"Is this all there is to conservatism?"--The book does not deliver.
341308
I went to some effort to get this book and read it.  I am trying to understand conservatism, and readers at Amazon seems to rate this source highly.

I find that about one-half of the book attempts to explain conservatism, usually by direct reference to the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or a founding father.  Hmmm...I am a strong believer in all of these, but am about as far from conservatism as a cell phone is from an egg salad sandwich.  This is not helping me, it is confusing me.

To make it worse, the other half of the book is pure fiction--a straw-man construct of what liberals (i.e., "statists") think, do and want.  I say fiction because, in most cases, there is no attempt to relate his straw man to sources.  For example: "The Modern Liberal believes in the supremacy of the state, thereby rejecting the principles of the Declaration and the order of civil society, in whole or part."

Huh?  Who says?  I'm sure that Levin would call me a Modern Liberal (or Statist), but I sure don't agree with this sentiment.  (Duh!)

This manner of writing is like a page from Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh: setting up a fiction, which is easily defeated by the author's keen wisdom.  It is a masturbatory fantasy, enjoyable only to the like-minded in a "yeah, what HE said!" kind of reflexive assent.  I am disappointed to find this type of writing in a book that purports an enlightened and educated outlook.

Well, I'll keep looking for a reality-based book to explain to me the principles of conservatism.  I believe that it MUST have a philosophical basis, in spite of its (to me) untenable contradictions.  I want to approach such an understanding with civility and respect, but so far have not found materials that approach the dissenting reader with any level of reciprocity.
1065869
Amazon's rating system says that 3 stars means "It's okay". That's a pretty apt description of this book. I will admit that I am somewhat learned in philosophy, although I hadn't looked into process theology before reading this book. I would not recommend it.

It spends far too little time on metaphysics and support for its own position and far too much time on what seems to be appeasing the qualms of traditional, "classical" theists like Baptist Christians or whatnot. Not only would I not be entirely convinced were I a traditional Christian (several fallacies are made, the most prominent one being the Modal Fallacy, but it leaves the unbeliever or the general inquiring mind either lost or unfulfilled, bogged down with seemingly petty distinctions about "God's nature" rather than "Why should I believe this?? How does it give an accurate and meaningful description of reality??".

The author also does not develop a defense of free will at all, which is a shame because that is a hotly contested subject in philosophical dialogue these days, and he rests quite a lot of the rest of his conclusions on the premise that the libertarian variant exists, which is by no means a given. He sort of alludes to Quantum Mechanics as a possible source of this freedom, although he does not address the concepts of chance in contrast to what most people think of as free will. Does the author subscribe to a two-stage model, a la William James? It is not at all clear, and that is a huge shortcoming of this book.

All in all, if you're looking for an explication of Process Theology, I would respectfully say to look elsewhere. Or just read Whitehead himself.
1797480
I expected that this book would illuminate more about the cause and effects of governments failures in the past 10-30 years that have led up to the crash in our economy, the loss of jobs, the problem of the disparity in wealth, but was disappointed to find specious arguments that sounded more like well-trotted out talking points.

Peter Schweitzer worked in the Ronald Reagan administration and most recently as a foreign affairs advisor to Sarah Palin. His book seems to be a an attempt to soften the idea that corporations are corrupting politics and to soften the public's well-founded anger at the pollution of the government by money.

What does Schweitzer attack in this book? The Dodd-Frank bill that regulates the banks from engaging in casino banking that sunk our economy, and talks down campaign finance reform. Finally he states that the problem is government versus the people, which sounds like a vaguely familiar Fox News talking point.

For a more accurate account of what is going on in our government, I would suggest a smart, well-researched and readable book called Dollarocracy by John Nichols and Robert McChesney, or the book A Brief History of Neo-Liberalism by David Harvey.
1220364
The statements made in the book do not have any backup.  This is one woman's idea of what to do and
it's not convincing that any improvement can be made.
1294994
When the hardcover was released the subtitle was, "Why We Long for a Golden Age That Never Was." It changed with the issue of the paperback edition to read, "Finding Our Way in the Next America." A better idea, but in a polarized US, various factions actually want us to "find THEIR way" and to heck with ours.

