Politics Books

Tony Collings writes stories of courageous men and women who are fighting to bring the truth to their readers. Collings writes from the vantage point of an international correspondent who has risked his own life to cover world danger spots. This book should be read by anyone who values a free press.

For the American layperson who may not be familiar with the dangerous situations and murky but volatile undercurrents journalists often face in foreign trouble spots, Tony Collings book "Words of Fire" will be revealing in its accounts of journalists who have given much--even their lives--to the cause of truth and democratic ideals. As an international journalist himself, Collings knows well of what he writes. This work might even raise the level of regard in which journalists are held as defenders of the people's right to know. Here Collings is talking about the important issues shaping the growth and development of any of a myriad countries, not the latest American fad-gossip which passes for "news" on tabloid TV in the U.S. For the professional journalist with overseas experience--and I include myself in that category with friend and former CNN colleague Tony Collings--I found his work well researched, well written and a good account of what is the best in our craft.

At a time when print journalism has often been justly criticized in the U.S. as medium of entertainment, without independent moral backbone, Tony Collings has written a moving, brilliant record of the deadly struggle between a free press and totalitarian goverments around the globe. Collings is an experienced broadcast journalist and an eye-witness to much of the corruption and terror hidden and sustained by censorship everywhere, from Russia to Columbia. He argues that press freedom is an essential and enabling condition for the expansion of democratic reform in reactionary regimes. But perhaps what is most moving about WORDS OF FIRE is the many true stories of personal courage, the harrowing dangers faced by journalists in our historical era as they attempt to unmask the face of tyranny with only the truth of their words.

Author Anthony Collings knows how to bring this vital topic alive. In the USA, we take press freedom for granted. If anything, some of us feel there's too much of it about: we often sympathize with Hollywood stars who punch out swarming paparazzi. But in much of the world (and not just the kleptocracies and one-party regimes), simply getting the basic truth to press can be a career-ending or even life-threatening endeavor. Collings wisely decides to illustrate this by focussing on individual cases, many of which will astound you. This is an important book on an important subject.

At a time when print journalism has often been justly criticized in the U.S. as medium of entertainment, without independent moral backbone, Tony Collings has written a moving, brilliant record of the deadly struggle between a free press and totalitarian goverments around the globe. Collings is an experienced broadcast journalist and an eye-witness to much of the corruption and terror hidden and sustained by censorship everywhere, from Russia to Columbia. He argues that press freedom is an essential and enabling condition for the expansion of democratic reform in reactionary regimes. But perhaps what is most moving about WORDS OF FIRE is the many true stories of personal courage, the harrowing dangers faced by journalists in our historical era as they attempt to unmask the face of tyranny with only the truth of their words.

I was one of those kids in Southwood. Wow does this book bring it back and now it all makes sense to me.

Christy Scheck did not have to die. The mental health system is getting better but there is so far to go. Especially in the eyes of the public. People with mental illness are not lepers, they just need medicine as a diabetic needs insulin. The general public is so ill-informed. This book is about this young girl who got caught up in the protocol of management and money and greed, and she did not have to die. There is hope and with movies like A Beautiful Mind and Girl, Interrupted and others, like Mike Wallace and Kim Basinger to bring mental health to the forefront of society, it will not hide behind the doors any longer, and will be dealt with in the dignified manner it deserves.

It's amazing and truly sad what greed and money does to people, at the expense of someone else's life and a families happiness.

i read an article in Roling stone.. it in first paragraph stated the parents took this kid out of soccer coed... or something of that nature.. mostlikely the parents have all to do more with the death as much as the hospitals who take advantage .
i happend to be a honors student in art school no drugs or alchol and recovering frm bulima when my father intended to keep me from school by trying to tell a doctor iwas ill.despite he was told to leave me alone .. the next fifteen years of my life were draged into hospitals on lies and hysteria. i was subject to for no reason .. ect. and drugs and i had nt even suffered depression i was a higly educated and adjsuted happy person till my father began to do this.. he admitted this to but not to doctors my father was a md so it was easy to get away with this . my fahter was also a food aholic and gamblerand sick.. see a movie called terror in the family it goes into the lies parents tell of children and who realy is the sick person...
my life was destroyed by these places and i saw first hand what goes on and parents who realy need the places not kids who ar exposed to sick families dysfunction who are basicly reacting to an illness.....
they realy need to have the parents admitted along side the kid id they do this ...
i was kept sick for 115 years and negelcted of anything i said that would have saved me . as a reslut my life suffered ill from truama.... i saved my own life when i escaped this cycle of doctors looking for insurance. butthe effects of damge it left on my life eventuly despite i live about four to five years very happy super healty like i was before this happened i will now die from thethings that were done to me inthe years i was [mistreated] by this system.....
parents have all todo with this kids death .. if they were functional parents they would not need a shrink . they mighttry communcation and being honest with them self.. somewhere they failed and it is not just the system...

Kafka lives and her name is Leon Bing. But the truly scary thing is that Bing's report on society - "A Wrongful Death: One Child's Fatal Encounter with Public Health and Private Greed" - is NON-FICTION. This could happen to any troubled teen - and it did. But what's even more interesting than how and why this 13 year old girl committed suicide while under professional medical care is how and why this book isn't getting reviewed! Attention authors and investigative journalists everywhere: you may have a story worthy of a Pulitzer or Nobel Prize - but how's it going to effect change if no one reads it?

