Political Nonfiction Book Reviews

Book Reviews: Politics & Philosophy
Š Copyright 1999-2003, Skylar Hamilton Burris

In this superb long essay about man's attempt to control nature, C.S. Lewis argues that man will not destroy the planet by exploiting it, but rather will destroy himself by continually trying to reduce human emotions and morals to scientific terms. Lewis has a command of analogies and uses them to clarify his points.

Quote: "In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our mist."

America's Real War * * * * * * *(6)
An Orthodox Rabbi Insists That Judeo-Christian Values
Are Vital For Our Nation's Survival
by Rabbi Daniel Lapin
copyright 1999, ISBN 1-57673-366-1

Despite the title, this book does not focus primarily on the so-called "culture wars." It consists of a number of arguments aimed at persuading secular and religious Jews that they have nothing to fear--and much to gain--from living in a "Christian nation." Rabbi Lapin attempts to overcome the misconceptions and prejudices many Jews--particularly liberal secular Jews--have about the "religious right." He discusses the dangers of too lightly hurling the epithet of anti-Semite, and he maintains that it is America's underlying Christian values and free market economy that has enabled the Jewish people to prosper in the land. He tries to explain the Jewish tendency toward liberalism and socialism and argues why such a trend is harmful rather than helpful for Jews. He also spends some time making religious arguments as well, explaining why he thinks Judeo-Christian values are necessary for the prosperity and endurance of our nation. Finally, he takes a moment to address Christians and explains why Jews find it offensive when Christians claim that Jews who have not accepted Christ are "incomplete Jews."

There is some degree of repetitiveness to be found in America's Real War, as is true with most political nonfiction books. Rabbi Lapin has some very interesting insights, especially with regard to his religious perspective, but the book can at times be dull. The book will be of most interest to the open-minded Jewish reader or the Christian who is seeking some reassurance that his good intentions are understood.

America's Right Turn * * * * * * * * (7)
How Conservatives Used New and Alternative Media to Take Power
by Richard A. Viguerie & David Franke
copyright 2004, ISBN 1-56625-252-0

This book, though written from a conservative perspective, is more moderate in tone than most conservative political books. It may be of interest to liberals as well as conservatives, because it chronicles both the left's and the right's use of alternative media, including direct mail, the radio, the internet, and cable television. For someone of my generation, it is difficult to recall a time when the major networks and newspapers had a monopoly over the news, and this book reminded me that sources of information were not always as diverse as they are now. As a conservative who is want to bemoan the bias of network news and papers like The Washington Post, I sometimes forget that things are not so bad as they seem: alternate views are now available through alternative media, media which is becoming increasingly more accessible and popular.

America's Right Turn is a political history and not a political diatribe. It offers intriguing insights into the reasons for the rise of alternative media, as well as for the reasons why conservatives have generally made better use of these alternatives than have liberals. I learned some new-to-me factoids, such as the interesting statistic that self-identified conservatives consume far more news (both mainstream/liberal and conservative/alternative) than do self-identified liberals. The book also made me aware of how much the government is capable of stifling conservative expression--how it did so in the past, how it is doing so now with campaign finance reform (which also affects liberal expression), and how it may seek to do so in the future. The book suffers from some redundancy (in some cases it seemed I was reading entire paragraphs more than once), but it is a worthwhile read.

Born to Buy * * * * (4)
The Commercialized Child and the New Consumer Culture
by Juliet B. Schor
copyright 2004, ISBN 0-684-87055-X

Children spend too much time shopping. They wile away hours before the television, the computer, and the game console. They are overweight. They are undisciplined. They are obsessed with status. They think owning things will make them happy. They want to be rich. They don't play outdoors anymore. They have too much influence on their parents. They have low self-esteem and overwhelming stress, and they experience levels of anxiety so high that in the past, they would have been diagnosed with psychiatric disorders. And who is to blame for all this? Evil corporate America, of course.