Walsh's wide-ranging personal observations covering the last 40 years never really answered the "why" of the 2012 hard cover edition. Instead, she informally but closely pondered her Irish Catholic family background in NY, a personal account/perspective on the changes in the US political landscape since the end of the VIetnam War. The trouble with this approach, is that Walsh doesn't add anything new to this history, and  which is more thoroughly and engagingly told in one of her sources for WtMwWP: Rick Perlstein's "Nixonland."&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/Nixonland-The-Rise-of-a-President-and-the-Fracturing-of-America/dp/074324303X/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America</a>

Neither does she wade deep enough into the question posed by the primary title, "What's the Matter with White People." For me, that subject still needs to be more deeply and widely examined ....... and explained. On Aug. 1, 2014, an interviewee on CNN sized up the polarization of US politics (and culture) by noting that the political divide was boiling down to the Tea Party-infused (and conflicted) Republican Party -- evermore white and male -- vs. the Obama COALITION of women, minorities, independents and liberals of various stripes. To put a more polemical point on this issue, earlier in the year a Republican moderate fretted on MSNBC that his party was morphing into an angry, conspiracy-mongering, insurrectionist, neo-confederate movement -- on its way to becoming a regional party of the deep south and midwest.

Walsh's account does pick up the pace in the closing chapters of Part IV, "Some of My Best Presidents are Black." Her observations in this section stem from her journalism at Salon. This position put her on the front lines of the anti-Obama white conservative backlash. She covers this area well, and her contrast of her perspectives with those of another Irish Catholic, the reactionary Pat Buchanan, are lively. I also appreciated her excoriating of Democratic campaign operatives who routinely dismiss white working class voters (A reliable Republican voting bloc for decades) as "hopeless." She makes a good case that this group is ripe for recruitment to a re-tuned, overhauled liberalism in the 21st century.

In conclusion, I do encourage the reading of Walsh's WtMwWP if you are unfamiliar with the issues of the last 40 years. In this case, her personal account is a most helpful introduction, and her bibliography in the book's Acknowledgements will direct this kind of reader to more scholarly accounts.

3.5 stars.
3915762
This book is mostly a rapidly-becoming-dated political screed about the author's feelings about the president, conservatives, and capitalism. She spends more time flogging the Bush administration than she does exploring her own assumptions about which aspects of her own lifestyle count as "necessary" and which are "luxuries" afforded to her by the privileged place she occupies in society. Even if you share her political views, the book doesn't have much to offer, because her musings aren't particularly interesting or well-written. All in all, this book was a disappointment.
4136906
borrowed this book, did not purchase it. while several arguments against obamacare are presented, they are mainly unconvincing (to me) due to their over-simplification of real circumstances. the cover's promise, "avoiding the landmines and protect your health, income, freedom" goes largely unfulfilled as most of the pages are actually spent on justifying why obamacare sucks (rather than explaining the implications of the ACA, its execution and what should be done now). ironically, such a one-sided approach makes McCaughey unequivocally guilty of the same fact-warping and cherry-picking strategies that she accuses the obama administration of committing. but then again, what else to expect from a book titled, "beating obamacare." my assumption is that those who have purchased this book already dislike obamacare enough but why not add fuel to the fire? ah, bipartisan politics.
2155335
If you subscribe to the idea that all media is out to get conservatives you'll probably like this book.  But there is not much new here.  A more interesting book would compare the coverage Governor Palin received against, say the president, by comparing what are viewed to be liberal sources and conservative sources.  But that is not the choice the author made.

The subtitle of the book is a little misleading.  The author sites many media stories, and also includes information about how the McCain campaign mishandled her, and sabotaged her after the campaign.  This is to his credit.  So the book is really about how media and republican enemies have gone after her.  But the subtitle probably attracts his desired audience.

There are a number of amusing statements that don't match my recollection of the events.  I don't intend to pick apart the entire book, so here are three.  He said her religion was dissected by the media, however the concerns about the pastor of then Senator Obama's church we not covered by the media.  Uh, no.  He said that VP Biden's interviewers gave him softball questions, while Katie Couric tried to trap the governor.  I think if Governor Pailn had answered the question about what she reads effectively, liberals would have claimed it was a softball question.  Instead, conservatives say it was a trick question.  He said that Tina Fey's impression of her blurred the line of reality and comedy (that's not quite it, but I'm trying unsuccessfully to keep it short).  I'm pretty sure people could tell the difference.  He noted correctly that she never said she could see Alaska from her house but people thought she did.  I'd say the same number of people thought this was true as the number of people that thought VP Gore said he invented the internet.  The real issue in this case and what Ms. Fey was capitalizing on was that Alaska's proximity to Russia was being used by conservatives to illustrate she had foreign policy experience.  But that would be a different book.