Thank you, thank you for a "woman's perspective on Y2K. It was such an encouragement to learn that there are lots of other women who are frustrated by their husband's cavalier attitude at what could be a significant problem. Fortunately, my husband has started reading it and says that "maybe she has a point . . ." He really is taking it serious now since "60 Minutes" said it could be bad. The recent segment they ran solidified what Karen and other Y2K writers have been saying about this impending crisis.

Thank you for a well-written and helpful resource.

Karen Anderson does an excellent job of explaining Y2K in simple terms. It is easy to understand. And so practical!

Karen Anderson is probably the best-informed source for preparing for possible Y2K disruptions at home. While some are now saying that Y2K will be no big deal, the fact is, no one really knows what will happen. Many Y2K-knowledgeable people are saying we all need to be prepared in case normal life, with electricity and water on demand, etc., is disrupted for a time. Even Y2K expert Peter de Jager, who now says "we have broken the back of Y2K," still recommends preparing for one month of disruptions, just in case. Anderson's book will tell you everything you need to know about getting ready at home. She even recommends gathering a little extra, to share with those who may be unable to prepare ahead of time, in the spirit of community preparedness. I recommend this book highly.

I bought this book about a month ago and followed everything the book said.It will take awhile but I believe I will be prepared for Y2K.I took all of my husbands money to buy a power generator.I have been burying food in the backyard.I bought 30 sf freezer and have filled it with Bird Pies.I plan on going out and buying 6 months supply of drinking water next week.I know we are facing armaggedon but with the help of this great book,I think we will be one of the few survivors.

Whether or not the Y2K Millenium Bug turns out to be a frightening fact or fabulous fizzle, emergency preparedness is a topic that everyone should investigate -- especially families with children at home. You never know when sudden financial down turns could make food purchasing difficult, or a severe winter storm could keep your family confined to home for an extended period of time, or even an earthquake could cause the need for emergency essentials on hand. While I'm not sure what I personally feel about the outcome of the Y2K computer problem, I do see the common sense idea of family preparedness to be a good approach for anyone to seriously consider. Having a well-stocked rotating pantry that's replenished from items purchased in bulk and on sale is also a great way to save money on your family's regular expenses (Y2K or not!). I appreciated the author's detailed list of suggestions for items to store ahead (whether you're planning a storage system to last for one week, six months, or a full year+).

I thought this book was pretty good, although I didn't learn as much as I thought I would. What I did learn was all very frightening indeed.

The reason I didn't give this 5 stars isn't because I didn't learn something from every censored story, but rather that I felt there was a strong bias in this book. Clinton and Carter get off very easily, when compared to Reagan and Bush, who are attacked for verything they do. It's not that I believe they did nothing wrong, but I'm sure that Clinton and Carter weren't nearly as honest and forthright as this book makes them seem (in comparison to the Republican presidents).

You ever wonder if you are reading every news story or if some of the stories never make it to the paper? Do you ever wonder what you might be missing? Grab a copy of 20 Years of censored news and you'll be in for a surprise.

Carl Jensen takes you down the last twenty years with major headlines that were never seen. I was surprised and a little scared to think of what is held back from the public. I was amazed to see what was never told.

Proving the old adage "It's the media that control the people's thinking." This book certainly should wake you up to the fact that what you see isn't really what you get, because you get very little from the press.

I took just over two hours to complete the reading and I am very excited to read Censored 1999, to find out what I missed for the year. Overall this book will make a great gift for just about everyone - well done!

Never heard of East Timor until a few weeks ago? Well, you would have if the other news stories about East Timor over that past few years had made it into the mainstream news!

This book made me realize just how bad the situation is out there in the media. How controlled by corporate PR and government intervention our supposedly "free" media is. How could this happen in the United States of America?

I highly recommend this book to citizens who want to be better informed.

The news stories suppressed by Ronald Reagan (and his "administration") alone tell a horrifying story of how a politician tried to ram his agenda down our throats, without our knowing about it, so that we couldn't dissent or have opinions. And how he tried to censor everything he could, so the American public couldn't get any information about anything the government was doing.(Read Ch. 7, 1982, #6 "Ronald Reagan: America's Chief Censor".) There are also a multitude of stories censored by trans-global corporations what will scare you to death when you read them. What corporations will perpetrate on the public's health, just to continue making a buck, will shock you.

The orignial news stories are covered in summary form, the sources are cited, and there is usually an Update on what has happened since. Sometimes the update is more harrowing than the original!

It is your civic duty to read this book.

There is nothing more important to Freedom than a free, unbiased exchange of ideas. I now have a better idea of how "un-free" I am. Through reading this book, several layers of ignorance have been stripped away from my consciousness.

This is a scholarly, thoughtful dissertation encompassing not only issues of monopolization of the American press by huge multinational corporations, but many other issues ignored by mainstream media: environmentalism, nuclear power, government surveillance and other infringements on the civil rights of the world's citizens. This book is an essential collection of modern history so carefully hidden from the vast majority of Americans.

This is a great read. There are a great variety of stories (discounting the author's obsession with nuclear power) that should pique anyone's interest. Each of the year's stories provides interesting insights on what really happened that year (I found particularly enlightening the stories on the corporations, rich elite, and media empires that really rule American). This is a rare book that should be read by anyone who wants to be informed on current events. Rarely does such an important book come cloaked in such a simple cover.

You should read the book before this by Schwieckart titled Against Capitalism where is destroys any justification for capitalism and rips Mises' comment idea a new one. This book is just a shortened version as he states in the introduction. He criticizes every economic system predating the book. Both socialism and capitalism.

