TYRANNY, INC.: HOW PRIVATE POWER CRUSHED AMERICAN LIBERTY - AND WHAT to DO ABOUT IT (audiobook) by Sohrab Ahmari

Published in 2023 by Random House Audio.
Read by the author, Sohrab Ahmari.
Duration: 7 hours, 30 minutes.
Unabridged.

Writing about government overreach is a common theme among conservatives like Sohrab Ahmari. In Tyranny, Inc. he switches gears and writes about overreach from the private sector instead. 

He talks about predatory hedge funds that purchase reasonably healthy companies, load them with debt, and then let them die. He tells the pathetic story of the decline and fall of both Sears and K-Mart, but it's happened over and over again with multiple companies.

He also talks about a number of court cases, legal rulings, new laws, and relatively new interpretations of laws that have slid the balance of societal power to private corporations. He gives tons of examples like expansive Non-Disclosure Agreements, tracking software on employee's private phones because they are forced to use them for work, and hidden clauses in multi-page employment agreements that give employers perpetual rights to use their employees' physical likeness, speaking voices, and singing voices.

He's not so keen on privatization of public services, like fire and ambulance services and tells some horror stories about those as well.

His answer is to empower the employee and the consumer through things like breaking the stranglehold of the NDA system, breaking up monopolies, and bringing back unions as a counterweight to corporate power.

This book is guaranteed to generate thought, even if you disagree with its conclusions. I rate this book 4 stars out of 5. It can be found on Amazon.com here: TYRANNY, INC.: HOW PRIVATE POWER CRUSHED AMERICAN LIBERTY - AND WHAT to DO ABOUT IT by Sohrab Ahmari.

HOW the SOUTH WON the CIVIL WAR: OLIGARCHY, DEMOCRACY, and the CONTINUING FIGHT for the SOUL of AMERICA by Heather Cox Richardson

Originally Published in 2020.
Published by Oxford Press in 2022.

Historian Heather Cox Richardson has made herself into a name brand historian with her near-daily first drafts of history in which she writes up the day's political news and ties in similar historic themes or long-running trends. 

How the South Won the Civil War follows along those lines. 

The book looks at two long-standing trends in American points of view in American history that are in constant tension with one another.

This quote from page xv of the introduction gets the thesis of the book pretty well:

America began with a great paradox: the same men who came up with the radical idea of constructing a nation on the principle of equality also owned slaves, thought Indians were savages, and considered women inferior. This apparent contradiction was not a flaw, though; it was a key feature of the new democratic republic. For the Founders, the concept that "all men are created equal" depended on the idea that the ringing phrase "all men" did not actually include everyone."

She continues: "So long as these lesser people played no role in the body politic, everyone within it could be equal. In the Founders' minds, then, the principle of equality depended on inequality."

That is the heart of the thesis - some think that everyone should be able to participate, others think that only the best people should participate because some people cannot handle the responsibility (or just want to do all of the wrong things with the power.)

Richardson goes through history and shows how this has played out over the decades. A big theme is that, in general, the South has believed that not everyone should participate. The North has gone back and forth, but consistently more on the side on equality than the South. 

The Civil War was obviously a major flare up in this ongoing struggle and seemed to end the paradox once and for all. But, the same issues migrated west and the Western states generally joined the South as time went on, especially as the Democrats stopped being the conservative party when it came to race relations after the elections of 1964, 1968, and 1972. Movement Conservatives discovered that racists liked it when they said things like letting states keep their own rules about who gets to vote and being able to create special public schools so that they stay segregated.

Not every Republican followed this line of thought and the mainstream Republican Party denied that this line of thought even had a popular foothold. But, the Tea Party Movement followed by MAGA and Christian Nationalism has pushed the radicals (the old John Birch Society types) into the forefront. Trump didn't create it, but he found it and exploited it.

The MAGA movement and Christian Nationalism continues this cementing of the West and the South and the belief that some people should not have a say. Nowadays, it is not slavery or Jim Crow or forcing people to be IN the closet, but MAGA shows spend an inordinate amount of time on gay marriage, trans people, and the bogeyman of CRT. It's not the same old thing (well, it oftentimes is for the LGBTQ+ folks, especially for trans people) but it certainly rhymes.

The only complaint I have about the book is that the author fails to see that the same type of elitism exists in both parties.  Examples include FDR and his brain trust, a center-left media that laid out a certain world view for 40 years and still tries to (I mostly agree with that view, but I also acknowledge that it existed and still exists in a much weakened state.)

I rate this book 4 stars out of 5. It can be found on Amazon.com here: HOW the SOUTH WON the CIVIL WAR by Heather Cox Richardson.