Finally, he made little distinction among traditional medial outlets, and all the crazy online outfits.  The "new media" sources do not fit most people's definition of "Elite Media".  But go ahead and give the book a try, although I'd recommend checking it out of the library.
4864775
Since eight valuable hours of my life are already gone, this review will be brief.

The good:

1) The author's real-world website research into the minds of conservatives and liberals.
2) The overall premise that there are six dimensions that make up a person's "moral matrix."

Sadly, there is precious little written about #1 and a verbose dissertation on #2 (that should have been covered in 10 pages).

The bad:

1) A lengthy, superficial, and totally unrelated monologue about evolutionary brain development.

The author goes out of his way to suggest that people need to have open minds and pick areas of commonality before delving into moral discussions about politics and religion but then proceeds to waste hundreds of pages assuming that his readers are not only die-hard evolutionists, but that they also bought his book wanting and expecting to read basic Darwinism and evolutionary theory ad nauseum.

"4 billion years ago..." is like trying to reach an audience of atheist liberals, as the author describes himself, by writing "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth...." he's not exactly effective at bridging the gap between his presumably diverse readers-- which is the author's stated objective!

And where is his editor?  The book reads like the high-brow academic with patched jacket pockets who has had one too many at a cocktail party but nobody has the heart to take him aside and tell him.

Save your money and your time.
2222246
It's interesting that the Author used the very successful tea party movement as the subject of her book.  Devoid of an original thought, Flanders and her fellow GRIT contributors rip conservatives one chapter after another.  Why?  What is her basis for this?  The color of their skin.  So who's the racist here?  The fact peaceful Americans demonstrate, and want a balanced budget?  The tea party consists of a diverse crowd, R's D's and independents, so I'd be careful to marginalize them.  The problem with her book is that she/they doesn't go into any real depth other than dealing the race card, one after the other and bottom of the deck too.  Save your time and money, skip it!
3601353
I'm a liberal, but often I read books by conservative authors such as Robert H. Bork ("Slouching Towards Gomorrah"), Thomas Sowell ("Black Rednecks and White Liberals"; "Economics Politics"; and "Race and Culture: Around the World"), Walter Williams, and Shelby Steele. I jokingly say to my friends, "It's good to know what the enemy's thinking." But on a serious note, some of these more illuminating conservative writers have very good arguments concerning the various political and social problems of the day and arguments, which are grounded in logic, experience, and reason.

That bring us to Ann Coulter's book, "Godless". I read it because of the controversy surrounding the book. I'm a native New Yorker, so it was interesting to read her book coupled with her public comments. In conclusion, I must say that the book is full of witty satirical prose, but the book is very short on arguments. Instead, it delves into ranting, at times, downright hatred of liberals. The arguments are very one-sided, which is disappointing because it seems that Coulter engages in a classic "strawman" argument: setting up the opposition and their positions in the weakest manner possible and then countering them, not with logical arguments: premise, premise, conclusion; but rather straight to conclusions--very outrageous and particularly harsh ones at that. In addition, the number of times she engages in the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem (appeal to ridicule) is unforgivable, particularly for a writer and scholar of her supposed ability and stature (this is the first Coulter book I've read). For the few arguments that may be somewhat logical and convincing, Coulter's ability to jump to dubious universally applicable conclusions based on skewed facts and quotations paired with the unbelievably harsh prose at times, is a real turn-off for a person approaching the book with an open mind or politcally moderate. Further, the book seems to ignore examples that stand contrary to Coulter's standard liberal caricature, as if Coulter casted the liberal ideology accurately and confronted them head-on, the book might have been decent--but I find Coulter's intellectual honesty inherently suspect throughout the book. If one does get this book, I would suggest checking the sources, as I did (particularly concerning the 9/11 widows and the 9/11 commission--I won't supply my findings here, I suggest you read the book and draw your own conclusions), and even the Biblical quotations are skewed and crudely interpreted to imply divine hatred of liberals.

