening. Morons and whack-jobs and bottom-feeders are who cops deal with.

The book is well-written, the subject is interesting, and the stories are realistic and plausible. I read the book in one evening. It's THAT engrossing.

Randy Sutton compiles a collection of true cop stories that will leave you reeling. Devoid of any gooey sentiment but true to the street beat that these cops work. At times scary, depressing, uplifting and heroic these cops tell a story of sacrifice, family and the failure of society. Not an easy book to get through at times but highly recommended.

I'm a student at Eastern Kentucky University majoring in Police Studies in hopes of becoming a police officer. When walking through Wal-Mart, this book caught my eye, and although school has turned me against reading, I bought it anyways. Later that day, I sat down and began to read the book, and couldn't put it down. I felt that I was living Sgt. Sutton's life right there in my living room. This is a very powerful book!

This is a very important book about officer survival. The focus is not on tactics, but on mental aspects of combat, and especially the aftermath of violent encounter.

The book starts with introduction of Survival triangle: You have to survive both physically, mentally, and legally to fully survive an violent encounter. The authors keep that in mind through the book, while the stress is on mental survival. Next the authors discuss the selection process of police recruits, and the nature of violence the police are forced to encounter in their line of duty. Next they give a thorough explanation of fear and it's effects on a person, and they address the issue of training, as well.

The main portion of the second part of the book (about 100 pages) is real-life stories told by cops, and the author's comments of the events. There is not any tactical reviewing, but the incidents are discussed on a psychological point of view. At the end of the second part there is a chapter of psychological injuries, starting from physical effects right after the incident, going to post-traumatic stress disorder and difficulties with relationships with other persons.

The third part of the book covers the treatment of a traumatic event survivor. The authors cover all aspects: What the survivor himself can do, what his superiors, family members, peers and so on can and should do. The authors also stress that there are many different kinds of encounters that can cause post-traumatic stress disorder other than gunfights, and that all participants of such encounter can develop mental problems, not just the ones who pull the trigger. There is also advise to detectives who investigate officer-involved shootings.

All things considered, this book is a very complete package. It is easy to read and the text is not too "scientific" for a layman to understand. This was the first book by Loren Christensen I have read, but it sure won't be the last!

I received this book as a Christmas Gift from my brother. He's a Deputy, I'm an Executive Protection Specialist. Next to Robert Oatman's books on Executive Protection, this is the most valuable book in my Library. I can see that this is a must have book for Police Officers everywhere, but it's also obvious that anyone who may find themselves in a position requiring deadly force can benefit from this book.

I found the book to quick to read and easy to absorb. The authors make simple explanations of others experiences, and help you understand what works. In particular, the mental preparation for use of force provided by this book is excellent and concise.

It's at the center of human nature to stay alive, anyone that's put in a situation to kill or be killed will benefit greatly from this book.

An easy 5/5.

This is a fantastic book that is easy to read and makes a lot of sense. Every law enforcement officer should read this book and it should be required reading in all academies. I wish that I had read it before my deadly force encounter, but it was still very helpful in understanding what was happening to me in the aftermath. It has also been enlightening to my fellow officers that heard the incident unfold on the radio and to my family that received the phone call after the incident. It is a must read.

As with any book authored by Christensen, one feels the reality and truth of the content. This book is no different, it is enlightening to all inexperienced and experienced police officers. It should be mandatory reading for all police recruits in the academy as well as veteran officers on the job.

The mind MUST be prepared for what it will go through during a lethal encounter and more importantly, what it will go through after the encounter; unless of course you lost and are DEAD. Then, your loved ones must now deal with your failure to have survived. Do not do that to them ! Read this book, train and be prepared.

"The mind must be trained and then the body will follow." Anthony M. Cataldo www.blackbeltdojo.com

As a former Oakland, CA police sergeant and veteran of a number deadly force encounters, I can recommend this book to all street officers. In 1972 I was involved in an incident with an armed suspect who was killed. Today I can still relate the incident second by second. It will never leave me. This book allows you to gain from experience of deadly encounters without having to go through it yourself. This is very helpful and will certainly save lives. I recommend the book.

Wayne D. Ford, Ph.D, author of Managing Police Stress. docwifford@msn.com

This book is a work of scope and insight that is still quoted and referred to often. Although written in the 1800s it still speaks to us about what we were with a clarity and accuracy that makes it an essential if you care about the early development of this country. It has past the test of time and may be more important now then it ever was. READ IT.

George Lawrence's translation, which migrated from Harper & Row to Doubleday back to HarperCollins, is far and away the best translation of this classic study of democracy and American life. Lawrence is more accurate than the old Henry Reeve translation (even as revised by Phillips Bradley) kept in print by Vintage, and livelier than the stodgy translation inflicted on us by Harvey C. Mansfield Jr. for the University of Chicago Press.

De Tocqueville was an amazing man who posessed amazing insight into the workings (and not-workings) of American society. One only laments the fact that he was not a middle caste American politician arguing amongst great minds during the Constitutional conventions. Then again, we are equally lucky of the fact that he was a curious Frenchman of the leisure class who happened to be passing through. This is what gives de Tocqueville the ability to refrain from emotionalism and give us an outsiders view of what makes America good, bad and just plain different.

See, de tocqueville recognizes, as did our founders, that liberty and democracy are key ingredients to a healthy society. On the other hand, he points out that too much freedom or democracy lead to lazy, public-opinion driven conformity, over-emphasis on materialism and restlessness. Another contradiction de tocqueville points out is that although self-government is generally a good idea, there are times when an all powerful aristocracy is just more efficient. He can see all sides.
The best part then is that de Tocqueville doesn't come to any final conclusion. He just observes and reports on America's inner workings as seen by an aristocratic Frenchman.

A few reccomendations to the de tocqueville virgins. First, as this is the unabridged, it may be advised to read the first book, pause to read something else, then read the second book. I read it straight through and found that not only would I have benefited from reflection, but much of the second book is a rehash the first. Second, keep in mind during the second book that the word 'democracy' is also de tocqueville's word for 'capitalism'. The word 'capitalism' would be introduced only years later by one Karl Marx. So when de tocqueville says that democracy increases industriousness, what the reader should hear is that capitalism increases industriousness. This in itself is a brilliant observation by de tocqueville. Democracy and capitalism really are the same thing, different scale. The producer, like the political candidate, cater to the consumer or the voter. Both systems allow the individual to choose the goods and services he wants and reject those he doesn't. This is why one may also want to read 'Wealth of Nations' with this book.

The only other thing I can tell the reader before he or she embarks on a fascinating reading adventure is to keep in mind why de tocqueville wrote the book. He intended it to be read by the french who were not familiar with or had misconceptions about America. Of course, it provides contemporary America with an amazing historical survey. Like the introductory exclamation to MTV's 'Diary' show says, "You think you know, but you have no idea".