Though perhaps it significantly skewed my views to have been reading Schweickart following a close and careful reading of both Friedman's Capitalism & Freedom and Rawls' Theory of Justice, I feel that not only aided me tremendously in my understanding of the overall flow and goal of the text, but additionally, the overall experience gave me sufficient background in economics and the political interactions of economic theory, to properly appreciate the aims of the text. Many criticisms have been raised against both Friedman and Rawls and I count my own voice amongst those that would offer the critique of necessary but insufficient to both texts based on my limited but careful exposure to them. By this I mean that in reading both previous texts I was struck with the thought that although both theories are needed at least on a purely theoretical basis to provide a jumping off point for further socioeconomic exploration, neither sufficiently brings forth a theory that can be said to at once be necessary to our continuation in culture (and note that by this I mean the sort of culture to which we have grown accustomed), and at the same time be sufficient to meet the needs of a production and workable model of economic policy.
Schweickart, very much on the other hand of the discussion, seems to bring forth a theory that is both necessary and sufficient, both in providing a basis for understanding its own purpose and for meeting the needs of a culture that is heavily imbued in a single system that must be equaled or exceeded to be replaced. To my way of seeing, this system provides a basis for understanding its own purpose in that unlike Friedman and Rawls, Schweickart's system is not merely a position piece describing the merits of a system already extant (capitalism), or the creation of a theory that will help us to justify aspects of that system; rather, it is a complete system unto itself, at once a response to the existing system, while standing on it's own independent of said system and then becoming and remaining recognizable as a unique approach to socioeconomic aspects of government that instead of merely flowing behind existing structure, is itself the basis forming the structure that will arise out of it. I feel that, as I stated above, this system meets the needs of the culture to which it would be applied by replacing the existing system, not merely modifying or justifying the current one. We have in this text something simply not found in the other two and that is a presentation of a possibility that has existed all along, coming to fruition by being read now in an age of understanding, by individuals capable of taking the theories presented and applying them to actuality and not simply as a ponderable aspect of economic and political interest. This is the point that struck me most plainly about Schweickart's text that seems so vastly different if not blatantly superior to many other writings either in philosophy, or from my limited exposure to them, economics, and that is the actual applicability of the text and, building off that, the ease with which a transition could be made into such as system and the clear benefits of doing so are made remarkable clear without having to imagine anything besides the benefits to be gained and the struggle to be avoided.
Now, I realize, and it's necessary for this critique to understand that the goal of Schweickart indeed may not have been the goal of either Friedman or Rawls, but I additionally feel it to be of great import that while both previous texts made claims to improve conditions of our social reality through impacting an economic change, neither before Schweickart had either shown their theory capable of performing such a feat, or had the components in place to succeed in doing so. With Friedman the reader is asked to assume a version of an economic model that today hardly seems viable in the face of the massive structure and paradigm shifts that have occurred since it was penned. Likewise in Rawls, the reader is asked to assume a great deal not only about the world in which we live in terms of its actual workings and processes, but also to assume an unlikely if not impossible and implausible original position, and for the goal only of justifying a current system that has already been shown to be insufficient, leaving one wondering what the point in fact was and what impact it truly makes other than providing for a theoretical basis and thought experiment. In Schweickart, the reader is not asked to assume this or that, and no original position is called for, as the system argued against is that which is in place and the flaws are not only seen but felt by the reader as actuality, and not as some wild fiscal figment as in the previous two texts. We see the problem, and perhaps what we previously perceived to be a degree of inevitability, already in our daily lives and Schweickart brings forth an alternative that while not nearly as convoluted as either Freidman or Rawls is nonetheless exponentially more efficacious in theory and infinitely more believable without the crutch of assumption leaned on by his predecessors.
I enjoyed reading this book and while as I wrote above I felt that the texts read previously were necessary for a clearer understanding of this one, it was not until this point that I understood why they were read when this was out there to tie it all together.

I am very impressed with After Capitalism by Loyola University Professor David Schweickart. Both of my grandfathers were socialists and my father was a member of the Socialist Labor Party. When I grew up I was not merely indoctrinated in socialism I was marinated in it. Despite all of this I never really was given a plausible explanation how a socialist economy was supposed to work, or a plausible explanation how our society could make the transition from our very mature form of industrial capitalism to a socialist economy. After Capitalism provides a plausible explanation for both.

Interesting alternative to the current economic system. The book "After Capitalism" is not a technical book, but does flesh out enough of the economic system invisioned by Schweickart to make it worth reading and thinking about. Is there "no alternative" to capitalism? I am still not sure, but read this book and find out for your self. According to Mises, socialism cannot work, and this really must be the case with Schweikart, but I am not sure I could articulate a proof.
Also read "The Machinery of Freedom" by David Freidman, for another alternative: the real free market.

I just want to add my voice to those who have lauded this book. It is superb in every way. Also, I want to call attention to Morris Berman's work, especially to his last two books, "Wandering God," and "The Twilight of American Culture", which provide important supplements to Schweickart's analysis.

Chossudovski has gathered a tremendous body of literature to make his case against America's mythological war on terrorism.
Creating a myth is essential to manufacture consent and unity. Fear is more essential to manipulate the herd and take away their natural rights. Chossudovsky elucidates America's war on terrorism with overwhelming evidence that would leave the reader angry and flabbergasted.
This book is a must read for every citizen who is concerned about his country's affairs, and for every critical thinker who cares about the truth.