If you think there is something sinister about McDonald's including a toy in its Happy Meals, then Born to Buy is the book for you. If you want an exposé of the marketing industry and desire to read insider interviews about its motives for the ads and products it chooses, Born to Buy is once again a good choice. And, if you want to know how corporations conduct their marketing research, Born to Buy will give you the scoop. But if you're looking for a reasonable explanation of the problems that plague our children, look elsewhere.

Early on in Born to Buy, Juliet Schor blithely dismisses "conservative" arguments for what's wrong with today's teens: the high divorce rate, a lack of authoritarian fathers, career-driven moms. She does so by saying "the research shows" that it isn't so. (She repeatedly refers to "the research" with no further explanation.) After dismissing these "conservative" causes, Schor, with no seeming sense of irony, goes on to describe just how they have, in fact, contributed heavily to many of the problems she blames on corporate America. For example, she says parents made purchase decisions in the past, and now kids do. (Could that be due to a lack of the authoritarian influence?) She says moms who don't spend a lot of time with their kids feel guilty and thus buy them too many things. (Could that have something to do with full-time working moms, perchance?) She tells us the story of Greg, an undisciplined boy whose problems she attributes largely to the “consumer culture.” Greg has bipolar disorder, his parents are divorced, he’s living with a new stepmother, and his real mother buys him explicit CDs behind his father's back—but Schor has already told us that divorce and a dearth of authoritarian parents doesn’t contribute much to the problems that plague kids, so just view the bipolar disorder as a symptom rather than a cause, and that leaves you with—yes, of course—evil corporations creating a menacing consumer culture!

Most of Schor's evidence for her claims about the impact of consumer culture (which is to blame for everything from obesity to suicide) is largely anecdotal, although she does site some specific studies to support her thesis. She even conducts one study of her own, although the results are not particularly shocking. Ninety-two percent of kids say "yes" when asked if they want to make a lot of money when they grow up. Well, what's wrong with that? Would you say yes if asked, "Would you like to make very little money when you grow up?"

Schor clearly has an axe to grind with Republicans and conservatives. She lists some major corporate campaign donors and the amounts they give to political parties: when the majority goes to Republicans, she notes the fact in parentheses—when the majority goes to Democrats, the parentheses are strangely absent. She refers to one group as "extreme right wing" (their "extreme right wing" position appears to be that they don't think fat people should sue fast food companies in order to seek recompense for their obesity) but you don't see the term "extreme left wing" or even "left wing" enter the pages of the book.

The conservative, however, will find something to agree with in her book, because conservatives—particularly religious conservatives—are also concerned about the disappearance of childhood, the oversexualization of children, violence in the entertainment industry, and rampant materialism. But what solution does Schor propose to these problems? I'll give you a hint: it's the same solution liberals always propose for any problem. You guessed it—more government regulations, more empty spending on public education, higher taxes on businesses, and more power to the federal government.

Schor pinpoints materialism as the cause of the modern child's woes—but she fails to ask what causes materialism. Could materialism (i.e. "consumer culture") be simply another symptom of the underlying problems, rather than the cause itself? If materialism is the cause of all our children's angst, wouldn't religion be the only antidote? Yet Schor talks more about Congress than the Church. (Of course, government is a religion to many.)

Schor exposes how corporations are using our public schools for marketing research. While I certainly find this alarming (and while I am glad to have the "heads up" so I can keep an eye on what my child is exposed to), I don't see why this is any more alarming than the fact that government psychologists, sociologists, and educrats have long used the schools for research. While corporate research leads to products, government research leads to policy—and, frankly, I'm more afraid "whole math" than I am of Pokémon. And while I find some material in this book to be revealing and object for concern, I also think a good part of the modern fear of consumerism can be credited to a nostalgia for an earlier time. Technology has advanced at unprecedented rates in the last few decades, allowing entirely new and diverse forms of entertainment and play; yet we parents long for our children to play the same games and live the same way we did as children. Though there is some good sense in this (yes, it's better exercise to explore the creek than to engage in strategic role play games over the internet), it is also partly a romantic yearning.