The Transformation and Guarantees of
American Democracy
-An analysis of Tocqueville's worries for American democracy and an illustration of American democracy's current state

The beguiling title of Tocqueville's Democracy in America seems to suggest that the book might go well in a state department propaganda packet. As a proud citizen of America flips through the pages, however, he soon discovers Tocqueville's admiration at American democracy stems not from an intrinsic love for it, but from the amazement that something so dangerous has somehow avoided falling off of the cliff. In fact, Tocqueville spends most of his chapters listing his endless concerns about democracy.

In all, to Tocqueville, democracy in general presents three intrinsic dangers for its citizens: it does not guarantee them a secure life, it does not guarantee them a prosperous life, and it does not guarantee them an enlightened life of freedom. Against these general tendencies, Tocqueville lists three essential factors which secure democracy in America-the lack of which would mean the end to American liberty. They are: America's geography, political system, and religion.

Looking at America today, Tocqueville's three securing factors for American democracy are long gone, however, the loss of its guardian angels has not resulted in the materialization of the three dangers and America today is as democratic and free as it has ever being. Tocqueville has been proven wrong because he misunderstood and discounted democracy's ultimate force-the drive for equality. Tocqueville thought the search for equality would ultimately draw people away from freedom, but to the contrary, the demand of equality is the ultimate guarantee of freedom in democracy.

The Three Dangers of Democracy

The foremost duty of any civil society is to provide security, and to Tocqueville, the democratic state can not guarantee this. The democratic people have been loosened from the old ties of society, and living independently, they no longer see the need to help another in danger until they themselves are attacked. When they do see danger, however, the whimsical nature of democratic deliberation and the lack of central control especially in the American confederation prevent a timely and sustained defense against the enemy. Tocqueville writes, "...I refuse to believe that, with equal force on either side, a confederated nation can long fight against a nation with centralized government power." (p170) Indeed, if a great army could indeed be assembled, this necessarily entails greater centralization, which only brings more dangers to democracy.

Beyond security, the people will also desire prosperity, and prosperity requires the building of an economic infrastructure that only the society as a whole is capable of. The nation must make laws that encourage innovation, construct roads, regulate industries, fund schools, etc. Many of these activities require sustained efforts which, again, a short sighted and frequently changing government by the people can not commit to since "habitual inattention must be reckoned the great vice of the democratic spirit." (p611) Additionally, even when the people do commit to an act, their officials who are not the "fittest man" (p199) can not accomplish much because they spend their whole time worried about reelection.

Democracy promises to set each free through voting, but sadly, to Tocqueville, the lack of security and prosperity must engender Democracy's fall toward centralization which will create a benumbing voice of the majority that will silence opinions and suffocates freedom. The minority will surely suffer, but even the majority, believing that they are in charge of the government, will lose their sight on the exact operations of the government which they have relegated away and will lose freedom. Tocqueville writes,

"The Americans believe that in each state supreme power should emanate directly from the people, but once this power has been constituted, they can hardly conceive any limits to it. They freely recognized that it has the right to do everything." (p669)

The worry here is not that the government will exploit the people's inattention, but that the citizens will no longer be enlightened by their daily political "exercises" and that the activity of the entire nation will lose its vitality, turning the society into a stony machine of bureaucrats and the people into dusts on a chessboard.

The Three Guarantee of American Democracy

Countering the three above impacts, Tocqueville thought that American Geography, politics and religion preserve freedom, prosperity, and security.

Stretching between two oceans and with only two weak neighbors, the geography of the United States gives America the leisure to have a confederated government. The Continent also offers open space for the young and the ambitious. Although the nation is weak in achieving collective projects, with boundless opportunities and population growth, the collective result of individual expansion is sufficient for prosperity. Indeed, as people move on, "it is the seed of life and of prosperity that he bears." (p281)

The governmental structure of the U.S. also allows it to prosper and helps to preserve freedom. The Union has enough power to fight against small enemies such as the Indians, yet it avoids centralization by empowering the locals. Certainly, localized and centralized democracy both suffer from short-sightedness and suppression of the mind, however, local policies are easier to observe, and taking part in politics, the people are enlightened and freer. Tocqueville writes, "The New Englander is attached to this township because it is strong and independent...in the restricted sphere within his scope, he learns to rule society" (p70) As one learns to rule, he will also be empowered and emboldened to start prosperous private enterprises.

More than politics and geography, to Tocqueville, Religion has the greatest impact on freedom and also improves prosperity. Religion always marches along with the adventurers and secures in the Western frontiers not only the equality based American political system but also American commerce by helping to establish law and order in new territories. Tocqueville writes, "...the spirit of man rushes forward to explore it in every direction; but when that spirit reaches the limits of the world of politics, it stops of its own accord..." (p47) It stops because of the taming power of religion, and without this restraining stability, a people can not have security, prosperity, nor freedom.

At the same time, by connecting people together through churches and providing them the warmth of family life, religion also moderates the Americans' excessive "habit of thinking of themselves in isolation and imagine that their whole destiny is in their own hands." (p508) This habit would have induced men to delegate political concerns to central authority, and as they only see small things at hand, they would have lost the enlightenment which the independent political life provides.

Today, the Three Guarantees No Longer Exist

Today, America is certainly no longer the America which Tocqueville saw, the three conditions that maintained the democratic institution are severely weakened.

Today, the deserts of the West have been converted into hundreds of miles of suburbia, and America spends billions of dollars guarding its southern border. People still dream, but unlike in the old days when anyone with any background can gain a piece of land through hard work, people today must compete against others for the limited pie. Additionally, America certainly still has no fear of the Canadian or Mexican army, but it has enemies throughout the world who are capable of attack.

Just as Tocqueville predicted, after each war, the central power in America became stronger. Today, local politics no longer excites the passion of the crowds, and states are more provincial. The national government controls a tremendous percentage of the national wealth, directs economic policies, sets regulation for every industry, and leads the greatest military in the world. Alarmingly, political apathy has also increased. Surely, the average American says he loves his democracy, but in the democracy he talks about the percentage of people who vote is far from 100% and even for those who do vote, the thousands of pages of Washington laws and decrees are out of their control.

The religious landscape has also changed. The morality of Christianity certainly still holds sway over many, however, the average American today certainly does not have the religious zeal of people 200 years ago. There are also large parts of the population that are atheists or believe in non-western religions. Strangely, some vocal Christians seem to promote an ever increasing share of religion in politics, or rather, politicians are becoming ever more agile at using religion for politics-two things which Tocqueville believed must be separated for either to be truly powerful.

Without the Guarantees the People Are Still Free

Despite losing the old guarantee of security, America today still has security, prosperity and freedom.

Despite Sep. 11, America is certainly secure in the sense that the average American does not wake up worried that he will die simply because he lives in a democracy. Some groups might attempt small attacks, but no groups or dictatorial regimes can dream of winning a war against this super military power and internal security is also largely guaranteed by a large police force.