In this book, there is no debunking of a somewhat accurate liberal belief system, with straight analysis and facts, that you might find in Bork, Sowell, Williams, or Steele. While those aforementioned authors can be harsh writiers as well, their analysis is clear and logical. Certainly, Sowell and Steele in particular, made me reconsider and challenge some of the political and social perceptions concerning my race--a mea culpa of sorts (I'm an African-American male). I didn't become greatly more conservative as a result, but those authors added more clarity to the political discourse concerning race in our country. It was a refreshing intellectual experience, and I was well-rewarding for reading those who challenged my preconceived notions of how the world operates. However, if you are looking for such an experience in this "Godless," I would emphatically urge you to look elsewhere. But, if you want to fill your head with at times, nonsensical ranting, unsupported facts, and virulent hatred then read the book. The other conservative  authors I listed above, I would recommend you reading instead, regardless of your political ideology. In conclusion, I would simply chalk Coulter's book as another step in the decline of reasonable and civil political discourse in this country.
3032186
Rupert Murdoch's right-wing "news" empire is certainly ripe for a scholarly expose, but this isn't it.  It's more like fighting yellow journalism with equally yellow journalism.  Interesting tactic, but it doesn't work at all.  I haven't seen the film "Outfoxed" (to which this book is intended as a companion piece), but after reading this, I certainly hope the movie is better.

I definitely agree with Kitty's point of view on Fox News, so my complaint about the book isn't political in the least.  No, my criticisms are entirely stylistic.  It's quite simply the worst-written book I've read in a long time.  If you can remember anything your high school history teacher told you never to do in writing a research paper, chances are you'll find multiple examples of it here.  Slang terms are found absolutely everywhere in the book, incomplete sentences turn up every few pages, and Kitty's own biases appear in places where they definitely don't belong.  (A Canadian, she snidely refers to New York and Washington as "dueling candidates for center of the universe" at one point, and also labels Fox News watchers "sexually frustrated".)  She also violates the cardinal rule agaisnt assuming prior knowledge on the reader's part, going on for pages in the first chapter about Conrad Black and the downfall of the Hollinger corporation without providing any information at all on who Black is or what actually happened to his company.

I think I understand the tone she was aiming for here, but she missed her target entirely.  The familiar, conversational tone she's attempting here hardly ever works in nonfiction.  While it is clear to me that she hoped to make the book more accessible through her approach, the sloppiness of her style actually makes it much more difficult to understand.  Also, her in-your-face attitude amounts to sinking to the level so often employed on Fox News, which defeats the purpose of a book-length critique of it.

Eric Alterman and Mark Crispin Miller have both written more broad-based looks at the right wing media in general.  Until another full-length look at Fox News comes along, their work is adequate for anyone who wants to learn more about Murdoch and his enterprise, even if it isn't comprehensive.  Meanwhile, skip this one!
194984
"There's not a lot of work in the Christian market if you won't write self righteous conservative propaganda."  (Blue Like Jazz p. 108)

Sometimes you can read one sentence in a book and get the main point.  Far left author Donald Miller has written a book, Blue Like Jazz, where we get just that.  I read this entire book, some 240 pages, and if there's one thing I got out of it it's this:  Miller really disdains conservatives, especially Christian ones.  One should not be surprised that such an author like Miller was chosen to work on Barack Obama's Presidential Task Force on Fatherhood and Healthy Families.  One left wing extremist serving another.

Now obviously he's not going to admit his animosity, not in those words anyway.  But an outright admission isn't necessary to manifest his position.  Just read the book.  Here are a few examples:

When describing things he "didn't like" about the churches he went to he says "They seemed to be parrots for the Republican Party.... Are the Republicans that perfect?  I just felt like, in order to be a part of the family, I had to think George W. Bush was Jesus."  (p. 131) (bold emphasis is mine)

"I felt like by going to this particular church I was a pawn for the Republicans.  Meanwhile the Republicans did not give a crap about the causes of Christ" (p. 132)