Michel Chossudovsky's ultimate goal is to serve World peace by revealing extensive war crimes behind the `War on Terror'. His picture of the world and the US is far from rosy. For him, the `War on Terror' is in fact a `War of Conquest'.
This is a very convincing but disturbing book pointing to the criminalization of upper echelons of the US State with the complicity of the media, which upholds the Bush administration's war agenda, camouflages war crimes, floods the world with blatantly distorted facts and disseminates fear amongst the population.
For the author, the US is on the brink of becoming an authoritarian state. Key decisions are taken behind closed doors at the intelligence headquarters and the Pentagon, with the US Congress as a façade and a president as a public relations figurehead. The military/intelligence establishment acts as a parallel government.
The `War on Terror' is used for the repeal of civil liberties and Constitutional government. New legitimacy emerged that undermines the judicial system (`Rule of Law') and that lays the foundation of a totalitarian state: emergency procedures can be used to usher Martial Law, leading to the suspension of Constitutional government.
In the US national budget, state resources are redirected towards financing the military-industrial complex and domestic security, while social programs have been slashed.

Internationally, the `War on Terror' is a pretext to conquer new economic frontiers, establish corporate controls (e.g. Iraq's oil), to encircle Russia (permanent military bases in the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan and in former USSR republics) or to prevent pipeline ventures with China and Iran.
The US continues to support Islamic fundamentalism (India, China, Chechnya) in order to weaken `enemies', or to disarm social movements against the US (e.g. with the Taliban they try to create a new Saudi Arabia in Afghanistan where the leader of the Northern Alliance backed by Russia, was killed).
Al Qaeda was heavily supported by the CIA and NATO in order to destabilize the Yugoslav federation.

With `private wealth is in fewer and fewer hands', the author sees an upcoming world dominated by big corporations (finance, energy, pharma) and the military/intelligence establishment with the media as their mouthpiece.

The author concludes with very disturbing facts about the London bombings which provided a new legitimacy to those who had ordered the illegal invasion of Iraq and which weakened significantly the antiwar and civil rights movements.

Michel Chossudovsky has written a dark and frightening book.
It is a must read for all those interested in the future of mankind.

I also recommend the works of W.G. Tarpley, W. Engdahl and N.M. Ahmed.

Many of the facts mentioned in the book I knew already, but it was for the first time when my conclusions and assumptions were supported by facts, names and figures.

Chossudovsky is an economics professor and a staunch critic of the New World Order agenda and the ongoing lies and war profiteering connected to that agenda. This book is a well-documented analysis of how the imperial racketeers operate, with an extensive deconstruction of the official mythology of the 9/11 attacks. Chossudovsky makes a solid case that elements with the US Government and the associated military-industrial complex were involved in orchestrating the attacks, using their CIA-created Arab assets as patsies for the official story used to justify the planned wars and freedom repressing legislations such as the PATRIOT Act. Chossudovsky traces the workings of U.S. intelligence operations and policies for many years, showing how the idea that 9/11 was a "make it happen on purpose" affair is most logical and best supported by the evidence. He looks at the long term agenda being pursued and how it will affect us if it continues unchecked. This isn't a difficult book to read and comprehend but it may be difficult for those who have held faith in the government and media establishment to digest. Chossudovsky has studied this subject well and his materials have been available at www.globalresearch.ca for several years. Anyone wishing to learn about the topics of 9/11, American imperialism, and the role of wars in the move toward globalization, is encouraged to read this book.

Michel Chossudovsky has been one of my favorite writers on issues like globalization and the bogus "war o'terror" for some time now. He elegantly documents his meticulous research simply and without sensationalized embellishment. Unlike many other writers, Chossudovsky isn't attempting to entertain you or sell books; rather, he is delineating critical information in a lucid and precise fashion that will make sense for even the most casual reader.

While I personally didn't necessarily glean a great deal of strikingly new information of which I wasn't at least partially previously aware, this book certainly helped me to put the puzzle pieces together and frame a better glimpse of the larger picture, outside of the perception management. It was nice to see this volume tie up loose ends and illustrate a time line of sorts. This is an especially great book for a new student of this topic.

Loehr provides clarity in a time when confusion and dupilicty seem to be the weapons of choice by those that are presently waging war on our
cultural, religious and politcal system.

With the minimum of words, Rev. Loehr has managed to describe such topics as fascism in America in a way that gives urgency for decent people to stand and be counted. The barbarians within our own culture are making their move.

I first heard Davidson speak when he was the interim minister at Unity-Unitarian church in St Paul. My wife and I were looking for (and found) a great community there, due in no small part to Mr Loehr's sermons. It was there that I heard his sermon "The Dark God Of Capitalism," an updated version of which is included in the book.

If you have ever felt that something was "wrong" in America but couldn't quite put your finger on "it," or put "it" into words, then you want to read "America, Fascism, And God." Don't let words like "god" and "religion" scare you off. You don't have to be worried that Davidson might be trying to "convert" you (although you might want him to be president after reading his book, I'd settle on him becoming more widely known and read). This is a book that reinforces your reactive intuition and encourages independent thought.

"America, Fascism, And God" should be in the back pocket of ever member of the House and Senate as well as everyone of voting age in the U$A, especially all those who don't vote. I bought and distributed six copies to friends (thanks to amazon).

This is among the best, and also among the most distressing and depressing books I have ever read on what's wrong with America today. Probably because the author is a minister, he somehow manages to maintain some degree of optimism in the face of his own devastating analyses, but I find his pale faith to be cold comfort in the face of what he describes: a country that has ALREADY been taken over by Christo-fascists intent on ramming their religion and morality down everyone else's throats.