THE PARANOID STYLE in AMERICAN POLITICS and OTHER ESSAYS by Richard Hofstadter

 

-Originally published by Harper's Magazine in 1964 and in book form by Alfred A. Knopf in 1965.
-Audiobook published in 2018 by Tantor Audio.
-Read by Keith Sellon-Wright.
-Duration: 10 hours, 44 minutes.
-Unabridged.

Award-winning historian Richard Hofstadter (1916-1970) wrote these essays over a series of years and compiled them into a collection with a loose theme of how American politics is affected by paranoid conspiracies. 

Barry Goldwater (1909-1998)

He starts with the presidential candidacy of Barry Goldwater and the political commentary of groups like the John Birch Society. His descriptions of the Goldwater campaign sound so much like the Trump campaign of 2016 that a reader can almost replace the name Goldwater with the name Trump. The details are, of course, different, but the tone is practically the same. 

The ideological framework of the John Birch Society is replaced with QAnon, the fear of communism is replaced with the fear of immigrants but the tone is practically the same.

That is the main theme of the first half of the book - the near-constant presence of a paranoid fear that some group is trying to overthrow the American way of life. 

 "The enemy is clearly delineated: a perfect model of malice, a kind of amoral superman -- sinister, ubiquitous, powerful, cruel, sensual, luxury-loving. Unlike the rest of us, the enemy is not caught in the toils of the vast mechanism of history, himself a victim of his past, his desires, his limitations. He wills, indeed, he manufactures, the mechanism of history, or tries to deflect the normal course of history in an evil way. He makes crises, starts runs on banks, causes depressions, manufactures disasters, and then enjoys and profits from the misery he has produced. The paranoid's interpretation of history is distinctly personal: decisive events are not taken as part of the stream of history, but as the consequences of someone's will. Very often, the enemy is held to possess some especially effective source of power: he controls the press; he has unlimited funds; he has a new secret for influencing the mind (brainwashing); he has a special technique for seduction (the Catholic confessional)..."

This paranoid strain is not unique to America, of course. For example, the fear of the Illuminati and English fears of a Catholic revolution. 

The fears of a Catholic revolution spread to America as well, but that was just a part of a whole series of paranoid conspiracies that Hofstadter points out. I decided to come up with my own list. Hofstadter passed away in 1970 so he never heard of the paranoid conspiracy theories that I remember being actively discussed (some quite seriously) in my lifetime.

Here is a list of all paranoid conspiracies that I remember (starting from the early 1980's):
 

-Satan worshipers were killing thousands of children in day cares across the country;

-back masked lyrics were brainwashing people that listened to rock music and making them kill themselves;

-Dungeons and Dragons was causing kids to go crazy (Tom Hanks made a movie about it!); 

-the New World Order was taking over America and flying black helicopters all over America and leaving secret messages for soldiers on the back of interstate road signs;
-FEMA camps. This is one of my personal favorites because the AMTRAK train yard in Beach Grove, Indiana was to be converted into a secret government concentration camp (Beach Grove is a neighborhood in Indianapolis, where I live);

-lizard people were ruling America;

-President Obama was a secret gay Muslim who was selling out America;

-QAnon with all of its weirdness (including a resurgence of the lizard people in some strains);

-Jewish Space lasers; 

-crisis actors creating all of the school shootings (Alex Jones);

-Former President Trump's Stop the Steal movement with Italian satellites and Venezuelan vote tabulators conspiring to steal an election.

The rest of the book is not nearly as interesting. It has rather lengthy essays on the Spanish-American War, the Anti-Trust movement and the Free Silver movement. They made the point that the earlier essays did, but not nearly as directly and they weren't nearly as interesting.

The entire collection is written in an academic style that is not particularly welcoming to the reader. The author makes a point that the paranoid style of politics is not exclusively a feature of the Right, but he provides no examples of it from the Left, except maybe with the Free Silver movement. The politics of that movement are convoluted enough that you can't really get a good feel if it is a movement of the Left or the Right.

To sum up, the part of the book that discusses the 1950's and 1960's is great. The rest of rather tedious. The first part is worth listening to if for no other reason than to get the reference when you hear it in a political discussion.

I rate this book 3 stars out of 5. It can be found on Amazon.com here: THE PARANOID STYLE in AMERICAN POLITICS and OTHER ESSAYS by Richard Hofstadter.

THE CORROSION of CONSERVATISM: WHY I LEFT the RIGHT (kindle) by Max Boot

Published in October of 2018 by Liveright.

2016 was a moment of reckoning for political writer Max Boot. Boot wrote for all of the well-known Conservative publications - The Weekly Standard, The Wall Street Journal, etc. He appeared on TV shows and radio shows and describes himself as a "movement conservative". But, the rise of Donald Trump and his subsequent election made him change his registration from Republican to Independent in protest.

Why? In his own words: "In March 2016, I had written that Trump was a 'character test' for the GOP: 'Do you believe in the open and inclusive party of Ronald Reagan? Or do you want a bigoted and extremist party in the image of Donald Trump?' To my growing horror, most Republicans were failing the test."