Yesterday, when my 15 month old made the connection that by moving the mouse she was moving the pointer on the screen, and when she figured out she could click it to get something to happen on the screen, I knew my child would be growing up in a different world than I had. But that world is not necessarily worse, and in some ways it is better. Parents just have to be vigilant to preserve, as best as possible, the innocence, the imagination, the health, and the dignity of their children. In fact, technology will sometimes help us with this vigilance—the advent of DVRs and Tivo enables us to more easily screen shows and cut out commercials for our children. One day, I believe, DirectTV and cable will allow subscription to individual channels, or perhaps even individual shows, rather than to packages, allowing for more clearly defined market pressures, which should lead to more wholesome family entertainment—without the tentacles of government guiding the way.

Those of us who care about the fact that children aren't allowed to be children long enough need to teach our own children the importance of spiritual things; we need to control their intake of non-nutritious foods, put limits on their spending, demand that they dress in respectful ways, take them outside to play, and see that they refrain from consuming crass entertainment. We need to take private citizen (i.e. non-government action), such as voting with our dollars, organizing corporate boycotts when necessary, and using our freedom of speech to express our disdain for tasteless ads and programming. But we shouldn't cripple the economy with further double-taxation; we shouldn't give freer reign to the federal government in Washington, D.C. to decide the standards for Brownsville, Texas; we shouldn't allow the government to be the arbiter of the minutest details of permissible entertainment; and we shouldn't assume that any problem can be solved simply by pouring more taxpayer money into schools that already spend much more per child than the schools of 50 years ago without producing better results. I think the "conservative" solution—which emphasizes the localest of all levels (the family)—is the more likely solution, and the one that better preserves freedom.

The CEO of the Sofa * * * * * * * (7)
by P.J. O'Rourke
Copyright 2001, Atlantic Monthly Press, 265 pages.

"Put your name at the bottom of this list," writes P.J. O'Rourke. "Mail a check for $1,200 to everyone over sixty-five. Break this chain and you'll never be elected to national political office."

Social Security is but one of the many political topics this infamous Republican party reptile parses in The CEO of the Sofa. He also explores the pros and cons of drug legalization, the impeachment of President Clinton, the Bush and Gore campaigns, the virtues of Hillary Clinton's It Takes a Village ("so much more than just a self-help book for morons"), women's rights, and the never changing worth of the United Nations, where "150 heads of state and chief executives come all the way . . . just to say, 'Give me dollars.'"

But O'Rourke also deals with more domestic issues, such as the joys of fatherhood and the complexities of interacting with the liberal neighbors. The CEO is one of O'Rourke's funnier books. It is a light, entertaining, easy, laugh-inspiring read, a fun way to kill an afternoon.

The Death of Right and Wrong * * * * * * * (6)
Exposing the Left's Assault on Our Culture and Values
by Tammy Bruce

Former president of the Los Angeles chapter of NOW Tammy Bruce takes on leftists elites in The Death of Right and Wrong. As a feminist and gay activist, Bruce experienced first hand the methods and motives of those on the far left, people whom she believes have a vested interest in misrepresenting and compounding the misfortunes of those they claim to help. These leftist elites, she argues, are also advancing a dangerous philosophy of moral relativism, which prohibits people from making even the most basic value judgments. This moral relativism is then forced upon society through an education system devoted to indoctrination and a media that labels all impulses of decency as bigotry, oppression, or Puritanism.