Despite the loss of the Wild West, local energy and uniform religion, America today certainly enjoys great prosperity. American companies dominate all lists of top companies in the world, and American innovations have improved the living conditions of mankind beyond imagination. There is certainly disparity between the richest and the poorest, however, the majority of the people enjoy prosperous middle-class life, and even the poorest are supported by a generous welfare system.

One might say that America has achieved the above security and prosperity exactly because power became centralized and the cost of these was the loss of freedom. This is a misconception. Indeed, political participation is limited to fewer people today and sometimes one wonders if the blind search for wealth should be tempered by some uniform religion again, but perhaps Americans have constructed an economic and political system that does not need much more innovation, and the works politicians today even if localized no longer heighten one's mind, but merely bore a person with their regularity.

Today, the citizen's rights as consumers instead of voters define American freedom-when one goes into a store and chooses from a thousand different products, he knows that he is free. No longer must men be suppressed by the opinion of the majority, but each can freely buy the niche models personalized just for him. Shopping is the daily act of wallet voting-the modern equivalent of 19th century town hall meetings; the same restless agitation, excitement, and heightened sense of self-worth and joy pervade the modern marketplace. Of course, each person's mind is not only enlarged in her role as a consumer but also in his role as a marketer or producer who must dig out creative juices to satisfy customer demands.

The effects of the vibrant consumer culture extend into the sanctified realm of intellectual endeavors. Institutional and individual consumers/investors/sponsors support in the U.S. the best researches in the world for practical and basic researches and vote with his wallet at who gets the tuitions or research grants. Perhaps the nation is a little too agitated, but if they wish, those who want to enjoy the serenity of life can certainly go to the country side or some forest and sustain a more peaceful existence.

The Truth about Equality

From the above analysis, we could see that although Tocqueville argues convincingly for the three dangers of democracy and three cures of democracy, in fact, the dangers were not so dangerous and the cures were not the only cures. It might surprise Tocqueville that despite of the loss of the West, centralization and the weakening of religion, Americans today are as free, prosperous and secure as they have ever been.

The key of Tocqueville's miscalculation lies with his analysis of equality and freedom. Tocqueville believes that the democratic search for equality engenders jealousy which undermines freedom by dragging everyone down and letting some anonymous force rule over all. He writes,

"There is indeed a manly and legitimate passion for equality which rouses in all men a desire to be strong and respected .This passion tends to elevate the little man to the rank of the great/ But the human heart also nourishes a debased taste for equality, which leads the weak to want to drag the strong down to their level and which induces men to prefer equality in servitude to inequality in freedom." (p669)

To him, the geography, political structure and religious mores in America were the restraining factors that limited the downward tendency of equality which induces people to simply follow without thinking. The loss of free thinking would not only prevent men from reaching a more enlightened and dignified state, but also ultimately undermine the security and prosperity of the nation through its benumbing effects on the nation's overall social, political and economic situations.

In reality, equality is the greatest guarantee of freedom. America's worship of equality does not incite jealousy like Tocqueville asserts, instead, Americans happily admire at those who through their efforts build up great wealth, and imitate them as they march on in their own dreams. Democratic people are only jealous of others if they win without a more or less fair competition. It is true that nothing can ever be perfectly fair, but the American society is generally merit based. One only has to look at Governor Schwarzenegger to realize that anyone in this Country has got a chance. Even for people with connections, they still need to work hard to prove themselves-Bush Senior certainly helped Bush Junior, but Bush Junior still had to win the hearts of Americans to become the President.

When a democratic man does not achieve as much worldly success as someone else, he is not troubled. Unlike the surf in an aristocratic age who feels intrinsically inferior to those with more honor than him, the average man in a democratic society might have achieved nothing great but yet feel perfectly certain that he has achieved for himself a happier life than all others. He is certainly right, after all, freedom and elevation of the mind does not rest on the material well-being of an individual, rather, it is the confidence that he has in his existence and the love he puts into his work that elevates him to the greatest glory of existence.

It is precisely the general equality of opportunities and everyman's belief in himself that has allowed America to grow into the most powerful nation in the world with the greatest prosperity and security ever experienced by mankind. Tocqueville was certainly right in pointing out that the western territories, localized controls and a common religion helped America democracy; even today, America has less population density than many nations, the states are more powerful compared to the provinces in most other countries, and all Americans share the most basic principles of Christian morality even if they are not Christians. Degrees of these three forces certainly contribute and contributed to making America a equal society, however, it is equality itself that is the soul of American liberty, prosperity and security, and the loss or weakening of its supporting factors do not change the soul itself.

Time changes and Tocqueville's worries about democracy have luckily turned out to be false. Today, not only are the new Americans as free as ever, democracy is proving resilient in every kind of culture. On the one hand, the fact that Japanese, Indians, Russians, French, Chileans, Indonesians and Nigerians have all adopted democracy shows that Tocqueville's prediction that Democracy was unstoppable has proven true, and on the other side, his worry that democracy might need some channeling has also proven true considering that all these nations experienced decades of fake democracy before democracy was fully established. Tocqueville certainly deserves much credit for contributing to the spread of democracy with this masterpiece Democracy in America, but the small blemish is that, a little down in his perhaps prejudiced aristocratic mind, the great man thought Democracy to be less versatile than it has proven to be.

In all, the ultimate wonder of democracy is that it allows each one of its members the equality to craft out a world for himself within which he quietly finds comfort.

Anyone wishing to better understand how it is that America achieved it's current position in the world must read this book. De Tocqueville's seminal work rings true today and gives a great perspective on our past, present and future. Everything that has ever happened in America's relatively short history, up to and including our most recent presidential election and the attacks of September 11th are better understood after reading this timeless classic.

There are some excellent reviews of this book, so I will summarize the key points briefly and then point to the top ten books on my Transpartisan Democracy list.

This is a delightful, thoughtful read that is totally transpartisan in spirit, and joins other books like Escaping the Matrix and Society's Breakthrough in setting the stage for a non-violent restoration of We the People as the working owners of the Republic.

The author distinguishes between thin and living democracy, points out that democracy is a process, and you must live it or lose it. The two appendices are superb, one on competing frames (one page) and one on restoring the meaning of language for democracy (3 pages). I recommend taking a look at them before reading the book itself.

I have a note in my margin, "Lappe for President." Seriously. Lappe, not Hillary Clinton, and certainly not Condi Rice, is precisely the kind of Epoch B leader we need right now, someone who can energize Wisdom Councils at every level, and convene Global Intelligence Councils and Global Policy Councils on the ten threats, twelve policies, and eight players other than the EU and the US (see my comment for a URL).

I absolutely agree with her that poverty is caused by a lack of democracy. Dictators and Wall Street have created a class war in which the few are looting the natural resources of the many, and it is time we put a stop to that, to include disbanding the World Bank, the IMF, and the World Trade Organization.

She says that voice is the heart of democracy, and that a culture of connection is now being woven (see Blessed Unrest, Tao of Democracy, and Society's Breakthrough).

She says that the split is not between left and right, but rather between those who believe in democracy and We the People, and those that do not (see George Orwell's Animal Farm--we are all being harvested for profit by a handful).

