Recommend Political Books You Think Everybody Should Read Here

SmarterThanYou said:
I have to agree with this, unfortunately. After listening to his radio show for a couple of weeks, I wanted to tear my hair out in frustration. He got so many things wrong about the constitution that I was amazed he called himself a constitutional expert.
Click to expand...

Yea I was really surprised at this suggestion. There are some excellent reads on conservative political philosophy. This is not one of them by a long shot. Anyone who would buy into Levins manifesto has to be profoundly ignorant of American History and the US Constitution.

Two conservative political books I would recommend are

The Conscience of a Conservative by Barry Goldwater, a bit topical and thus a bit dated but a great read non the less.

The Conservative Mind by Russell Kirk. This book does an excellent job of describing the conservative movement. It aslo explains how the current rise of social conservatism has created a disparity with traditional conservative in the Republican party and why traditional conservatives have in large part left the Republican party or feel alienated from it and now identify themselves as Libertarians or blue dog Democrats.
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
With out a doubt the worst recommendation listed so far. A more accurate title should be "How to be a conservative apologist and rationalize ignorance."

Levin's absolutism is a perfect example of simple solutions for simple minds. Not only does he factually twist and distort American history and the views of our founding fathers he also equates any dissent from his abysmally narrow conservative views as tyranny. It's purely sophistry for the anti-intellectual conservative. The manner in which Levin cherry picks American historical events which supports his thesis while ignoring about half of our history that inconvienantly contradicts his rather prosaic manifesto, particularly any information that demonstrates conservatisms well known weaknesses, is intellectual dishonesty at it's worst.

Do your self a favor, even if your a devoted conservative partisan, don't waste your precious time reading this piece of tripe, you'll never get that time back.
Click to expand...

You're too late. I'm too far gone.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I have both books in my personal library and I review them both on a regular basis. To be fair, The art of war is written in the context of Taosim so if you have a copy of it you should have a copy of the Tao Te Ching as well.

My understanding of the Art of War is part of why I stand for withdrawing from both Iraq and Afghanistan. We have violated so many of the fundamental principles of AoW in both conflicts.

I actually prefer The Prince in the context of politics. The Art of War is really a treatise on strategy that applies to war, politics, business, sports or any avenue in which one must compete and apply strategy.

Where as The Prince is specifically a "How to" manual on applied politics.
Click to expand...

Yet you ignore Libya?
 
I still get sick that we're not hounding Obama about his, "This will be a matter of days, not weeks"... Yet now it's been months and there is no end or any plan or exit strategy. It's grossly against what he ran on...
 
Damocles said:
I still get sick that we're not hounding Obama about his, "This will be a matter of days, not weeks"... Yet now it's been months and there is no end or any plan or exit strategy. It's grossly against what he ran on...
Click to expand...

What's the extent of our involvement? I'm hesitant to debate the topic with you as you pretty much have a history of taking a position that any action by government is wrong. I see this as a logical extension of Libyan policy under both Democratic and Republican administrations. I also see it was another extension of an imperial executive though certainly not to the catastrophic extent of the Bush administration and more like Clinton's involvement in Somalia. Then what about congress dereliction of duty that keeps permitting an imperial executive to get us into these entanglements? Somalia and Libya are bad enough but Iraq and Afghanistan are a stark object lesson about what can happen when a truly incompetent executive at the reigns. Congress needs to do a serious review and revision of the war powers act.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
What's the extent of our involvement? I'm hesitant to debate the topic with you as you pretty much have a history of taking a position that any action by government is wrong. I see this as a logical extension of Libyan policy under both Democratic and Republican administrations. I also see it was another extension of an imperial executive though certainly not to the catastrophic extent of the Bush administration and more like Clinton's involvement in Somalia. Then what about congress dereliction of duty that keeps permitting an imperial executive to get us into these entanglements? Somalia and Libya are bad enough but Iraq and Afghanistan are a stark object lesson about what can happen when a truly incompetent executive at the reigns. Congress needs to do a serious review and revision of the war powers act.
Click to expand...
They won't, if they did there would never be anybody taken "seriously" when they said they didn't think he'd actually start the war they declared...
 
Damocles said:
They won't, if they did there would never be anybody taken "seriously" when they said they didn't think he'd actually start the war they declared...
Click to expand...
Then we have to call that what it is, moral cowardice. I have deep misgivings about the war powers act for that reason. It gives congress cover and plausable deniability for not doing their constitutional duty.
 