Bruce's work is an easy read, and she make some powerful points in a concise manner, but there is nothing particularly unique here. She says little that scores of conservatives have not said before. (Not only is she repeating what conservatives have already said, but there were times when I could have sworn she was repeating herself! I thought I recognized several sentences from her prior work, The New Thought Police.) Perhaps Bruce has more authority to speak on these matters, having worked closely with leftists elites (particularly gay and feminist elites), and that is the one twist she adds to the growing genre of work dedicated to exposing and defeating the left. Bruce is not herself a "conservative" in any traditional sense, and this makes her work seem somewhat fresh, despite the fact that her observations are old news to those who oppose the left. (They came as a revelation to her, and it is admittedly interesting to witness a leftists as she begins to "see the light.") Though much of the ground Bruce covers is hackneyed to regular consumers of conservative literature, she does add many detailed examples which lend some snazz to her arguments. (For instance, without Tammy Bruce, you might never have known that your tax dollars funded performance art that involved a woman shoving yams up her butt and then defecating them into a bowl before offering them to the audience to eat.) I recommend the book to anyone who thinks that black, feminist, and gay elites really have the best interest of their people at heart.

(Review added April 2004)

As both an Economics major and an English major, I deeply appreciated this book, which mocks both economic textbooks and English major-types. But mainly, the work deals with the various economic systems that have been tried throughout the world--communism, capitalism, and socialism--and addresses why some work and others don't, in a very funny, entertaining way. O'Rourke visits a variety of countries for the book, witnessing these systems in action. His writing is clever and witty throughout, and this is truly one of his best books.

Hollywood Vs. America: Popular Culture and the War On Traditional Values * * * * * * (6)
by Michael Medved

This book, copyrighted in 1992, is now a little out of date and could benefit from a revised edition, but since we just had "National TV Turn Off Week" at the urging of the Surgeon General, I thought it a good time to review the volume. The book is authored by a man who some in the media have labeled a "renegade film critic," the talk show host and self-proclaimed "cultural crusader" Michael Medved. Medeved does a decent job of exposing Hollywood’s singular drive to bash America, attack religion, and affront the sensibilities of average Americans, not in order to make money but in order to pursue its ideological goals and to fulfill its own narrow, twisted definition of high-art.

These attacks on the God, family, and country are not, argues Medved, some sort of conspiracy; rather, they are the natural result of an insulated society of actors, producers, writers, and directors who feed off the praises of one another and who are rarely, if ever, exposed to the views, thoughts, and feelings of "mainstream America." At a time when a religious revival was moving through America, and conservative Christians and Jews were gaining converts, "Hollywood ignored religion altogether, or else attacked it with unprecedented ferocity." At a time when ordinary Americans were rejoicing over the military’s victory in the Persian Gulf, "movies and television shows displayed a critical new perspective of…the armed services and America’s role in the world." And, at a time when marriage rates were increasing and divorce rates declining, "the movie business focused almost entirely on single characters and began portraying the nuclear family as an outmoded, nightmarish institution." However, there is a sort of inherent contradiction in this argument. If it is true that the values of mainstream America are so different from those portrayed by Hollywood, how can Hollywood be said to have negatively influenced America? Medved recognizes the inevitability of this question, and he attempts to answer it by discussing the "slow but steady" influence of the media that, through its very ubiquitousness, has the power to "redefine what constitutes normal behavior in this society."

Medved spends a considerable amount of time addressing other popular counter-arguments to the position that Hollywood should clean up its act because it has a negative influence on America, including the claims that Hollywood merely reflects society, that Hollywood is just making money by giving people what they want, and that if you don’t like it, just tune it out. Incidences of violence and deviant sex are, obviously, much higher in TV shows and movies than in real life. As for the money issue, only one top 10 hit in the 1980’s was rated R, and yet R films accounted for over 60 percent of all movies released. (PG movies, which composed less than 25 percent of movies released, accounted for 6 of the top 10 gross spots.) To the last objection Medved responds: "..the popular culture is now as unavoidable as any airborne pollutant. To say that if you don’t like it you should just tune it out makes as much sense as saying that if you don’t like smog, stop breathing."