I picked up The Corrosion of Conservatism because I felt the same way. There is no point in laying out all of arguments against Trump - everyone has heard them. Like Boot, I was dismayed that "...most Republican leaders showed that they were willing to discard their principles as mindlessly as a Styrofoam fast-food container if by doing so they could enhance their own positions and avoid the wrath of a powerful and vindictive leader."

So, like Boot, I find myself a Republican "in exile" - I have left the party. Like the Cuban exiles, I find myself on the outside looking in and wondering what the hell happened.

Over the last two and half years Mr. Boot and I have come to a lot of the same conclusions. One of them is that President Trump has brought to life a strong nativist and racist strand that was always a part of the Conservative movement, but a part that we had always assumed was a tiny and shrinking part. Instead, he has exposed it to have been just hidden away out of politeness. Boot points out: "No, not all Trump supporters are racist. But virtually all racists, it seems, are Trump supporters."

Also: "It is hard to know who is worse: Trump or his enablers. I am inclined to think it is the latter. Trump does not know any better; he has no idea how a president, or even an ordinary, decent human being, is supposed to behave. But many of his supporters do know better, and they are debasing themselves to curry favor with him because he controls the levers of power." Boot does not go into the Evangelical support of Trump. Boot is not a Christian, so it is not his fight. But, I am so you can take that same quote and apply it to the big name Christian leaders that attach themselves to this man and make excuses for him and see how my frustration is doubled.

In the end, this book will not change any minds. But, I found it helpful to find someone as well-written as Max Boot has come to so many of the same conclusions that I have have.

I rate this book 5 stars out of 5. It can be found on Amazon.com here: THE CORROSION of CONSERVATISM: WHY I LEFT the RIGHT by Max Boot.

THE JEFFERSON RULE: WHY WE THINK the FOUNDING FATHERS HAVE ALL the ANSWERS (audiobook) by David Sehat

Published by Tantor Audio in May of 2015
Read by Tom Perkins
Duration: 8 hours, 16 minutes

If you are a person that likes to debate on the internet than you have undoubtedly experienced Godwin's Law. Godwin's Law states that if you debate long enough on the internet, someone will inevitably make a comparison to Nazism, Hitler, the Holocaust ("You don't like Donald Trump's hair? What are you? The hairdo Nazi?!?"). 

A similar rule exists when discussing American politics - eventually someone will refer back to the Founding Fathers. It is especially easy to quote Thomas Jefferson - he was so prolific and well-written that it is easy to break out a quote to support your point of view. In the case of Jefferson, it is often too easy because he was extremely inconsistent in his political views. To start easy, he did write "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." And, he also owned a whole lot of people and certainly did not allow them liberty or the pursuit of happiness. He was also advocated strictly following the letter of the Constitution...until it suited him not to when he became President, like with the Louisiana Purchase.

So, Jefferson is quoted all of the time because, likely as not, he has written or uttered a very lofty-sounding quote that supports your point of view, no matter what it is. In short, the man was so inconsistent that he was, at one point or another, on your side and and at a different point he was also against it.

Sehat uses this as a jumping off point in The Jefferson Rule to look at two general phenomena. The first is the traditional big activist government vs. small strict constructionist government argument. In the Washington Administration this was personified with Alexander/Washington on one side and Jefferson on the other.

But, the argument continues throughout American history and Sehat looks at some of the high points in his study, including the debate on slavery, the two crises with secession, The New Deal, the Civil Rights movement, The Reagan Revolution, The War on Terror, Obamacare and the Tea Party movement. 

In his second point, he notes that politicians have always referred back to the Founders and referred to them as if they were a united front, despite the ugly split in the Washington Administration itself. Also, the image of the Founders is changed as needed by current politicians.

I found the whole book to be fascinating and a well-told tour of American history. There were times when I thought Sehat was surprisingly harsh on the liberal side of things than I found him to be equally harsh on the conservative side. To be fair, I think Sehat is harsh on politicians in general and finds them all, no matter their political stripe, guilty of the same sin when it comes to referring to the Founding Fathers.

I rate this book 5 stars out of 5.

This book can be found on Amazon here: 
The Jefferson Rule: Why We Think the Founding Fathers Have All the Answers

THE CONSERVATARIAN MANIFESTO: LIBERTARIANS, CONSERVATIVES, and the FIGHT for the RIGHT'S FUTURE by Charles C. W. Cooke

 

Libertarians and Conservatives - Natural Allies, Natural Rivals

Published in 2015 by Crown Forum

Charles C. W. Cooke is a writer for National Review and as such he has been in the center of a storm as the political Right works through a new generation of thought on a variety of issues. In some issues, the political Right is united, such as on the concept of Limited Government and keeping taxes as low as possible. In others, they have a variety of opinions.