In the author's view, the crisis is our feeling of helplessness, and the solution is to widen the circle of problem solvers. Well, Joe Trippi is going to bring us the "Big Bat" to channel $500M a year into the Transpartisan Peoples' Trust, and Reuniting America will join with the World Index of Social and Environmental Responsibility (WISER) to connect all of the people all of the time.

There is such a wealth of gifted insight in this book that I do not want to list all the points that made it to my fly-leaf. BUT THIS BOOK. Discuss it with friends. Send this review to everyone you wish to engage in this national conversation.

There is a breathtaking graphic on page 33 in which she lists the seven main areas affecting our public life, and then lists specific individual roles of the citizen in each of these, which I depict by the number in parenthesis:

Economic Life (9 roles)
Media (3 roles, but she neglected to mention citizen journalist)
Education (6 roles)
Cultural (9 roles)
Civic life (7 roles)
Human and Health Care Services (6 roles)
Religious Life (3 roles)

True power, good power, is our multiple relationships to one another. We can get rid of money TOMORROW and shift to localized currencies and Internet barter points. Governments should not be going into debt to banks, they should nationalize them!

She destroys the four prevailing myths:
1) that we only need two parties
2) that we cannot limit private money in politics
3) that we must not tamper with the "free" market
4) that corporations are only responsible for short-term bottom line

See my varied lists, especially on Natural Capitalism and on Democracy, for more recommended readings that strongly support her concise views.

She lists eight corporate crimes:
1) Enrichment through manipulated public giveaways
2) Tax avoidance
3) Global Warming (we have to pay)
4) Hazardous Waste (we have to pay)
5) Profits retained by the managers, worker's salaries do not increase
6) Concentration killing our health industry (and agriculture and energy)
7) Low corporate wages force us to pay benefits--Wal-Mart costs us $2.5 billion a year because their employees are so badly paid they qualify for public benefits! This is NUTS!
8) Campaign to eradicate unions leaves workers without voice or protection

I am quite pleased to learn from this author that townships are passing laws abolishing corporate citizenship. This needs to be a nation-wide finding.

Pension fund managers are one key to victory over corporations.

SA8000 sets global standards for fair labor conditions. We need to enforce it with our purchases.

Expectations and fairness matter. COSTCO pays its employees more, and gives them good benefits, yet applies only 7% of its budget to labor. Wal-Mart treats them like slaves, and applies 12% because of turn-over.

Part III has chapters on attention, action, choice, and voice, and focuses on the need to create localized economies with local currencies, community banking, and 100% worker ownership. That, in my view, is precisely where we are headed.

She lists 11 sources of citizen power, credited to the Industrial Areas Foundation:
1) Relational
2) Self-Interest
3) Listening
4) Tapping passion
5) Storytelling
6) Disciplined preparation
7) Actions and intentional tension (helps reframing)
8) Negotiation
9) Accountability
10) Mentoring
11) Reflection and evaluation

She lists five ways we are robbed of choice by corporations, and ten losses we suffer from corporations. She reminds us that Thomas Jefferson was very concerned in the 1790's about commercial monopolies, and concludes, correctly, that corporations have more power and as much secrecy as the Communist Party in China and Russia.

She presents loss of voice facts on pages 222-224, addresses the need for democratic software and low-cost Internet access for all (good-bye, Microsoft, unless everyone can get mobile Windows for a dollar a month.

She concludes with chapters on learning, security, and reframing.

This book is magical in its common sense and imminent applicability.

Top Ten Transpartisan Books Other Than This One:
Blessed Unrest: How the Largest Movement in the World Came into Being and Why No One Saw It Coming
Escaping the Matrix: How We the People can change the world
Society's Breakthrough!: Releasing Essential Wisdom and Virtue in All the People
All Rise: Somebodies, Nobodies, and the Politics of Dignity (Bk Currents)
The Tao of Democracy: Using Co-Intelligence to Create a World That Works for All
Where Have All the Leaders Gone?
A House Divided
The Nine Nations of North America
Who Will Tell The People? : The Betrayal Of American Democracy
The Soul of Capitalism: Opening Paths to a Moral Economy

Though "Democracy's Edge" is a polemical work (there seem to be two kinds of Americans in the book: what Moore-Lappé calls the Far Right -- exemplified by the Bush Administration and its corporate cronies -- and everyone else), it is also intended to be a book of hope. There are stories of dozens if not hundreds of citizen groups that are making a real difference in politics, education, and workers' rights in accord with her definition of democracy.

"Living Democracy" involves "negotiating interests by relying on fair play, honest dialogue and mutual respect." It's "not just righting a particular injustice that limits people's freedom. It's changing how decisions are made." Humanity's task, says the author, "is to envision and create institutions, from our schools to our media to our businesses, that foster our democratic selves -- people able to feel and express empathy and to see through the walls of race, culture and religion that divide us, people who know how to exert power while maintaining relationship."

By contrast, what she calls "thin" democracy -- in which politicians proclaim "power to the people" but arrogate power to themselves instead -- perpetuates "four constricting measures" that limit the expansion of Living Democracy. These "misfits" include the assumption that two political parties are enough; that any real limits on campaign spending violate free speech; that "the free market brings us all prosperity"; and that "to keep generating wealth, corporations must consider only the financial bottom line." (While Moore-Lappé welcomes globalization "understood as ... communication and sharing across national borders," she rejects what she calls "global corporatism.")

"Democracy's Edge" is designed to counter each of those ingrained notions with success stories of people united by a common purpose changing how democracy is done. She spotlights the work of such organizations as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and the Industrial Areas Foundation (founded by "Saul Alinsky, the godfather of community organizing"). Hers is a leftist agenda, though she does not use that term, preferring instead to frame her proposals as "walking with bold humility" in reclaiming the kind of human relationships that Living Democracy ought to be about.

A chart at the end of the book invites readers to "consciously generate language that communicates what is emerging and what we want to bring into being." Her preferred term is "engaged citizen" rather than "activist." The seemingly neutral term "conventional farming" becomes "chemically dependent farming." "Liberal" becomes "progressive, democratic." She calls "pro-choice" the "pro-child movement including the right of every child to be wanted with opportunities for a full life." Finally, "taxes" are "membership dues for a strong, healthy society."

Moore-Lappé paints a provocative picture, worth the spirited public discussion it generates.

Copyright 2007 Chico Enterprise-Record. Used by permission.

Frances Moore Lappe has written a book that is easy to read, its pages filled with brief and concise facts and comparisons, and above all correct in its analysis of the state of American democracy. She doesn't leave the reader to guess about whether a new people's democracy is possible; she shows it coming into being in highly diverse settings. And if anyone has thought otherwise, she disabuses us of any idea that in the U.S. of A. we currently have democracy. It would be difficult to read this book all the way through and not find oneself eager to get involved.