Unless you're a dedicated Unitarian-Universalist, you could easily skip Part I, entitled "God," and go directly to the sections on Fascism and America, where there are so many wonderful insights, expressed in such direct, easily-grasped, and striking language, that I felt like underlining just about every sentence!

Just as chilling as Loehr's insights about the goals of fundamentalist religion are his observations about corporate America's "long and patient campaign to gain control of government," and its recent, near-total success. He notes that this take-over goes far beyond any attempt to widen the gap between the upper and lower classes: it's a campaign to "separate the top 1 percent from all below them."

Although Loehr occasionally touches on the issue of the role played by sexual attitudes in fueling the culture wars, he doesn't pursue that insight sufficiently. He notes the hatred of men like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson toward "liberated women, abortion, and homosexuality," without taking note that this attitude-- this seething envy and hatred of anyone suspected of having sex for any reason other than the joyless "duty" of procreation-- underlies the whole fundamentalist agenda. Their opposition to abortion isn't about saving poor little helpless fetuses; it's about punishing women for having sex for any reason other than having children. If they were REALLY "pro-life," they wouldn't be such avid supporters of slaughtering everyone who gets in the way of America's imperialistic ambitions.

Despite my minor reservations, I consider this a brilliant book that should reach a much larger audience than--alas-- it will. As with all such books, it's a case of preaching to the choir. Those who read it will be those who already agree with Loehr, and those who most need to read it will ignore it.

I received this as a Christmas present and will admit that I have not yet completed the entire book.

This is an amazing book with very clear,concise, and compelling messages (say that 10 times fast). It has made me think twice about the way I live my life even though I consider myself to be a liberal.

The other wonderful part is that he provides the other books/authors that informed various sermons so that you can read in more detail the topics he discusses.

Not a book for the faint of heart because he really challenges your views so come prepared.

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM: AN ENCYCLOPEDIA is essential college-level reading for any interested in the history, philosophy and politics of the American conservative movement: contributions from over two hundred leading scholars pack a weighty reader which blends biography with concepts and history in over six hundred entries. College level holdings strong in social science should consider this 'bible' a must-have reference: from Lord Acton to William F. Rickenbacker, cross-comparisons between theorists and their works make for an essential reference.

Diane C. Donovan
California Bookwatch

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM: AN ENCYCLOPEDIA is a monumental resource for anyone wishing to delve into the evolution of what I would term as "modern" conservatism. By that I mean, this is not a history of conservatism, dating back to its origins in American politics, but is rather a study of conservatism of the last thirty or so years. For me, that is this books only shortcoming.

I would have loved to have seen the editors trace conservatism back to such statesmen as John Taylor of Caroline, whose "New Views of the Constitution" truly expresses the origin of conservative thought in America and still exemplifies true conservative principles far more so than today's rather diluted version, but such was not the case. That is not to say there is not much to glean from this massive volume.

Heavily laden in today's climate of political discourse and polarization, too many people unfairly equate conservatism and liberalism with party politics. Perhaps to some degree, there is some validity to placing conservatism in the same pot as the Republican Party, and certainly even greater logic in placing liberalism squarely in the hands of Democrats, but then along comes a politician like Zell Miller (D) or John McCain (R) and that whole theory goes out the window. The premise of this book, however, is not to assign a label, but rather to insight to the people, concepts and ideals that make up the crux of the modern conservative movement.

Constructed in encyclopedic fashion alphabetically from abortion to Zoll, and everything in between, the book is laden with pillars of modern conservatism from scholars, politicos, activists, authors and more. The book seems adequately geared not only to conservatives seeking to better define themselves but also to anyone open minded enough to absorb the evidential presentation and advance their own conclusions as to valid and judicious modern application.

This book is highly worthy for what the editors surely envisioned, but it is not a history of conservatism. If that is your target, this one is off that mark.

Monty Rainey
[...]

~American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia~ is an insightful encyclopedic compendium offering a survey of the American conservative movement and its diverse elements. The publisher Intercollegiate Studies Institute makes it clear that the focus is upon a distinctively American conservative movement, particularly in its postwar mold following the Depression and World War II. This insightful reference book covers a litany of iconic personalities, people, events, organizations, and concepts of major importance to the American conservative movement. One thing ISI does surprisingly well is achieve a balance while allowing for a profile of an older traditional conservative thought. In the twentieth century, the political fortunes of conservatism are too often measured merely by the successes of the Republican Party. This encyclopedic reference, however, points readers to a diverse, broad conservative movement within the United States. To many outsiders, the conservative movement suffers from a crisis of identity as avowed neoconservatives, paleoconservatives, traditionalists, libertarians, and those who simply call themselves "conservatives," cling to the conservative movement. However, as this encyclopedia makes clear, the diversity of the movement is its strength, and the ensuing debates between its varied elements, has contributed to the advancement of the nation. The American conservative movement will perhaps allow for a brighter future for ordered liberty, a renewed culture and a more vibrant civil society. Herein, this volume, the student finds an erudite window into that American conservative movement. Understanding the movement, its history, and its impact, is integral to sustaining its impact on society for the better in the twenty-first century.

This powerful tome features articles from one of my former professors Dr. S.A. Samson as well.