Generally speaking, Libertarians bond more readily with the Right than the Left, which is why Ron Paul identified as a Libertarian for years yet caucused with the Republicans in the Congress and ran for president as a Republican. The dislike of the Nanny State on many issues pushes them together as temporary allies on many issues.

But, on other issues such as the War on Drugs and Gay Marriage the Right is split and split deeply. In The Conservatarian Manifesto, Cooke is attempting to nudge the Republicans a little more to the Libertarian point of view on things so that these temporary alliances between the Libertarians and Conservatives can become more permanent.

This can be difficult, though. The Libertarians tend to view traditional Conservative views as hypocritical - too willing to promote some intrusive acts by the government while decrying an intrusive government. Conservatives tend to view the Libertarian position as naïve and too willing to walk away from any sort of compromise because compromise is in and of itself unacceptable. Or, as Cooke puts it on page 32, "...convinced that logic-on-paper can answer all the important questions about the human experience, dismissive of history and cultural norms, possessed of a purifying instinct, and all to ready to pull down institutions that they fail to recognize are vital to the integrity of the society in which they operate."

Ron Paul

So, the two sides clash "...when the question is 'What should we do' rather than 'what should we oppose?' " (p.33)

So, that is the crux of the book. The two sides have deep divisions but large areas of agreement about where government should not act. It is a well-written, quick read. I come at things from the Conservative with Libertarian leanings camp (like Cooke) so I readily see what he is advocating. My Libertarian relatives are not likely to compromise on any issues, even in the name of making real advances on issues that they hold dear. For them, it is an all-or-nothing proposition (which I get - they hold all of their ideals dearly) but that just is not the way that politics works. Play the game and move towards what you really want. Don't play the game and get none of what you really want but stay ideologically pure.

At least this can be a place to start the discussion.

I rate this book 4 stars out of 5.

This book can be found on Amazon here: 
The Conservatarian Manifesto: Libertarians, Conservatives, and the Fight for the Right's Future

Note: 9 years later anyone can see that the Ron Paul movement and its hybrid Republican/Libertarian movement has become nothing. It looked like the future,  but it is now nothing but an odd offshoot in the MAGA Republican Party represented by almost no one at all. DWD -July 16, 2024.

The Forgotten Conservative: Re-Discovering Grover Cleveland by John M. Pafford

Published by Regnery History in May of 2013

Grover Cleveland. Quick! Name me any fact about Grover Cleveland that you can think of!

Was he the one that was so fat that he got stuck in the bathtub? No, that was Taft.

Is he on the Mount Rushmore? No, those are Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and T. Roosevelt.

Was he a famous Civil War general that became president?

No, that was Grant, Garfield, Hayes and Harrison.

Grover Cleveland,
the 22nd and 24th President
(1837-1908)

Was he the president who was elected, got beat running for his second term but ran again and then won so that you have to learn his name twice if your teacher makes you learn the presidents? Yes. That's him.

But, as John M. Pafford demonstrates in The Forgotten Conservative, Grover Cleveland was a man  of contradictions. He was a uniquely principled man who was also mired in a sex scandal (the famous taunt went: "Ma, Ma, where's my Pa?"  "Gone to the White House, ha ha ha!"). His presidency is tucked in among all sorts of men who made their reputations in Civil War while he paid for a substitute because he was the breadwinner for his family. While the Progressive movement led by William Jennings Bryan was sweeping over the Democrat Party, Cleveland stood firm to his beliefs about sound money and the proper role of government and was the last Democrat who was also a true Conservative.  He also vetoed more than twice as many bills as all of the presidents that preceded him combined because he took his political principles seriously.

This biography is an overview of his life. If you are looking for an exhaustive re-telling of his life, this is not your book. But, let's face it, how many people want to read a thousand page tome about Cleveland? For me, this filled a relatively empty spot in my knowledge of American history and did a solid job of telling the story of his life, his presidency and explaining  the political movements that made him the last of the Conservative Democrats.

This biography also includes several full color political cartoons. Displaying them as they were meant to be seen is a nice touch.

Note: This book was sent to me by the publisher in exchange for an honest review.

I rate this biography 4 out of 5 stars.

This book can be found on Amazon.com here: The Forgotten Conservative: Rediscovering Grover Cleveland

Reviewed on June 2, 2013

Parliament of Whores: A Lone Humorist Attempts to Explain the Entire U.S. Government by P.J. O'Rourke

Originally published in 1991.
I read the 1992 Vintage Books paperback edition.

Dated but still has teeth.

P.J. O'Rourke goes after the ridiculousness that is the federal government with his trademark irreverent style in his 1991 book Parliament of Whores: A Lone Humorist Attempts to Explain the Entire U.S. Government.