And what is the answer to this problem? Certainly not censorship, says Medved, which only fuels "Hollywood’s us-vs.-them mentality." What about resurrecting the voluntary code the film industry once imposed upon itself? It would never work, says the author. But what might work to "help to open their eyes" is "[s]ustained public and private pressure." Watch dog groups and boycotts may have some salutary effects. Encouraging young religious people to pursue careers in the media may also help to improve matters from the inside, as will expanding alternatives.

To a cultural conservative, many of the book’s arguments will seem too obvious to be interesting, and the cultural liberal may, perhaps, dismiss the work out of hand. Though his arguments are cogent and his statistics revealing, Medved’s Hollywood vs. America is unnecessarily repetitive. Instead of developing one consistent theme in a progressive manner, Medved organizes his arguments into general categories, each of which may stand well in isolation, but which collectively become a tad monotonous. Nevertheless, I recommend the book because the author so meticulously compiles years worth of evidence that, in its massive accumulation, cannot fail to make the reader at least consider the danger of the continued promulgation of Hollywood’s single-minded vision.

Quote: "I do not claim that media messages cause destructive behavior, but I do contend that they encourage it….I never stress the pernicious power of one movie, or one TV show, or one hit song; what concerns me is the accumulated impact of irresponsible messages that are repeated hour after hour, year after year . . . The most profound problem with the popular culture isn’t its immediate impact on a few vulnerable and explosive individuals, but its long-term effect on all the rest of us."

In this collection of essays, O'Rourke recounts his travels to such places as Iraq, Israel, and Egypt. As usual, he writes with a smirk and makes more than few political jabs, but overall, this book is not as funny as most of O'Rourke's works. Probably the most entertaining essay is on the eclectic and often unintentionally ironic Washington, D.C. demonstrations. Overall, however, the book did not deliver the kind of high quality satire I have come to expect from O'Rourke. It was a quick and amusing read, to be sure, but it was one of his lesser books.

This collection of essays, an expanded edition of The New Left, was compiled by Ayn Rand's disciple Peter Schwartz, founding editor of The Intellectual Activist magazine. In addition to Rand's 12 essays, Schwartz has added three of his own to tackle modern issues from an Objectivist world-view: "Gender Tribalism," "The Philosophy of Privation," and "Multicultural Nihilism." These works approach the issues much as I suspect Ayn Rand would have done, and they are interesting additions to the book.

"Collectivism," writes Rand, "has lost the battle for men's minds; its advocates know it; their last chance consists of the fact that no one else knows it." The essays in this collection are part of Rand's effort to make it known. She assures us that "a social movement that began with the ponderous, brain-cracking, dialectical constructs of Hegel and Marx, and ends up with a horde of morally unwashed children, each stamping his foot and shrieking: 'I want it now!'--is through."

Although I find Rand's Objectivist philosophy at times excessively severe and ultimately incorrect with regard to its self-centered atheistic message, her reasoning is usually sound when it comes to her criticisms of the "new left." The struggle between the forces of individualism and collectivism (in Rand's view, between rationality and irrationality) is perhaps not quite the epic battle she depicts, but it is a serious contest, and if the individualists lose, that loss will have lasting negative effects on human freedom and progress.

Rand is dismissed in the world of academia; her arguments are not confronted: they are merely scoffed at and waved away. She is considered neither a philosopher nor a legitimate political theorist. Yet her works show her to be a deep thinker, and it is clear that she has (consciously or not) influenced virtually every conservative and libertarian thinker of the past three decades, even those who may vehemently disagree with her on certain issues. Most likely, academics refuse to take Ayn Rand seriously because they fear to debate her arguments on a rational level; even if her Objectivists philosophy cannot be maintained in its entirety, to admit even a portion of it would undermine the reigning establishment orthodoxy, which enshrines such dogmas as "multiculturalism," "feminism," and "environmentalism." Universities today are not concerned with intellectual diversity; only with diversity of skin color, which has no meaning, and which is the result of no choice. Rand's writings may not be a serious subject of study in the Philosophy or Political Science departments of today's Universities, but it should be.