In this highly interesting and informative book, the reader will be introduced to the main currents in conservative thought, and in a manner that is objective and with only a few exceptions free from an excess of bias. There are many names and ideas associated to American conservatism, and readers may find that they hold much more in common with it than they might have first realized. Its history and content have been tarnished greatly in recent years, due mostly to the popularity of `neoconservatism' (which is discussed in the book), and the current regime in Washington. This book will hopefully assist in putting conservative thought into its proper perspective, and illustrate to the uninitiated reader its great diversity in ideas. The average reader will probably not read every article in the book, but will instead concentrate on those of interest. There is a fair representation of the major (and minor) philosophical trends that have dominated American conservatism, along with those that have or are losing credence.

By far the best article in the book is the one entitled `Liberalism' and written by Peter Augustine Lawler. In spite of its length, it gives a fair and interesting overview of what constitutes liberal thought and some of its intersections with conservative thinking. It is a refreshing alternative to the vituperation that so frequently occurs in discussions of liberal philosophy. The author does refer to `liberalism' as being `elitist' but this is put in the context of its belief that individuals must be liberated from religion, morality, and other traditional beliefs in order to become fully human. In this sense it is `elitist' in that it makes special and frequently exclusive claims to knowledge about what it means to be fully human. Also interesting (and it is fair to say accurate) is the author's statement that American liberalism has been a mixture of conservatism and liberalism. There is fairly good evidence that suggests even more so, namely that liberals have actually switched places with conservatives in recent decades. Both liberals and conservatives will deny this vociferously of course, but the conservative thought of George Will, who is also included in the book, is a good example of this crossover effect, with his notion of "statecraft through soulcraft", which sounds suspiciously like the belief from liberalism that governmental institutions should be used to promote beneficial social change. The next article entitled `Liberalism, Classical' offers more insight into the nature and philosophy of liberalism, and in fact reinforces this `crossover' effect between the liberal and conservative camps, albeit in a much longer time scale (on the order of a few centuries rather than decades).

It is very surprising to see an article on Ayn Rand appear in this book, given that she chose to distance herself from `conservative' thought throughout her lifetime. She also despised `Whittaker Chambers' due to his extremely negative review of one of her novels. But an article on Whittaker Chambers of course appears in this book. The ideological distance between Chambers and Rand is infinite but they find themselves in close proximity in this book, separated only by a little over six hundred pages. They both are no doubt turning over in their graves over this inclusion, but if the truth be told, Rand does qualify as being a conservative, if one thinks of libertarianism as an element of conservative thought (as it is in this book, having an entire article devoted to its elucidation). Rand's atheism is no doubt one of her most annoying features, but ironically, the renowned Sidney Hook, who is also included in this book, and who was mentor to Leonard Piekoff, Rand's designated heir, was also an atheist. His atheism was apparently excused however, due possibly to his strong anti-communist stance (but Rand was strongly anti-communist?). Edward S. Shapiro, who wrote the article on Hook in the book, is careful to note that Hook did not believe in the "goodness of mankind", and it is fair to say that most conservatives consider it naive or misguided to believe otherwise. They stumble greatly here though, since statistically most people throughout history have conducted themselves honorably, even if measured by a conservative yardstick. To believe in the "goodness of mankind" is to accept the overwhelming evidence supporting the belief.

Conservatives though, it might be fair to say, have had some difficulties with empirical reasoning, and this is especially true in the scientific realm. This is brought out to some degree in the article entitled "Science and Scientism" by M.D. Aeschliman. Scientific and technological progress is at odds with most conservative thought, due to the latter's anathema for change. Most of the article concerns the effect of "scientism" on the individual person in that it negates purpose and meaning. C.S. Lewis (who is also written about in the book) is quoted in this article as support for the alienating effects of scientism, and its capacity for the "abolition of man." But interestingly, the area of science that studies human behavior and its connection with the brain, namely neuroscience, seems to support to some degree conservative thought, due to its contention that thought patterns via neuronal processes are heavily influenced by cultural inputs and are difficult to change once they are learned. On the other hand, neuroscience, and science in general, has learned to live without the concept of a soul, and even some research circles in neuroscience have given up even the notion of free will and personal identity. These two notions are hard for conservatives (and liberals) to give up, with the prospect of doing so even considered extremely frightening. The scientific doctrine of evolution is also of great concern to conservatives, as one will notice in the articles in the book, one being on the Scopes trial.

The only troubling omission in the book is an article entitled "War" or one that would shed more light on the conservative philosophy of war. The article on Neoconservativism says a lot, as does their behavior in real life, but one would like to see an article that compares the different schools of conservative thought on war. Many individuals, who refer to themselves as conservatives, and who are popular in the national press, such as George Will and Patrick Buchanan, have come out strongly against the current conflicts.

As this book reveals, sometimes succinctly, conservative thought and liberal thought are intertwined, and to omit any influence of liberalism on conservatism (and vice versa) is to destroy both systems. One cannot view them as two separate dogmas, and both will have to deal with the unique challenges of the twenty-first century. Maybe one could say that conservatives generally view themselves as cautious and pragmatic, while liberals generally view themselves as future pointing and idealistic. But the twenty-first century is about change, extremely drastic change, and conservatives are intimidated by change, even perhaps frightened by it. It is difficult to predict what elements of conservative (and liberal) thought will survive this century, but whatever strands are left will no doubt be chastened by radical technological changes. The technology itself will create its own ideas, its own history, and its own politics, all of which it might indeed classify as being conservative.

This is one of my favourite `encyclopedic dictionaries', an underappreciated genre if there ever was one. The "American Conservatism" now stands pride of place along side two worthy peers. Namely Robert Nisbet's superb "Prejudices - A Philosophical Dictionary" and Richard Milner's "Encyclopedia of Evolution", a dictionary style encyclopedia of Darwinism that spans not only the science, but the history, pop and folklore of evolution.