Some of the commentary is dated (lots of talk about the forgettable 1988 presidential election with Republican George H.W. Bush going against Democrat Michael Dukakis. Also, the first one I voted in) but some of it is incredibly relevant. For example, the story of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHSTA) looking into the mystery of suddenly accelerating Audis 1n 1986 was reminiscent of the same problem with Toyotas that filled the news channels in 2009 and 2010.

Perhaps O'Rourke's most famous line comes from this book: "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." (pg. xvii in the preface) This sentiment is pretty typical of the book as a whole and one that I generally agree with. O'Rourke talks with former advisors to presidents, shadows a congressman, talks with lobbyists, bureaucrats, policeman, people who live in atrocious government "projects" built for the poor to live in, and more.

P.J. O'Rourke

O'Rourke notes on page 36: "It is a popular delusion that the government wastes vast amounts of money through inefficiency and sloth. Enormous effort and elaborate planning are required to waste this much money." And, O'Rourke proceeds to show the reader how and makes a solid case for a smaller, leaner government. He also explains how it got to be such a mess.

There are times when he fails to make his case. For me, the chapter on agriculture ("Agricultural Policy: How to Tell Your Ass From This Particular Hole in the Ground") was a nice lesson on overlapping government programs that seem absurd. For example, he bemoans the fact that there are so many government interventions that the marketplace is not really a factor in agricultural policy. That is true enough, but he negates his own argument on page 148 when he notes that "Cheap plentiful food is the precondition for human advancement. When there isn't enough food, everybody has to spend all of his time getting fed and nobody has a minute to invent law, architecture or big clubs to hit cave bears on the head with...we wouldn't grow food, we'd be food." O'Rourke seems to miss (or ignore) that the convoluted system of price supports, payments to keep fields idle and grants have the practical result of keeping plenty of extra food being produced and more than enough producers on hand. That way, if there is a massive drought (like the drought of 2012) there is plenty of food to make up for it. Because it is deals with food, the system is rigged to encourage over-production. Could it be more efficient? Sure. Could it be done smarter? Sure. But, O'Rourke fails to make his case that it should not be done at all.

O'Rourke's look into anti-poverty programs demonstrate that they were not working and that poverty is not easily solved and "You can't get rid of poverty by giving people money." (pg. 128, emphasis his) If nothing else, this chapters reveals that O'Rourke is not simply a know-it-all. He knows that he does not know how to "fix" poverty and that government is certainly no doing a good job of it, either.

This is an entertaining read, even if you don't agree with all of his conclusions. I started this book one day when I misplaced the book I had been reading. In just a couple of pages I knew had to finish this one first. Entertaining, often profane, never boring.

I rate this book 5 out of 5 stars and it can be found on Amazon.com here: Parliament of Whores: A Lone Humorist Attempts to Explain the Entire U.S. Government.

Reviewed on February 22, 2013.

The American Spirit: Celebrating the Virtues and Values that Make Us Great by Edwin J. Feulner and Brian Tracy

An introduction to Conservatism

Published in 2012 by Thomas Nelson

The American Spirit lists twenty "virtues and values" that serve to introduce the reader to the basics of Conservatism. These virtues and values include Patriotism, Responsibility, Optimism, Honesty, Faith, Tolerance and Open-Mindedness, Idealistic Realism, Problem Solving and Courage.

As I noted above, the book is an introduction to Conservatism. I am a Conservative and have been reading Conservative literature for a long time. The discussion is "bite-sized" rather than far-ranging and deep and is bound to be a little simplistic. For example, during the discussion on education there is praise for the idea of rating schools A-F but no discussion of the criteria that go into rating schools, or even if a central government (in this case a state government) should even be inserting itself into education and giving schools a letter grade. After all, education has long been a traditional function of local government bodies (such as your local school board) and Conservatism tends to favor local control to that of a centralized bureaucracy. Also, there is no discussion of the proper role of the federal government in education. Should the central government be making a single policy for everyone?

Sometimes the author get on a roll in their effusive praise of America that they go a step or two too far. On page 30 the authors assert that "With rare exceptions like the printing press, the greatest innovations, inventions and discoveries in human history have come since the founding of the United States and in the United States." (emphasis mine) Wow. I can name any number of items that are very important to the world that were not invented in America first, such as the automobile, the electric motor, rocket weapons, the radio and jet engines. Now, did America help perfect them or make them commonplace? Sure. But, why the need for exaggeration?

But, most of the book is solid, conservative thought with some great quotes thrown in. The discussion about the debt is relevant and well-done as was the section called The Law. If you are a regular reader of American Spectator or National Review this book will offer nothing new. If you are a newbie to Conservatism, it should prove interesting and thought-provoking.

This book was provided to me at no charge by the publisher in exchange for an honest review through the Amazon Vine program.