Richard W. Gillett, author of The New Globalization: Reclaiming the Lost Ground of our Christian Social Tradition (Pilgrim Press, 2005).

Lappe plots the needs of the future. She points out what is needed for this country to become a real democracy. There are lots of resources for those determined to act.

Democracy's Edge is a collection of stories of ordinary people actively practicing what the author really correctly dubs Living Democracy. When I read this, the book reminded me straight on how fragile freedoms and protections are, how easily they can be dissolved or subverted by corporate, personal, and political greed...ambitions which truly stop for no man (or woman)in the quest for taking more, more, more. So if you're worried about the pollution, land grabbing, political manipulations of law, etc and want inspiration and some guidance on whether and how you can make a difference with just one voice, read this book. It's SO EASY to read, and lacks the fractious tone that many champions of our freedoms (read liberal or left-leaning)can take, and sometimes push people away with.

Machiavelli's Discourses... a book that is a compendium of historical events analyzed in such a way as to obtain a lesson that is both precise as well as eternal. I think that all who consider going into politics or any kind of management role should be handed a copy of this book. And by any kind of management I mean from management of a state to managing a home and family. It is practical, ruthless and efficient. You can glimpse its central premises through the actions of those who succeed.
The translation of this book is flawless and delivers the full content of the author's message.
I'm convinced that this was a life changing book for me to read, it certainly affected my perspective of events around me and my way to interact to them. It is a self help book if you can interpret it beyond the historical dressing.
I strongly recommend this book to anyone who has an interest in history, management, or politics.

This book describes how Rome was being governed as a Republic and gets into detail about the wars they fought. Even for Machiavelli these writings we distant history and what really surprised me was the way this book has been written and translated.

Being an admirer of Rome and its golden age this book really gave me new insights, despite reading a lot of other books about this subject. As in Machiavelli's most famous book 'The Prince' politics are again the major subject. It is really astonishing to see the details and consequences of the actions that are being taken.

If you would like to know more about Rome, history or politics, grab a copy of this book.

Nicholo Machiavelli earned a bad rep with those who read and mis-read his best knon work, The Prince. It was not his intention to write this book to correct that bad image, but with this book we are given a different look at the great Itsalian poitical scientist/historian. He shows us the virtue of a democratic form of government. Recommended by anyone who wants a clearer view of the author, the Renaisance, and the growth of political theory.

Niccolo Machiavelli, (1469-1527), writes the greatest treatise on keeping a republic vibrant by comparing Rome to republican Venice. Machiavelli has gained an unwarranted notorious reputation for his "evil" treatise on political thinking and acting through his authorship of "The Prince". "The Prince" received more notoriety than his politically erudite work "Discourses on the First Ten Books of Livy" in which Machiavelli espouses his belief that the Roman Republic was the best and most virtuous form of government to emulate. His breadth and understanding of Roman history is remarkable. Machiavelli's love of his country Florence, and the proud political work as a minor government administrator and ambassador Machiavelli performed during its years as a republic show through in this work. It was on his many ambassadorial trips to the French, Papal, and Italian courts that he learned to observe political leaders and their governmental institutions which formed the basis of his political theories in his many writings. My favorite quote from Machiavelli is; "It's better to act and repent then not to act and regret".

Modern philosophers starting with Machiavelli reject the classical view of politics as undemocratic and elitist. Only wealthy men of leisure would have time to develop the virtues and character necessary to rule. Machiavelli believed that man by nature was selfish and driven by ambition. Machiavelli is not interested in character formation and moral appeal but in building the right kind of institutions to govern society. Laws and justice would protect men from power hungry rulers. Modern philosophy is an out growth of the revolution that takes place in the natural sciences during the Enlightenment. The purpose of science is the conquest of nature man is in control of human life. Philosophers from Machiavelli on become sectarian. "Everything good is due to man's labor rather than to nature's gift."

As a retired Army officer and student of political philosophy, I found this to be an indispensable book to continue one's journey into political philosophy and history of Europe.

Niccolo Machiavelli, (1469-1527), writes the greatest treatise on keeping a republic vibrant by comparing Rome to republican Venice. Machiavelli has gained an unwarranted notorious reputation for his "evil" treatise on political thinking and acting through his authorship of "The Prince". "The Prince" received more notoriety than his politically erudite work "Discourses on the First Ten Books of Livy" in which Machiavelli espouses his belief that the Roman Republic was the best and most virtuous form of government to emulate. His breadth and understanding of Roman history is remarkable. Machiavelli's love of his country Florence, and the proud political work as a minor government administrator and ambassador Machiavelli performed during its years as a republic show through in this work. It was on his many ambassadorial trips to the French, Papal, and Italian courts that he learned to observe political leaders and their governmental institutions which formed the basis of his political theories in his many writings. My favorite quote from Machiavelli is; "It's better to act and repent then not to act and regret".

Modern philosophers starting with Machiavelli reject the classical view of politics as undemocratic and elitist. Only wealthy men of leisure would have time to develop the virtues and character necessary to rule. Machiavelli believed that man by nature was selfish and driven by ambition. Machiavelli is not interested in character formation and moral appeal but in building the right kind of institutions to govern society. Laws and justice would protect men from power hungry rulers. Modern philosophy is an out growth of the revolution that takes place in the natural sciences during the Enlightenment. The purpose of science is the conquest of nature man is in control of human life. Philosophers from Machiavelli on become sectarian. "Everything good is due to man's labor rather than to nature's gift."

As a retired Army officer and student of political philosophy, I found this to be an indispensable book to continue one's journey into political philosophy and history of Europe.

Professor Wood admits that, in contemporary America, only the most intrepid minds dare question diversity's exalted stature as a cultural ideal. So it should say something Wood's disregard for his own reputation that he has written this book, which assails the ideal of diversity on page by page pace. I will admit that I bought this book hoping to see just this kind of thing-to see a credible author and skilled mind slay diversity in a "public setting." Of course, it's only a public setting if more people read the book.

My own antipathy toward diversity took root during my undergraduate experience at the University of Nebraska, where diversity pervaded official policy, speeches, campus news articles, and student government. Not despising diversity, I merely became irritated with its omnipresence, the way one might tire of a food group if forced to eat it at every sitting. In short, I was unaware of diversity's true malevolence before reading this book. But Wood documents diversity's self-contradictions, its empty thinking, its threat to individualism, its corrosive impact on higher education, and more. In higher education, for instance, Wood attacks race preferences for admission (carried out in the name of diversity) and notes that, at the U. of Michigan, a white applicant to law school scoring between 163-165 on the LSAT and holding a 3.25 GPA has about a 23% chance of being admitted. A minority student with the exact same academic credentials has a 99% chance. I mention this in this review so that the potential reader can get a feel for the content of this book.

Of higher education, Professor Wood also points out how diversity is cleverly used as a two-faced recruitment tool. Diversity is marketed to white American teenagers, Wood says, as a way to escape the social narrowness of their high school experience-as a "romantic mingling" experience with "the other". But diversity is then marketed to minority students as an assurance that they will feel welcome at State U., where increased recruitment of students of color will offer minorities a safe haven from the crush of the predominantly white student body. Fantastic observation, because it's true, and it reveals diversity's opportunistic nature.