I can see the critics pounding away at their word processors now. They'll say the volume doesn't give sufficient cubic mass to George W Bush and his merry band of Vulcans; or that the neocon movement doesn't get the required number of column inches; or that GOP Republicanism herein seems more a trickle than the mainstream. And why does Eugene McCarthy seem to get more coverage than Tailgunner Joe McCarthy?

I can see their point, and there are a few facets of American conservatism that I would have liked to have seen better represented. For instance, that rare, but tough sub-species, the American monarchists. There are at least two that I can think of. Charles A. Coulombe, a traditionalist defender of throne and altar, who hails from Hollywood, and Hans Herman Hoppe, an anarcho-monarchist libertarian professor from that hive of chivalry, Las Vegas.

Still I think this kind of word processor pounding is misplaced. The book is, after all, a single volume encyclopedia / dictionary. It is meant to be comprehensive in width, not depth. That's what is great about it. It is meant to sacrifice detail for coverage. It is more important that conventional narrative histories dive deeper into the murky depths of the mainstream. The dictionary format, in contrast, gives a Cooks' Tour of the lesser known, but rarely paddled alternative creeks, tributaries and billabongs. And that's what "American Conservatism" does superbly.

The pounders' may as well criticize the Oxford English Dictionary for being full of words most of us never use. That's the point. Dive in and increase your conservative vocabulary.

This book was my introduction to anarchist principles and economics. I found it to be enlightening and inspiring. The Spanish were able to create an amazing society in Barcelona and many other villages and rural areas in the country. They created a federation of collectives which emphasized personal dignity and freedom and celebrated the community and solidarity. These values are in sharp contrast to the ones of our own rapacious state capatalism, which celebrates greed, selfishness, and the destruction of communal values. If you are looking for a better, brighter way to live that actually worked until it was destroyed by brute force, this is a book you should read.

Rocker's work is the finest marriage of classic political liberalism and economic equality. Rocker grounds the spirit and ideas of anarchism proposed by Bakunin in a concise social/political agenda. A far more lucid vision of a social order which is both economically socialist (or communist) and politically open, than any other theorist before or since.

Some may find it a bit dated. The sorts of labor organizations he refers to bear little resemblence to those found in contemporary societies. That is, not syndicalistic.

Still, I believe he is one of the most overlooked influences upon contemporary, Western, left-wing thought.

I also believe that the books first section 'Anarchism: Its Aims and Purposes' should be read by more social activists. It would help focus the often disparate voices of opposition, giving them a clearer vision of the road ahead and what needs to be done to travel upon it.

"Anarcho-Syndicalism" provides readers with an engagiong account of an egalitarian political philosophy that has its roots in Enlightenment thought. Author Rudolph Rocker presents a systematic conception of the development of anarchist thought towards anarcho-syndicalism, writing that "anarchism is not a fixed, self-enclosed social system but rather a definite trend in the historic development of mankind, which, in contrast with the intellectual guardianship of all clerical and governmental institutions, strives for the free unhindered unfolding of all the individual and social forces in life. Even freedom is only a relative, not an absolute concept, since it tends constantly to become broader and to affect wider circles in more manifold ways. For the anarchist, freedom is not an abstract philosophical concept, but the vital concrete possibility for every human being to bring to full development all the powers, capacities, and talents with which nature has endowed him, and turn them to social account. The less this natural development of man is influenced by ecclesiastical or political guardianship, the more efficient and harmonious will human personality become, the more will it become the measure of the intellectual culture of the society in which it has grown." Rocker shows that there is value in studying "trend(s) in the historic development of mankind" that do not articulate a specific and detailed social theory. Although intellectuals and social commentators alike dismiss anarchism as utopian, formless, primitive, or otherwise incompatible with the realities of a complex society, Rocker states that at every stage of history our concern must be to dismantle those forms of authority and oppression that survive from an era when they might have been justified in terms of the need for security or survival or economic development, but that now contribute to -- rather than alleviate - material and cultural deficit. "Anarcho-Syndicalism" remains an amazing intellectual and politcal statement containing a message of egalitarian hope.

Rocker writes lucidly and forcefully. He presents a clear alternative to political socialism, including Marxism. Anarcho-syndicalism seems well-grounded ethically and as if it would avoid the problems of concentrating power inherent in both capitalism and socialism.

But can it work? The biggest argument that it can seems to be CNT in Spain in the 1930's. As Rocker described it, they were highly effective and fully anarcho-syndicalist. They were defeated largely due to the involvement of powerful foreign powers. In the U.S. before World War I, the IWW (similar to the anarcho-syndicalists in Europe) grew in influence but were suppressed by the government.

Today in the U.S. the only sizable organized anarcho-syndicalist activity appears to a mucher smaller IWW. They continue to support unionization efforts and refrain from political activity.

If people can organize around trade unions, as Rocker describes and as the IWW does on a small scale, with sufficient involvement as to be able to run industries themselves, then anarcho-syndicalism as Rocker describes it seems wonderful. There would, however, many practical issues to work out. Rocker says that the CNT in Spain did that. However, if people prefer to be led, then anarcho-syndicalism won't work, as someone will undoubtedly step in to lead and, in doing so, enforce preferences for themselves.

For over 70 years, anarcho-syndicalism seems not to have been won over many people. Will conditions change so that people embrace it? Would educational efforts help revive it? Or has capitalism adapted and won? Is self-government just too much effort for most people? This work by Rocker seems about the best place to start in exploring such questions.