I rate this book 3 stars out of 5 and it can be found on Amazon.com here: The American Spirit: Celebrating the Virtues and Values that Make Us Great.

Reviewed on February 20, 2013.

Ronald Reagan: Our 40th President by Winston Groom

Published by Regnery Publishing, Inc. in 2012.

Winston Groom, forever to be known as the author of Forrest Gump , has busied himself with a series of non-fiction books as of late. His latest is this short biography, Ronald Reagan: Our 40th President. The publisher lists this book as "juvenile nonfiction" but this adult also enjoyed this 148 page biography.

This is not a controversial "let's set the record straight" book. I detected no political bias except for the fact that is a generally friendly book towards Reagan. That being said, Groom covers the lows of Reagan's personal (strained relationships with his children, for example) and political life (Iran Contra - it gets more attention than almost any aspect of his presidency) and covers them as thoroughly as a book of this size should.

Ronald Reagan (1911-2004)

This is a great book for high school students because it is easy to read, does not dwell on topics for too long and covers all parts of Reagan's life well, not just his eight years as President.  It tells the basics of an extraordinary life (Reagan's more than most, but all presidential lives are extraordinary since there have only been 44 of them). I particularly enjoyed the stories of his days as a sportscaster and his early days in Hollywood. Groom also explains that Reagan's transition from Hollywood actor to politician was not abrupt or even an unnatural move, although I did find it interesting to note that his first response was, "I'm an actor, not a politician." (p. 82)

In my real job, when I am not blogging, I am a secondary social studies teacher and I can easily say that if Groom wanted to busy himself writing biographies of all of the recent presidents I would be glad to put them all in my classroom library. This one tells the basics of Reagan's life. Let the student learn that and later on, when they know more, they can start to put value judgments on his actions and choices.

That being said, there is a problem with the book. While Groom may know how to tell someone's life story in an interesting way, he seems to have no head for figures. On page 4 he discusses the impact of a horrific 12% inflation rate (the rate when Reagan assumed the presidency) and he incorrectly asserts that a 12% interest rate means that in 8 years the value of a dollar saved 8 years earlier "would be worth exactly zero." That is not correct. A 12% inflation rate means that in 6 years the prices of everything would be double (following the "rule of 72") and that saved dollar would only buy half as much, but it would still have value. On page 144 he states the United States spent $8 trillion dollars on the Cold War. He states that equals spending $1 billion per day for 8,000 years. Considering that 1 trillion equals 1,000 billion, it would really equal $1 billion per day for 8,000 days (about 22 years).

So, read this book for what it is - a story well told. And, as always, check the other guy's math. Or, as Reagan noted: "Trust, but verify."

I rate this biography 4 out of 5 stars.

This book can be found on Amazon.com here: Ronald Reagan Our 40th President.

Reviewed on February 25, 2012.

After America: Get Ready for Armeggedon by Mark Steyn

"If something cannot go on forever, it will stop"

Published in 2011 by Regnery.

The above quote is from the economist Herbert Stein. Besides being a clever little bit of the obvious, a Yogi Berra-type quote, it is also part of a scary thought about America itself that Mark Steyn points out in After America - America cannot keep doing what it is doing forever and hope to lead the world - it will stop. It cannot keep  borrow 40% of its budget forever and hope to keep its economy afloat or offer its children a decent future. America cannot hope that a post-America world will be pleasant - as Steyn notes on page 14 "...it's not hard to figure out how it's going to end."

After America: Get Ready for Armageddon is really the sequel to America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It a book that details how low birth rates, a general cultural malaise and a nanny state stupor threatens to overwhelm the same countries that once led the world in political, military and cultural might. Now, he warns of the same sorts of danger happening to America itself - we will not be "America Alone" but something different - different culturally, maybe more than one country, maybe nothing but a hazy memory.

Mark Steyn

Mark Steyn is truly one of the wittiest writers I have ever read. I have always enjoyed his columns, but in a larger format Steyn truly shines. He builds on what he has already written about so well that it almost becomes like an extended conversation with the man. He almost seamlessly ties together point after point. Steyn makes you laugh at the absurdity of the situation and then, while in mid-chuckle you stop and think, "Wait! That's not really funny at all. That's outrageous (or sad, or scary)." This is simultaneously the funniest and the scariest book that I have read this year.

What are his points? Steyn starts with commentary about the national debt that seems as fresh as if it were a column written today thanks to the government's extended wrangling over the debt ceiling this summer. He also comments about how politically correct thought, excessive regulation and years upon years of erosion of free speech rights and property rights are changing this country from a can-do country to an entitlement country.