Despite diversity's grotesque track record, Wood also realizes why diversity has maintained a near universal following in this country-it seems to command us all to be fair, helpful, open-minded, and above all, to avoid judgment of other people, other beliefs, and other ideas (is that such a good idea?). As Wood argues, despite diversity's more noble exhortations, we as neighbors, citizens, and co-workers can better achieve good will and social betterment if we set aside silly race-based distinctions and look instead at individual merit.

As an example of how holistic Wood's view of diversity is, take one of the early chapters. In it, Wood draws on his experience in anthropology to relate how Americans in the 1800s and early 1900s were avid readers of books and compendiums that provided rich, unabashed descriptions of the world's geographic and cultural diversity. True diversity. He contrasts this bygone interest in the world's people and places with the new diversity, which Wood argues accentuates slight differences between people (black Americans, white Americans, Hispanics, etc.) and asserts, against the evidence, that the differences between us are gigantic. Furthermore, he chastises contemporary Americans for believing themselves to be educated about and sensitive to cultural differences, whereas, these same Americans believe, past generations were parochial, ignorant, and unappreciative of these differences. "It is a sad delusion," he writes.

Although it wasn't the most enjoyable segment in the book, the best work Wood does (from an author's and researcher's point of view) is when he traces the growth of diversity from an LBJ speech through the Supreme Court's Bakke decision through the 1980s and then today. Wood's treatment of the Bakke case is remarkable in its detail, and is sure to startle the reader when one realizes how a marginalized, fringe idea (that there is real, measurable educational value in having a diverse student body), set forth by Justice Lewis Powell, spawned the monster we wrestle with today.

Overall, Wood takes a topic that had great potential to be tedious and academic and turns it into a delightful read that manages to deal with diversity comprehensively and delicately without compromising the reader's interest. Flat-out, this is a great book.

Professor Wood offers a holistic look at this strange new ideology of diversity, particularly in how it has surged from an obscure portion of the Bakke case to an all-encompassing religion for its adherents that continues to encroach on virtually every aspect of public life. His best argument is that diversity, when brought alongside traditional American values of liberty and equality, always seems to trump the latter pair, and we end up forsaking both liberty and our belief in equality to preserve demographiclly correct proportions of essentially manufactured ethnicities.

Wood comes to some strong conclusions, but never commits the near universal sin of hyperbole that currently envelopes both political left and right. That alone should earn him four-and-a-half stars. Anyone interested in a thoughtful, well-researched critque of this concept of diversity need look no further than professor Wood. Please, delete Hannity and O'Reilly from your shopping cart and buy this book first!!!

Diversity is the greatewst lie in america today. What does diveristy claim. It claims, as we learn in this fine read, that diversity is essential to success and understanding and tolerance. THis is actually completely false. Diverse workforces and diverse college campuses dont actually make anything better, in fact they make people less tolerant. Diversity is the ideal of the communist left that says everyone(remmember "workers of the world unite you have nothing to lose but your chains!") is the same and that by mixing us all together in some grand social experiment that we will all be happy. That sad part is that 'diversity' and 'tokenism' really mirrors far more what queen victoria did at her diamond jubille when all the 'oddities of empire' the diverse masses from all over were paraded in front of the aristocracy. This is the truth behind diversity. In fact the liberal would love it if every diverse 'oddity' of humanity could come to college dressed in 'traditional garb' so that we can admire and see them as if they are in some museum. But this doesnt help the 'exotic' people we bring in to diversify ourselves, it actually mkaes them feel more like outcasts. Hiring one Sikh and one Hindu and one Pathan and one Gurka and one Jew for your coproation wont help them, in fact they would all be more productive if they worked with eachother against eachother. The idea that they will become more tolerant is also false. In most racially mixed societies(Brazil, south africa, Israel, Australia, America) the many races hate eachother much more then they did prior to the mixing.

Lets take for example the situation in malaysia when they were building the Petronas Twin Towers. They had Japanese workers building one tower and koreans building the other. The teams hated eachother and competed. If they had been mixed they would have worked slower and they still would have gone to lunch speratly and not 'tolerated' on another. Here is an example where diversity would not have helped in the workforce. Diversity is simply the aristocracies latest social experiment to divide us so that they can keep us all down rather then letting us become tolerant on our own. A great book.

Peter Wood's book is written in an easy-to-read, logical, and well-reasoned fashion. Before earning my master's degree last year, I attended meetings at the university's "Diversity Task Force". I must admit to using some of Peter Wood's same arguments regarding the superficiality and shallowness of the "Task Force" criteria for measuring the diversity of the student body -- It felt like I was banging my head against the wall! I sensed that my white male status was seen as subtracting from the diversity of the student body, regardless of my diverse life experiences. Maybe if I were raised by a pack of wolves? How come this makes so much sense and many other people don't see it? Thank you Peter Wood for this timely book. I wonder if the logic and science will be enough to deprogram any diversiphiles. In my experience, they are close-minded to any argument, regardless of reason, that may disrupt their delusion. I would also like to add that most of the diversiphiles I met are good people who have good intentions; however, we all know the road to hell is paved with good intentions. This book should be required reading for all people who want to improve "diversity".

The thesis of Wood's book can be stated in this way: With relative cultural unity having been achieved in America with the removal of legal barriers to opportunity for minorities, a more recent movement has arisen that seeks to undermine this unity by introducing a new type of "diversity". The former term refers to true diversity between cultures that involves deep and fundamental differences in worldviews that are more often an obstacle to overcome than something to be celebrated. (One example used by Wood is Herman Melville's extended experience with Typee people in the Marquesan Islands.) On the other hand, the new diversity (used in italics by the author) turns superficial distinctions into epochal differences (such as having a college roommate with fake Polynesian tattoos) that, according to the diversophiles, must be retained in the culture at all costs.

This is more than just a silly exercise in treating cultural fads as meaningful differences. Wood describes a two-phase process in which this concept of diversity is a means to a specific end. The first phase (diversity I) stresses hard that people must be defined by a race, even if the minority does not wish to do so, in order to create identifiable "groups" in society. The second phase (diversity II) uses the fiction that diversity of race, gender, sexual preference, etc. is equivalent to diversity of worldview. With this foundation, questions of diversity take on an ominous meaning - when this kind of diversity is emphasized as a policy in the workplace, on campus, or elsewhere, a conflict arises between the interest in selecting the best qualified individual(s) and preserving an overall profile of a workforce or campus population. And when these superficial race, sex, etc. characteristics of a person are given a preference over actual qualifications to do the job, it brings up the same issues of racism that America had been trying to move away from for so long.

An especially helpful passage in Wood's book is his breakdown of the Bakke decision, which upheld the race-preference factor in school admissions process. Justice Powell's opinion for the court made the "diversity" principle a major issue, which was unusual considering that no other justice on either side joined him in this portion of the opinion and that little attention was given to this issue during the case itself.