Lowaicue said:
For some the road to serfdom is short indeed. A fact that the Koch brothers know only too well and profit from every minute of their manipulative lives.
Click to expand...

Isn't that the reason why people write books? To profit from them.
 
Mr. T said:
Isn't that the reason why people write books? To profit from them.
Click to expand...

For goodness sake think before you react.
Look at the context and then understand that 'profit' is not confined to money but includes any advantage. 'to profit from every minute of their manipulative lives' focuses on manipulation.

Surely there is no point in my labouring of this point. Just go back and read it again.
 
I would wholeheartedly recommend this book if you want to get a real flavour for how the US has behaved in the post war years.

Review

A fine stylist, a canny controversialist and a serious journalist of modern history. One never tangles with him over historical or economic facts. He has turned this into a book... well-written, an easy read and formidably-argued. I think it is an important subject, not just as 20th-century history, but as commentary on the modern US mindset. --Matthew Parris

Product Description

American incomprehension of the outside world has been the chief problem in international affairs since the end of World War II. In America and the Imperialism of Ignorance, veteran political journalist Andrew Alexander constructs a meticulous case, including evidence gleaned from the steady opening up of Soviet archives, demonstrating why this is so. From starting the Cold War to revisiting unlearned lessons upon Cuba and Vietnam, the Middle East has latterly become the arena in which the American foreign policy approach proved wretchedly consistent. This has created six decades in which war was not the last resort of diplomacy but an early option, and where peace and order breaking out was thought to be the natural conclusion of military intervention. Alexander traces this shoot-first tendency from 1945, arguing that on a grand scale the Cold War was a red herring in which the US and her proxies set out to counter a Soviet expansionism that never truly existed, and that by the time of the George W Bush era, the Industrial-Military-Complex was in office offering little hope of a change in approach.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/America-Imp...1043/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1312444059&sr=8-1
 
tom prendergast said:
I would wholeheartedly recommend this book if you want to get a real flavour for how the US has behaved in the post war years.

Review

A fine stylist, a canny controversialist and a serious journalist of modern history. One never tangles with him over historical or economic facts. He has turned this into a book... well-written, an easy read and formidably-argued. I think it is an important subject, not just as 20th-century history, but as commentary on the modern US mindset. --Matthew Parris

Product Description

American incomprehension of the outside world has been the chief problem in international affairs since the end of World War II. In America and the Imperialism of Ignorance, veteran political journalist Andrew Alexander constructs a meticulous case, including evidence gleaned from the steady opening up of Soviet archives, demonstrating why this is so. From starting the Cold War to revisiting unlearned lessons upon Cuba and Vietnam, the Middle East has latterly become the arena in which the American foreign policy approach proved wretchedly consistent. This has created six decades in which war was not the last resort of diplomacy but an early option, and where peace and order breaking out was thought to be the natural conclusion of military intervention. Alexander traces this shoot-first tendency from 1945, arguing that on a grand scale the Cold War was a red herring in which the US and her proxies set out to counter a Soviet expansionism that never truly existed, and that by the time of the George W Bush era, the Industrial-Military-Complex was in office offering little hope of a change in approach.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/America-Imp...1043/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1312444059&sr=8-1
Click to expand...

Not going to be particularly popular in the land of the free. Partly because everyone at all interested will be waiting for the only yank who knows how to read to visit their trailer park.
 
Lowaicue said:
Not going to be particularly popular in the land of the free. Partly because everyone at all interested will be waiting for the only yank who knows how to read to visit their trailer park.
Click to expand...

Just as soon as he returns from England; where he was teaching those of even a little intelligence, on how to brush their teeth.
 
tom prendergast said:
This made me laugh because it is mostly true about the average American's knowledge about the world. Save the Wales.

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090910023519AAw84Wd
Click to expand...

Tom, America was named after Amerigo Vespucci who created the first maps of the continents, not after some Welshman.

This guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerigo_Vespucci

The expeditions became widely known in Europe after two accounts attributed to Vespucci were published between 1502 and 1504. In 1507, Martin Waldseemüller produced a world map on which he named the new continent America after Vespucci's first name, Amerigo. In an accompanying book, Waldseemüller published one of the Vespucci accounts, which led to criticism that Vespucci was trying to upset Christopher Columbus' glory. However, the rediscovery in the 18th century of other letters by Vespucci, primarily the Soderini Letter, has led to the view that the early published accounts could be fabrications, not by Vespucci, but by others.
Click to expand...

It's fricking hilarious that the Brit got the history wrong on his mocking answer about how Americans don't know their history.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top