Steyn changes his style a bit in a chapter called After: A Letter from the Post-American World. This is a sobering, even depressing chapter As the title suggests, this is a letter from the future and it shows how when the West hamstrings itself, the whole world suffers and it does not become a place you would want your children to live in. Or your Jewish friends. Or your gay friends. Or perhaps even your Christian friends. It's not like we aren't being warned about this possibility now - Steyn points out headline after headline, trend after trend that should be screaming to us. But, we have Facebook to play with and Jersey Shore to watch. Plus, who are we to judge? So, Steyn predicts on page 306: "...incremental preemptive concession was the easiest option. To do anything else would have been asking too much."

This is not a perfect book. Not all of Steyn's arguments hold water, in my opinion. But, most of them do and this is a must-read book for anyone interested in big picture history. In this entertaining and sobering book Steyn predicts that we are at one of those hinges of history moments and we are not going to succeed.

Sadly, I can't say that I disagree with him on that point at all.

****

On a separate note, I criticized America Alone because it had no footnotes or end notes. It didn't even have a bibliography. This book has extensive end notes with bibliographical reference and is meticulously indexed so the reader can easily find this information and articles for him(her)self and inform others.

This book can be found on Amazon.com here: After America: Get Ready for Armageddon.

The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy by Thomas Sowell

Good, but needed more detail

Published in 1996.

Thomas Sowell, a noted conservative thinker and a genuinely interesting person (I've heard him as a guest on a local radio station several times) writes an effective book against the actions of those whom he calls 'The Annointed.'  The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy is effective, but not a great work.

Who are The Annointed?

He uses the term in a sarcastic way here to illuminate those 'Teflon prophets' (he uses that term because some of them are still considered credible despite no evidence that their predictions have ever come true) that scream doom and gloom and offer the direst of predictions unless we immediately give them the power to save us - since we are too simple to see the problem for ourselves and take the actions needed to save ourselves.

Thomas Sowell

It does not necessarily need to be someone with world-shaking problems, like Paul Ehrlich and his population bomb theories(Sowell skewers him thoroughly), but it can be anyone who claims to see society as it really is - they have the Vision of the Annointed - and can take the proper steps to ensure that justice (in a cosmic sense) is accomplished. A great deal of the book concerns those that believe that society is to blame for crime, poverty, etc. and how they try to make adjustments in our criminal justice system and our welfare system to compensate. Rather than achieving a measure of compensation, Sowell powerfully argues that justice is compromised and the overall welfare of society is put at risk.

Sowell has his favorite chew toys in this book, including Judge Brazelon (he has 12 entries in the Index) and a NY Times columnist (11 entries) and he does make his point. The nice thing about Sowell is that he criticizes based on policy rather than on a personal level, unlike such political writers as Coulter, Savage, Moore, and Franken.

I rate this book 4 stars out of 5. It can be found on Amazon.com here: The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy by Thomas Sowell.

Reviewed on August 19, 2006.

110 People Who Are Screwing Up America (And Al Franken Is #37) by Bernard Goldberg

Goldberg takes aim - both left and right (but mostly at the left)

Published in 2005.

Just so you know, I was officially tired of the Coulter / Moore slamfest format about two years ago and I went cold turkey for quite a while. Mostly, they end up being long lists of high crimes and misdemeanors committed by the other side and while that is interesting it also starts to get silly after a while. Does either party or any party have a perfect record? No. Both have loudmouths and losers that shoot off their mouths and write insane things. I'm a Republican and there are Republicans that I would just as soon sit down and shut their mouths - they've said enough idiotic things to last a lifetime - let someone else have a chance!

Bernard Goldberg

Now, Goldberg is in a different class (mostly) from the partisan bashers. He avoids the acid comments (a la Coulter, Savage, Franken, Moore) and he really knows how to write. Bias and Arrogance are the reason I picked this one up - they are well-written and not shrill.

110 People Who Are Screwing Up America (And Al Franken Is #37) usually avoids shrillness (about 100 of the 110 are shrill-free) and Goldberg takes shots at both Conservatives and Liberals - which is a nice change of pace from most books of this genre. While I would have a different list of 110, I can't really disagree with the reasoning of any of his choices.

I give this one 5 stars out of 5. Well-written, interesting read. I shot through it in no time at all because it was compelling.

This book can be found on Amazon.com here: 110 People Who Are Screwing Up America.

Reviewed on July 30, 2006.

South Park Conservatives: The Revolt Against Liberal Media Bias by Brian C. Anderson

An up and down work

Published in 2005.

I will admit, the title of South Park Conservatives: The Revolt Against Liberal Media Bias got my attention and it was the reason that I picked it up. For the record, I am not a big fan of South Park, but I could see where he might go with it based on my limited exposure to the series (I've seen maybe 10 episodes of the show).

I was not disappointed with the "South Park" section of the book. However, that is only a small section of the book. The first 1/3 or so is your traditional "Look how they are slandering us in the media!" finger-pointing exercise that both Liberals and Conservatives use in their books. While useful for setting up the rest of his book, I could have done without it. I've been there, done that and, frankly, I am tired of it.