The bulk of Wood's book then explains how this principle has been applied in most areas of society - the workplace, campus, the arts, etc. The book was published in 2003, but came out before the U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding in part the University of Michigan's use of race-based preferences. However, the book is a valuable resource in describing the problem beyond the immediate political debate.

If you enjoyed Persuasions then you will aslo enjoy Easy Chairs. This is a book for those who are learning to enjoy a challenge. Easy chairs although easy to read is more difficult to follow than persuasions. You will need to stay awake and follow the conversations as they unfold, and really think about the answers being given. I have read this book more than once and I enjoy it each time that I read it.

The premises are those related to reform theology.Mr. Wilson writes that these are questions that he asked as he studied. They are very good questions indeed. The answers are offered in a way that causes the reader to formulate his or her own answer. As an Adult Bible teacher I am pleased to have found this book. Each chapter causes the students to think, evaluate, contemplate and discover Biblical truths without being given easy answers from a teacher at the front of the room.The answers are not always the easy ones given half-heartedly and without serious thought.

I purchased an additional copy for a friend who is deep thinker and she was thrilled with this book. WARNING: If you don't like to think on your own this is not a good book for you.

This is a truly impressive work. It is a penetrating, but yet sufficient simple and "reader friendly" introduction, defense, and reflection upon the doctrines known to many as "Reformed Theology".

Wilson does a fine job of integrating theological ideas into the conversational story he weaves. He relies upon clear and simple analogies and writes in a convincing and effective way.

Highly recommended for those who are seeking to understand (or defend) reformed theology!

I have been able to use this book as a great evangelism tool on numerous occassions. I have been able to lend it to Christians who go to Liberal churches so they can see how they are following short in their reasoning and presumptions of what God requires of man and I have been able to use it with non Christians so they can see clearly how God's eternal plan works in our lives.

Sit down, and pull up a chair. Pour a cup of coffee; we have to talk.

Truth alone, sets us free. Truth is timeless, and is above culture....truth never changes.

This is a solid book. Doug Wilson explains many of the common questions about Calvinism and Reformed thinking (beginning, of course, by stating his reticence to use these terms) in an engaging, informative manner. I have read assorted other books on Calvinism, and Doug Wilson here answers some questions in ways I've never seen them answered before, and gives great analogies to help understand what he's talking about. The whole book is written in a dialogue format, which makes for an occasionally stilted read (there are only so many ways a character can say "I see" or "I don't understand" before it gets kind of old). But overall, I think the format works great, illustrating how down-to-earth these principles are, and following the natural logic when thinking through these things. It's a stellar book.

The book does a very nice job of describing one of the more important, but forgotten, figures in US political history. Smith's role as governor of New York and the various groundbreaking reforms he introduced, his mentorship of various figures from FDR to Robert Moses, and of course being the first Catholic to run for President would be enough to rank him right up there with some of the more widely written about icons of America. When you consider two of his top four advisers were women (this is the 1920's, mind you), his role in building the nation's tallest building at the time, his emergence as a spokesperson for the immigrant masses who became a political force during his era (and the subsequent, seismic shift this caused in the nation's political landscape - he was the first Democrat to lose the Solid South since the Civil War), his being one of the first politicians to speak out against Hitler, and that he did all this without even attending high school, Al not only deserves a high quality biography but perhaps a major motion picture as well. John Cusack in the lead!

The book is occasionally "cheerleady" - superlatives come landing out of left field in the midst of other, more traditional descriptions of events. It is, however, critical and frank in other areas of Smiths career, so it reads in a balanced fashion overall. It is a great read and one that should be read by anyone interested in the US political landscape and how it got to what it is today.

Growing up in New York, it was hard to avoid the name Alfred E. Smith. The huge housing development on the Lower East Side is just one structure that bears his name. But it wasn't until I had read Leon Stein's "Traingle Fire" (for a college paper), when I learned something about the man himself. Later, as another reviewer mentioned, Al Smith was highlighted in the Ric Burns "New York" documentary. Intrigued, I picked up Christopher Finan's "Happy Warrior", which was a very good introduction. However, Professor Robert Slayton's "Empire Statesman: The Rise and Redemption of Al Smith" has completed the picture for me.

Slayton painstakingly examines the complex relationships between Smith and many of the players in his political spectrum, especially FDR. How this contrasts with the simple but deep relationships he had with friends and family is astounding. One of Professor Slayton's main theses--that Smith embodied the best qualities of turn-of-the century immigrant New York--is smoothly argued. For New York, Smith was the right man at the right time. But then Slayton switches gears, with convincing authority, that Smith was the wrong man at wrong time for 1928 America. It is a devestating irony, and grippingly described.

I found the final sections about Smith's reconciliation with FDR and America extremely moving. The entire "Finale" section, including the deaths and funerals of Smith's wife, Katie, and then Smith himself, had me choking back the tears. Finally, there is Professor Slayton's reminder of the legacy that Al Smith left behind, both for New York City and the nation. I cannot recommend this book highly enough.

Rocco Dormarunno
Author of The Five Points

The election of John F. Kennedy to the presidency occurred when I was in the seventh grade of my local parochial school. In the Catholic/Democratic atmosphere of East Buffalo, and probably in Tim Russert's South Buffalo as well, the resulting ascendancy of a Catholic to the White House was a vindication. We knew that a Catholic had run once before; in fact, he had been governor of our own state. The popular wisdom of the Catholic grass roots held that the first intrepid candidate had lost because he was a Catholic, and a lot of America did not like Catholics. It did not occur to a seventh grader that people vote for lots of reasons, and that this was true in 1928 as in 1960.

Alfred E. Smith, a man of no small accomplishment, lost miserably to Herbert Hoover in a 1928 presidential election that added little to the American character. It may be true that his Catholicism was a major factor in his defeat, but biographer Robert A. Slayton provides a balanced study of Smith that gives reason to pause. We see early in this work that Smith [particularly when compared to Hoover] suffered from major deficiencies in his political upbringing that affected his judgment and contributed to a naiveté about the nature of the American electorate.

Born in 1873 in New York's infamous Fourth Ward, there was no way that young Smith would not be baptized into the two religions of his neighborhood: the Roman Catholic Church and Tammany Hall. At his local St. James Parish he received his elementary school education from the Christian Brothers. It is doubtful that he absorbed any particularly subversive tendencies of church and state at St. James. Catholic schools of the time were a laborious financial undertaking for Catholic bishops of the day, who considered them a necessary refuge against the virulent anti-Catholic attitudes of many public school curriculums. What Smith certainly absorbed from his Catholic upbringing was New York's multiculturalism, a phenomenon not understood and generally feared in the predominantly agricultural and Protestant Middle America.