Rand's essays are well-reasoned if a bit emotional, but perhaps a little passion is what this debate really needs. Thinkers on the left have normally resorted to the kind of dramatic language Rand employs; perhaps it is time for thinkers on the right to take it up as well, without, at the same time, abandoning focus on rational argumentation, as the left has done. One flaw in the essays is that they are repetitive; though the points the author makes may be valid, she begins to sound too much like a preacher repeating the same truism multiple times in only slightly different ways. Schwartz in his essays exhibits the same lack of conciseness to an even greater degree.

I wish I had discovered Rand in my high school and university days; her writings may have given me some comfort in an environment where diversity of thinking is not much tolerated (and I say this having gone to one of the more "conservative" universities, where objection to the reigning leftist ideology is more possible than in most colleges, and where I was permitted to express at least some measure of free thought). Most individualist thinkers, says Rand, "endure their college years with the teeth-clenched determination of serving out a jail sentence. The psychological scars they acquire in the process are incalculable. But they struggle as best they can to preserve their capacity to think, sensing dimly that the essence of the torture is an assault on their minds." Though melodramatic and exaggerated, this statement holds a core of truth to which I can relate (though for me, it would apply more aptly to my high school years).

I recommend this collection as a must read for anyone who wishes to expand his intellectual repertoire, whether on the left or the right.

Quotes: "The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow."

Right Turns * * * * * * * * * (9)
Unconventional Lessons from a Controversial Life
by Michael Medved

For some reason, I was expecting this to be just another book of political commentary. I enjoyed Michael Medved's radio show when I lived in Seattle (unfortunately, I can't get it in DC), so I thought I might enjoy reading his insights here, even though I am beginning to find the whole genre of conservative nonfiction to be rather hackneyed. It wasn't until I started the book that I realized it was an autobiography. At first, I lamented the fact--I read a great deal of nonfiction, but I rarely select biographies or autobiographies. I usually find them dull. If I am unable to muster enough interest to read the biographies of towering historical figures whose greatness and genius have altered the course of the future, how was I going to get through the autobiography of a mere contemporary movie critic and talk show host? But to my surprise, I actually found Right Turns quite difficult to put down.

Perhaps it is the way he tells his life story, or perhaps it is the weird quirks of his character (exemplified in the unconventional hitchhiking adventures of his youth), or perhaps it is his unexpected insights into the personalities of the various politicians and celebrities he has known, but I found Right Turns to be the best politically themed book I have read in the past two or three years--and I've read many. Medved's narration of his journey from leftist activist to conservative activist is interesting, enlightening, and, at times, even suspenseful.

My only disappointments were that he did not go into more detail about those fascinating hitchhiking adventures and that he seems to have partially regurgitated some passages from his earlier work Hollywood vs. America. Other than these flaws, I highly recommend Right Turns to anyone who enjoys political philosophy, explorations of religious life in America, or bibliography.

Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right * * * * * * * (7)
by Ann Coulter