Miller sure doesn't harbor this sentiment toward the hippie liberal crowd though.  When describing what he didn't like about some churches he attended he wrote:  " I felt like both churches came to the table with a them and us mentality, them being the liber non-Christians in the world, and us being Christians.  I felt, once again that there was this underlying hostility for homosexuals and Democrats and well, hippie types.... I had never felt so alive as I did in the company of my liberal friends.... I just liked the community of the hippies because it was more forgiving, more, I don't know, **healthy**. (emphasis mine)

Wow apparently it's healthier to live among hippie liberals than it is conservative Christians!  Scripture says: "I hate the assembly of evildoers, And I will not sit with the wicked." (Psalm 26:5)  And as for the part about his living with hippies being healthy?  Well he must have forgotten about the pot smoking.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but the hippie practice of smoking pot is rather... unhealthy....

There are plenty more things that I could write about, but I'll just touch on one of them.  The most important issue we have faced in history.  This issue is the great gospel of Jesus Christ.  In Blue Like Jazz, the gospel is not presented in any true or clear form.  All we get are some essays many of which are nothing more than Miller bragging about his drunken escapades, profane conversations, and a theological stance that is even more liberal than his political stance.

Don't listen to the advice presented in this book.  Trust only in Christ's death for the forgiveness of your sins.  When that happens you are saved.  When you are saved your life changes radically and you begin to hate your former sinful self.  That's the gospel.
3636086
The book was published today. So I suspect they are simply reguritating whatever talking head's comments that best matches their own particular political viewpoints. Therefore, in my opinion they are worthless as bookreviews. I have not as yet read the book, so this is not a book review, but a comment on today's toxic political division.
985788
I really wanted to find some deep insight in the book.  Unfortunately, I could not find any.

I was also aggravated by the:
a) the writing style (perhaps OK for a magazine article but I judge wrong for a book that (it seems to me) is trying to 'teach')
b) the sloppy use of important words like 'Wisdom', 'fair', "value" etc.
c) The number of statements that were made and, it seems to me, implied to be true without any support (in the text) except by virtue of coming right after an interesting anecdote
d) The author and his editor(s) didn't notice* that he misses his own point

Some of the 2-star reviews here on Amazon are more interesting than the book itself..

*I am assuming that this book was not written as satire nor as a test to see if the reader is paying attention
795476
I am a big fan of Richard Dawkins and the ideas he advocates. I am also a fan of his style, presentation and ability to deliver complex scientific goodies in simple understandable packages. I just don't feel this book hit the spot.
The digressions are too much (can't stress this enough), the analogies are stretched out, the science is unclear (in comparison with his other  works) and his rhetoric unfocused. Arguments-for-the-sake-of-arguments? No thank you.
I find myself asking: is this book really worthy of all the praise it has received? Is it really that good and I just "don't get it"? Or are fans of the book guilty of hero-worship and this book is simply not up to par with the author's other works? The answer is irrelevant to me as the result is the same: this book is of no real value to my library or to me and I personally find it to be very over-rated. I will stick with Richard's other excellent books (my favorite being: The Ancestor's Tale) while this one goes to the "might throw away or give away" pile.
2483477
The small snippets I had read about Barry Goldwater suggested that he was the reasonable face of Republicanism so I was interested to read his statement of principles. I was disappointed to discover its basically the source of almost every banal right wing talking point of the last almost sixty years.

Its not that he doesnt make a good case. He writes eloquently and without malice. Its just that his theory of strict constitutionalism suffers the same flaw as every other political system from totalitarian dictatorship to full participatory democracy, and from pure communism to laissez-faire capitalism: They all work perfectly in the abstract until you add people  particularly when you add people who have a different interpretation of freedom. And when you consider that Mr Goldwaters notion of freedom is the fend-for-yourself kind, there would be more than a few who don't find that version of freedom particularly liberating.

It would be unfair to view the final chapter on the evils of communism and the threat of Soviet domination with todays eyes. But his view of tactical nuclear weapons as being clean and efficient is at best nave. His suggestion that atmospheric nuclear testing results in little to no radioactive fallout, can only be wilfully ignorant.

There is plenty of conservatism here but little conscience. The cold war discussion can be seen as of its time. That was uncharted territory. The civil war and the great depression however, had shown where hands-off government could lead, and that is never addressed.

Its still a good source of honest conservative theory free of arrogance or vitriol.