The middle part, the part concerning Conservative comedy, such as South Park, Dennis Miller and Colin Quinn was very good. Anderson sets up the jokes so that they usually read as funny as they were when spoken. Actually, Quinn is funnier in the written word (perhaps he should write a book) and Miller is harder to follow because of his offbeat delivery style, but it was still enjoyable.

The last section about conservative students on campus was enjoyable but I kept wondering what this had to do with the revolt against Liberal MEDIA Bias when he kept on referring to the bias of Liberal Professors?

My copy had multiple spelling errors and one mathematical error (he refers to a book written in 1984 that influenced Clinton's signing Welfare Reform into law 22 years later - that makes Clinton President in 2006 - a scary thought indeed!)

Anderson also incorrectly refers to Limbaugh's dittoheads as people who are "ditto-ing" what Limbaugh said. In other words, just agreeing with him. Limbaugh points out in a nearly weekly basis that this is not the origin of the word. It came from the early days of the show when people would call in and say something like, "Wow! I love your show! Where has this been all of my life! Conservative ideas on the radio!" and than the next caller would say the same thing. Eventually, someone got the bright idea to say, "Ditto what the last caller said." The phrase stuck. Knowing the true origin of the word would have made Anderson's thesis all the stronger, since it implies that there were Conservatives waiting for someone to speak to their issues before the "Fairness" doctrine was overturned.

I give this one 3 stars out of 5. Very easy to read, at times very, very funny. Too much re-visiting of old wounds, not enough exploring of new territory.

This book can be found on Amazon.com here: South Park Conservatives.

Reviewed on July 28, 2006.

Crunchy Cons: The New Conservative Counterculture and Its Return to Roots by Rod Dreher

Neat idea but bad follow through

Published in 2006 by Three Rivers Press.

I grabbed Crunchy Cons: The New Conservative Counterculture and Its Return to Roots on impulse as I was leaving the local purveyor of books. You see, I am a "Crunchy Con" of sorts, being an avid recycler. But, this book really failed to reach me. In fact, I felt like I was being preached at with certain topics being outright hammered into my skull due to their repetitive re-occurrence.

Pluses:

-The book addresses the fact that the conservative movement is not monolithic and their are a variety of reasons for people to espouse conservatism.

-Embraces a belief in buying local - something I try to do when I go out to eat or shop whenever reasonably possible.

-Points out how silly it is to apply big business agricultural regulations to family farms.

Negatives:

-What the heck is "crunchy"? Search the internet and you may get a reference to "Crunchy granola", which basically means being hippie-like. Or, you may get a reference to this book, or you may get a reference to some sort of street drug.

-Dreher gets too preachy, too mystical about the virtues of organic farming and quaint old neighborhoods that time forgot in the inner city. Plus, he goes on and on for dozens of pages about these topics with multiple interviews that do little but reinforce the points already made.

-Dreher repeats the old worn line that we in the West should be more like the East: "...in the West, economics is built on philosophically materialist assumptions, but in the East, the whole person is taken into account." (p. 49) Really. The East, home to the Khmer Rouge, sex slavery, the caste system and foot binding. Besides, which "Eastern" philosophy are you going to follow? Confucianism? Daoism? Sikhism? Samurai Bushido? There really is no "Eastern" philosophy. Let's admit it - no society, East or West has all of the answers.

-Dreher's answer to the un-competitive nature of organic farming is a decidedly un-conservative one, have the power of the federal government choose in favor of the organic farmers "and encourage through tax incentives the development of small-scale, locally based agriculture." (p. 86) This is especially odd considering his prior exhortation: "We object to the idea that there's nothing wrong with our country that a new tax or a government program can't fix." (p. 10)

-Dreher waxes poetically about homeschooling. For page after page we hear about how his family does it and how others do as well. He drags up quotes from the 1800s and the 1920s about how the philosophical underpinnings of public schools are inherently anti-family. He offers only two choices: A) immoral public schools who are only out to indoctrinate your children (pp. 136-139) or B) perfect family homeschoolers. 

To be fair, you should know that I am a public school teacher that does not believe in the inherent goodness of public schools (or any other human institution, for that matter). I've seen families do homeschooling right (some of our family's best friends do it right), but I've also seen it done so poorly that when their kids finally come to school they are functionally illiterate.

While sympathetic to many of his points, the most I can say about this book is "disappointed."

I rate this book 2 stars out of 5.

This book can be found on Amazon.com here: Crunchy Cons: The New Conservative Counterculture and Its Return to Roots.

Reviewed on October 13, 2008.

Note: Rod Dreher has gone off the deep end politically since I have read this book. My 2/5 star review isn't much of an endorsement to begin with, but I wanted to make it clear that I do not agree with his embrace of Viktor Orban of Hungary.