     Any conservative who is tired of being condemned by a certain brand of liberals (who then refuse to engage in detailed debates about actual ideas) may find some solace in this book. Coulter speaks the underreported truth about bias in the media (television, newspapers, and publishing), and she exposes attempts to misrepresent the nature of conservatives. Yet at times, I believe she relies too much on generalizations and even name-calling. The virtue of conservatism is supposed to lie in the fact that reason is given preference over passion; conservatives are the ones who most often consider long term consequences and costs of individual ideas rather than simply acting or reacting to the blind proddings of the emotions. But Coulter slams liberals with the same malicious passion they use to attack conservatives. This may provide some conservative readers with a momentary catharsis, but it may also leave them with a concern that conservatives will now rely on liberal methods to win their points.
     It is not that Coulter's core thesis is untenable, for she marshals in ample evidence to support media bias and to substantiate her claims that liberals often manipulate facts, manufacture myths, and establish egregious double standards in order to condemn ordinary conservatives. (Indeed, this supportive effort requires over 46 pages of notes at the tale end of the book). But her condemnations are too vitriolic; she could allow the evidence to speak for itself without having to occasionally accentuate it with playground-style "nah nah nahs." At other times, however, her taunts are bitingly clever, the sardonic outpourings of a quick mind, and not mere frustrated hissings or immature gloatings.
     Coulter's books are very easy reading, and she does drudge truth to the surface, presenting numerous cogent arguments, no matter how mixed with snarling passion. The media bias is much talked about in conservative circles, but this, I believe, is the first time anyone has made a concerted effort simply to chronicle it, sighting example after example of real moments in television and print media, when presumably "objective" reporters have clearly shown favor to liberal interviewees while attempting to trip up conservatives, and when they have clearly placed liberal issues in a positive light while burying that news which would tend to support conservative viewpoints. Especially of interest is her analysis of the Gore/Bush controversy, and just what kind of manipulation was employed by liberals and the media to attempt to make Gore appear as a winner in Florida, despite four counts to the contrary. Coulter followed up Slander with Treason.

Treason: Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the War on Terrorism * * * * * * * * (8)
by Ann Coulter

Treason is a bit vitriolic at times and does not infrequently descend into mere name-calling. Nevertheless, it is a well-researched volume presenting a great deal of under-publicized information and a number of convincing arguments. This is no passing, emotional editorial comment; it contains 36 pages of meticulously recorded notes and an index.

Ann Coulter points out what few would dare to: that McCarthy, whatever you may say of his methods (and, despite common misunderstanding, he had nothing to do with the Hollywood blacklist--which was a voluntary industry tool--or the House Committe on UnAmerican Activities--for he was a senator) was ultimately correct about the number of Soviet agents infesting the United States government. She also argues, much to the chagrin of many, that the validity of a politician's patriotism ought to be fair game in the political debate, that liberal politicians have repeatedly coddled and misjudged tyrants while ignoring threats to America's national security, that many on the left tend to view minorities as, at base, infantile and incapable of supporting themselves, and that many of the leftists of America have been seething with anti-American sentiment for some time now, viewing ordinary, patriotic Americans as the backward, ignorant masses.

Coulter provides a viewpoint as well as a series of facts that will be unfamiliar to a great many Americans, because the press has generally presented the news in accordance with its own prejudices, under-reporting important facts and events and over-emphasizing others. I doubt very much that anyone other than a conservative will bother to read this book in its entirety. American conservatives have the advantage of being exposed to both sides of every issue; they receive the liberal viewpoint through media indoctrination as well as the public school system, and then they willing expose themselves to the conservative viewpoint through talk radio and written books--the only two forms of media that have been successfully claimed by conservatives, perhaps because they tend to demand the ability for prolonged, rational debate, which the television newshours do not.

Treason would be a far more effective book if its tone were more level; the same information and general ideas could be conveyed without repeated recourse to childish labels like "sissy." Yet it is still often clever, and Coulter's acerbic wit shines through on a number of occasions. The book was a compelling read.

Quote: "So far--and the review is not complete--decrypted Soviet cables have revealed well over three hundred Soviet spies working for the government in the forties and fifties. Hundreds of agents of an enemy foreign power were working for the U.S. government. But McCarthy was a brute for pointing it out."

The War on Mel Gibson * * * * (4)
The Media Versus The Passion
by Gary North, 2004, ISBN 0-915815-47-8

This book will mainly be of interest to the evangelical Christian who has been irritated by the media attacks on Mel Gibson's movie, attacks motivated largely by political fear of the so-called "religious right" and by anti-Christian sentiments (where Christian is used to refer to orthodox, evangelical, and traditional Christians, as opposed to the more socially acceptable liberal Christians, who often reject or limit the authority of the New Testament).