Tammany Hall, one of America's most notorious yet beneficent Democratic political machines, would also demonstrate in Smith's day that same ability to adapt to cultural diversity despite its Irish heritage. Tammany was the incarnation of Tip O'Neill's dictum that "all politics is local." Slayton has no argument with this philosophy except to note that it is notorious bad presidential politics. Thus from the formative years Smith emerges as the Catholic/Tammany wounded duck.

But Smith postponed his inevitable denouement for a long time. For much of his life his personality, loyalty, affability and attention to detail, not to mention his "made man" status with the Tammany war horses, were enough to see him through his political climb. Despite its size and stature, New York State government was Byzantine and unwieldy. The legislature itself was a purgatory for a man without some kind of particular agenda, and Smith found his in the very organization of state government. With little to do, he became that body's best studied member and probably the best informed of the lot; he had something of Bob Taft's feel for the paper of legislation but with a much more extroverted personality. His counsel became cherished and his respect among his peers flourished.

And, he was lucky, though it is also true that men can make their own luck through hard work. On March 25, 1911 a fire at the Triangle Shirtwaist Company Fire in New York killed 146 workers. The dimensions of this tragedy and the accompanying neglect of worker safety made labor reform a statewide issue, allowing Smith to conduct emotional public hearings throughout the state. This exposure, and his public advocacy for a popular issue, put him into the New York State governor's mansion in 1919. With the invaluable help of Belle Moskowitz, Frances Perkins, and Robert Moses, among others, Smith continued his program of reform of the state constitution and generally pleased voters enough to maintain office more often than not in the dreadful decade of 1920's national Democratic defeats.

When William McAdoo declined to seek the presidential nomination in 1928, Governor Smith was virtually unopposed within his party. Suffice to say that once he stepped onto the national stage, however, all of his assets of many years became liabilities. His New York bonhomie, his Catholicism, his parochial accent, and his enjoyment of spirits in the age of the Volstead Act doomed his campaign from the start. He was running against the extremely popular Coolidge legacy, against a candidate who knew how to avoid mistakes. To borrow a metaphor from this century, the "red states" were really red, and there were many more of them in 1928.

Having said that, there is no denying that the 1928 campaign set the twentieth century low water mark for bigotry and ugliness. Slayton points out that the KKK of the 1920's was primarily an anti-Catholic movement; Jim Crow laws made Negro intimidation relatively unnecessary at the time. Catholicism was understood as a foreign invasion of lower class degenerates who drank excessively and usurped the jobs of present American citizens. The Democratic ticket was seen as an endorsement of this demographic shift, and voters turned upon the top of the ticket with a particular vehemence. Smith's parochialism had not prepared him for this, and the intensity of feeling against him, along with the size of the defeat, seems to have left psychological scars that remained with Smith for the rest of his life.

After this grueling ordeal, it galled Smith all the more that the perceived savior of his party was a man he considered a political lightweight, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. As long as FDR lived, Smith would never get his electoral revenge. Coupled with the debacle of managing the day's tallest white elephant, the new Empire State Building, Smith's "redemption" makes only a cameo appearance in this work.

there is a largely-forgotten statue of al smith on the lower east side at the corner of monroe & catherine streets, but i like to think of the empire state building as the true monument to al smith. at the time perhaps the building was a financial failure, but it was simultaneously a symbol of hope even during the depression when it was being built. only a man like al smith had the vision to help create a monument of such optimism during such bleak times - but more importantly, he did so with the intention of providing a symbol of hope to his fellow nyers. (a symbol, i might add, that has renewed importance in post-9/11 ny.)

i appreciate & love the fact that reading lists in nyc have been expanded to include the writings & histories of all the races & creeds & cultures that have come to nyc. but as a white, working-class, catholic nyer, i have noticed a real lack of identity awareness or cultural heritage. this biography of al smith fills that void: by presenting al smith and his beliefs, it not only describes the immigrant experience of catholics at the turn of the century, but shows too how great men like al smith were key in helping the various catholic immigrant groups (irish, italian, polish, etc) to become mainstream, integrated americans in this formerly predominantly-protestant country. the anti-catholic impulse in america is largely forgotten, & in fact it is also forgotten that there was a time when white catholic americans were certainly not considered part of the white ruling class.

in addition, i love the fact that al smith's life & legacy point to another subculture: the progressive catholics. this term is not an oxymoron; at one point in american history, catholics were on the frontlines of many progessive agendas. this book provides an insight into a church that might have been.

i strongly recommend this book to anyone interested in american history or politics, but moreso to anyone who wants to examine the relationship of ny to the rest of america or how the aspects of class and religion (& not just race) influenced the poltical and cultural climate of america in the 20th century.

al smith was a hero of the working class, a hero of immigrant groups, a hero for catholics, for liberals, for new deal democrats, and ultimately for all americans. it is a shame that most people - even nyers - don't even know his name. this book is a huge step toward remedying that tragedy.

very highly recommended!

In his short 1958 study of Al Smith, Oscar Handlin noted that "[t]he written word did not come as easily to Al Smith as the spoken word." Because of this, there it no great body of correspondence or private papers for Smith biographers to consult, ultimately hampering any effort to understand "the Happy Warrior." In this respect, Robert Slayton's book stands as a major achievement. Having conducted extensive archival research and interviewed the children and grandchildren of many of the key figures, he presents what is the most thoroughly researched work on Smith that we are likely to have, and easily the most definitive one currently available.

Slayton uses this material to present a compelling interpretive portrait of his subject. Tracing his idealistic, even naive view of America to his upbringing, Slayton argues that Smith never grew beyond viewing the world through the prism of the lower East Side. This was not a problem in the context of New York state politics, where he rode the crest of a wave of change in the state, one which brought him into the governor's office as the first holder representing the urban immigrants who were to plan an increasingly important role in politics during the twentieth century. When Smith ventured onto the national stage in 1928, however, his naivete about America's essential decency and tolerance crashed up against the prejudices of an America still dominated culturally by rural Protestant values. Slayton sees Smith's defeat as a decisive event transforming his character, leaving a streak of bitterness that only grew as he saw Franklin Roosevelt - a man he dismissed as his political junior - capture the prize that Smith would never obtain.

Yet for all of its strengths of research and analysis, Slayton's book suffers is in its writing. Throughout much of the book Slayton peppers his text with unnecessary slang, and at points such as when he is discussing Tammany or Smith's old neighborhood he adopts a more casual, colloquial tone. The effort jars with the more readable narrative of the rest of the text, appearing as if he were attempting to evoke the conversational style with which Smith was most comfortable. Instead of appearing atmospheric and creative, however, it comes across as amateurish and ham-handed, hobbling rather than helping the rest of the work.

These compositional gaffes can distract from the overall quality of this book. Slayton as provided a biography of Smith filled with insight into his character and his times. It is a book, however, that doesn't quite embody the legendary nature of this political figure, who dominated Democratic politics in the 1920s and who heralded many of the changes that America would undergo. Until the book that can capture this is written, Slayton's biography is the best work available for anyone seeking to understand this fascinating individual.