This book is a classic. Rocker provides a concise but thorough history of the labor movement and how it has evolved into modern anarcho-sydicalism. He also delves into methods that may be used to implement an anarcho-syndicalist society in the modern world. It was written 60 years ago, but most of the content is still relevant today. If you're interested in the labor movement, socialism, anarchism, or any related topics, you won't regret picking up this book.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I became aware of Frederic Bastiat's work during the time of the "Agenda for America" in the middle 1990s, a time when the Republicans took over Congress, and for the first time since the late 1960s, there was a sense that REAL political change was in the offing.

We now know that was not the case. Newt Gingrich notwithstanding (and I still have is "Essential Reading List" in my files, things did not change radically. Perhaps we should be thankful, for it is quite clear that the Founding Fathers (yes, they were men--although perhaps there was a female to male crossdresser amongst them) intended the three branches of government (Legislative, Judicial, Executive) not so much to work in harmony but to slow the pace of change to a rate by which REAL change would not register a 6.0 on the Richter scale of political-economic change!

Frediric Bastiat's THE LAW was published shortly before his death, and after the great revolutions in Europe of 1848. In it, he sought to explain (and succeeds magnificently) the difference between Capitalism and Socialism, and why a nation should prefer the former as its economic system.

The main basis for socialism, which he called LEGAL PLUNDER, and which we call "taxes" for the social good, is revealed in all its naked truth as larceny perpetrated on one group by another. One does not need to be a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, Skull & Bones, or any other elite political-social group to understand Bastiat's arguments, or their implications.

This hornbook can be read by a 10th grader (and ought to be required reading for any High School diploma, as well as participation in Junior Achievement!). That many of my colleagues with Bachelor's, Master's, and Doctoral degress have never heard of this classic work is just short of a national travesty!

If you think Greenberg, Milton Friedman, John Stuart Mill, or Marx and Engels had an edge on political-economic theory, you MUST read Bastiat. Keep it alongside your Constitution, when you find yourself forgetting the principles that have made America a great Nation.

Bastiat warns us not to kid ourselves about a kind, gentle, caring government. Like George Washington, Bastiat reminds us that law means force, and that any appeal to the law is ultimately an appeal to force. In appealing to the law, therefore, we must ask ourselves if we would be justified in using force to vindicate our appeal.
Life, liberty, and property, Bastiat argues, are the rights which God has given to each individual by virtue of the fact that the individual exists, and that with or without government, an individual is justified in defending his or her life, liberty, and property. Ideally, governments should exist to defend these three basic God-given rights.

As an individual, I cannot spend all of my time defending my life, liberty, and property, nor can my neighbors. Government is born when my neighbors and I come together to hire a sheriff to defend these rights full-time for us. The sheriff's authority to defend these rights on our behalf is derived from the authority of each of us individually to protect ourselves in these rights. Because government derives its authority from the aggregrate authority of individual citizens, government should not be allowed to do for me what I cannot legally do for myself.

This is the foundation of Bastiat's argument, and when taken to its natural conclusion, it shows us that redistribution-of-wealth schemes that the government forces upon some members of society to benefit others are a potential threat to a free people. Social security, welfare, and other government entitlements are all examples of this. Bastiat referred to such government programs as "legalized plunder" which ultimately creates far more social problems than it solves.

The recent presidential race has shown us just how weak and dependent Americans have become. Just as Bastiat predicted, every little social group is clamoring to get its own share of government entitlements, and politician are clamoring to pander to these groups in exchange for political power, even if it means continuing the disastrous economic course of deficits and staggering public debt which may someday threaten the country with bankruptcy and economic collapse.

We should learn the lesson of communism--it isn't government's job to take care of us. Being responsible for our own subsistence, including the inherent risks involved in such responsibility, is the price we must pay for freedom and prosperity. If we succumb to the lure of government-provided security by means of legalized plunder, we will one day find ourselves bereft of the freedom which we once took for granted.

Bastiat's classic shows us how to preserve a free society and avoid the consequences of legalized injustice

I was given this book by a family member who is an avid supporter of Ron Paul. Apparently, this brief work by Frenchmen Claude Frederic Bastiat (1801-50) has largely influenced Paul's economic and political principles. Bastiat succinctly argues that the responsiblity of the law is to protect life, liberty, and property, and nothing more. Anything beyond this, according to Bastiat is a perversion of the law. He refers to socialism in all it's forms, including most taxes and tarriffs, as legal plunder, or false philanthropy. He also has plenty of scorn for those demagogues of all ages who feel they know what is best for the masses. In essence, this is an enthusiastic defense of personal freedom, and small government. In this regard, it seems to be a typical libertarian treatise, which is certainly nothing new, but Bastiat would seem to be one of the original proponents of this philosophy, whatever that is worth. I can't say I wholeheartedly embrace every aspect of the libertarian worldview, but I would certainly recommend this as valid and interesting food for thought.

When I read F.A. Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom," I thought I had read the most inspired and compelling book ever to discredit socialism and other collective-isms. I was wrong...very wrong.

I cannot believe Bastiat wrote "The Law" in the middle of the 19th century since it has so much applicability to the 20th (and soon to be 21st) century.

If ever there was a concise and powerful argument for defending Liberty and the Law against every social engineer, this has to be it. Bastiat is a master of words and the analogy. Every lover of freedom who wishes to get a nutshell understanding of why Liberty and Law matters ought to read this book. Every enemy of freedom (e.g. liberals, socialists, communists, etc.) ought to fear it.