The book will do nothing, I believe, to persuade the person who did not like The Passion or who despises evangelical Christianity. For most readers, who already accept the author's premise, the book will serve as little more than a means of catharsis and a call to action.

The author spends a great deal of time quoting negative reviews of the movie, explaining the political and religious assumptions behind those reviews, and dismissing the arguments they contain. He does not mount a thorough artistic defense of the movie, or spend a great deal of time explaining why it is worthy of admiration (though there are scattered references to its virtues, including its powerful use of symbolism). The author also discusses Hollywood in general, the role of the boycott, and films of the past with positive or negative attitudes towards Christianity. He inserts a chapter on Jews in Hollywood that he does not adequately tie-in to the issue of The Passion, and which therefore seems extraneous and--as much as I hate to use this label lightly--perhaps even a little anti-Semitic. I don't think that was the author's intention; I only think that is the appearance he left, because he failed to adequately explain why this discussion was necessary to his book.

The book relies rather heavily on the writings of other religious and political thinkers, such as Rabbi Lapin and Michael Medved, and he quotes large portions of the latter's Hollywood vs. America. In other words, the author largely regurgitates (often through direct quotation) the arguments of others who have already expressed similar ideas in better ways. North does make two rather interesting points, however, both of which appear in his conclusion. First, he demonstrates one example of the old Bible adage "you reap what you sow": Hollywood has spent years pushing a message of moral relativism, and now it must contend with a generation that does not consider it wrong to download intellectual property (including music and movies) from the internet without paying. He also tells Christians something they need to hear--that we have a "moral obligation before God to be the best" at every aspect of culture. The author is right to say that too many Christians have surrendered the realm of culture to the secular humanists, instead of producing great art and literature inspired by Christianity. (And that which is produced is all to often the offspring of a culture so insulated that it fails to be eclectic or to set high expectations for its artists. Christian art and music is all too often a poor replication of what the secular world has to offer.)

All in all, though I probably agree with the author's assessment of The Passion and the motives of most of those who attacked it, I don't think the book had much to offer. Although occasionally interesting, it was a bit disjointed, a bit polemic, and a bit unoriginal. Finally, the prominent placement of a website URL at the bottom of absolutely every page was rather annoying.

Where the Right Went Wrong * * * * * * * * (8)
How Neoconservatives Subverted the Reagan Revolution and Hijacked the Bush Presidency
by Patrick J. Buchanan

In this book, Buchanan lambastes the Bush administration and the Republican party, which he believes has abandoned its conservative roots in favor of expanding empire and increasing spending in order to buy votes. He advocates a rejection of the "neoconservative" philosophy of free trade, open borders, and American hegemony in favor of a return to the Republican principles of the late 19th and early 20th centuries and, to a lesser degree, the policies of Ronald Reagan. He relates how the neoconservatives have taken over the think tanks and are now influencing a once conservative party. He proposes his own solutions to what he perceives to be the biggest problems facing America:

While I do not agree with all of Buchanan's assessments and opinions, I do find his arguments persuasive and well written. In particular, I don't think he seriously considers the impact protectionism would have on everyday prices and how dramatically the average American would be forced to curtail consumption (thus leading to additional job losses). I remember my grand Aunt relating to me that she never wore shoes in the summer as a child in order to save money. The idea of going shoeless seems far less practical or necessary today; after all, anyone can go to the local Wal-Mart and pick up a $6 pair of shoes. But if it weren't for the free market, we wouldn't have such a plethora of inexpensive goods available to us, and it is the poor who will ultimately suffer the most from protectionism. Nevertheless, this book will certainly inspire most self-proclaimed Republican to rethink her positions on at least some issues, and even if she does not change her mind, the intellectual exercises will have been beneficial.

Buchanan's treatise is at times frightening, as he heralds the failure of conservatism and hints at the doom that consequently awaits us. But he also holds out a faint hope that the voice of the people will be heard, and that the neocons in charge of the Republican party will be sent running.