Ideological persuasions seep into historical perspectives
341780
The attempt to sum up American history in 50 events, and to scale it to a one hour narrative, is quite the Herculean task. To embark on such a writing venture, you would understand and expect quite a few gaps in the description of historical events, as so mentioned by other reviewers. Additionally , this abridged format would also lend itself towards the omission of several key individuals as well as salient historic occurrences that shaped the American nation. One could accept such shortcomings given this challenging abbreviated account of American history; however, integrating an obvious political slant to the Reagan and Soviet relationship as well as painting the 44th president Barack Obama as creating policy and programs that will forever positively impact America, were what I believed to be Politcly inspired.
Firstly,  at the time of the 1980 presidential election,  the Soviets were not inwardly modeling their nation as champions of non-aggression peace seeking advocates. The author portrays Soviet behavior during this time as significantly benevolent which is at best a small truth. Reagan never ran for office screaming that the Soviets were the ' Evil empire '. He did not use that expression until years after his election. That term was used twice by him and one time subsequent to when the Soviets shot down a commercial airline flight 007 that rerouted itself around a severe storm and traveled in Soviet air space. The flight had hundreds of civilians onboard inclusive of many woman and children. When Reagan first ran, the Soviets had just exited a near half of a decade of covertly infiltrating third world countries. These very aggressive actions by the Soviets  we're largely unchecked by America during the Carter years. These actions were the cause of Reagan's tough stand on the USSR.
Then, the author portrays Mr. Obama as a FDR type president who had nothing but successes and brilliant policy creations. As much as I would have  loved for that to be true, it simply is not the case. That is an aggressive as well as premature statement to be made by a historian so soon after the Obama presidency. The authors opinion is somewhat  of a rooted European /UK general left mindset ,  whatever positions itself under a Progressive banner is good and correct. Interestingly enough,  I tend to be more on the left of issues but disciplined enough to know it isn't always good and correct. As one who prided himself as a solid Democrat liberal who worked on Carter's 1976 election campaign and voted for Mr. Obama some 30 years later,  I am quite irritated when personal ideological persuasions seep into historical perspectives. It is a frequent habit by all ideological (left and right) platforms when providing historical commentary. Because this is a frequent practice,  it doesn't make it right!
For these reasons, and the historical fact gaps mentioned in the other reviews,  I give the book 2 stars.
765612
If the common citizen and 'permanent political class' in America read Dr. Haidt's book, they will both likely experience a paradigm shift in their attitudes toward politics. With humor and verve and after extensive research, the insights from this evolutionary, political and moral psychologist shatter the insular self-congratulatory moral positions of both the political Left and Right.

Professor Haidt explains partisanship and morality politics in terms easy for a layman to understand while providing startling new analysis of what motivates political loyalties. During the reading process the reader is inexorably drawn into revising their own political biases, such that centrism becomes an inescapable result. By a better understanding of the moral politics practiced by the 'other,' Dr. Haidt gently establishes open-mindedness as both a pragmatic as well as principled personal goal of a voting citizen.

If every political pundit, columnist, politician, and civic-minded American read this book, our politics would experience a paradigm shift for the better.
4933000
In Crane Brinton's classic 1938 study, "The Anatomy of Revolution," the historian of France offered a four-step process for the unfolding of any revolution--(1) discontent, antagonism, and overthrow of the old regime, (2) revolutionaries gain power but moderating positions tend to invite disunity among those revolting, (3) extremists take over the revolution and rule through reigns of terror and virtue, and (4) a "Thermidorean reaction" against the extremes of the revolution and a return to stability.

This exegesis on Brinton's "Anatomy of Revolution" may seem unusual in a review of "Invasion of the Party Snatchers" but it is actually quite applicable. Victor Gold, a former speechwriter for George H.W. Bush and aide to Barry Goldwater, finds that both a revolution within the Republican Party and an attempted revolution in government have run its course since 1980. In the 1970s the Republicans coalesced around a conservative agenda that found its voice in the presidency of Ronald Reagan and a broad coalition of supporters with differing priorities, including many traditional Democrats. That generally moderate Republicanism became more radical in the 1990s and the first part of the twenty-first century as extremists gained ascendency in the party and ruled on behalf of narrow but powerful elements--especially the so-called neo-conservatives and the religious right--to the exclusion of other parts of the party represented by such individuals as Victor Gold. Gold and other longstanding Republicans are mounting their own version of a "Thermidorean reaction" against that radicalism and intend to retake the Republican Party and return to a more traditional and appropriate set of priorities.

"Invasion of the Party Snatchers" is a fascinating indictment of neo-conservatism and religious right political priorities within the Republican Party. Gold describes that he calls a war within the party for the "soul of the GOP." He catalogs a range of abuses as these revolutionaries sought to remake both the U.S. and Republican Party, and finds much wanting in the current version of the party of Lincoln. His critique is endlessly captivating, sometimes extravagant, and often illuminating. Written for a broad, non-academic audience, "Invasion of the Party Snatchers" pulls back the curtain of the Republican Party to reveal what is behind the scenes. Read in conjunction with several other books--especially "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America by Chris Hedges, "American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century" by Kevin Phillips, and "What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America" by Thomas Frank--Victor Gold offers a valuable new perspective on recent politics in the United States.
2815049
Even though it is now twenty years old, Phillip E. Johnsons Reason in the Balance serves as a helpful analysis of the liberal, modernist agenda to supplant Christian theism with a metaphysical theory of reality that completely excludes God. In the two decades since Johnson wrote this book, his words have proved to be prescient. The impact of a liberal-backed, radically subjectivized morality has turned from a stream in 1995 to a torrent in 2015as seen in the legalization of gay marriage and the continuing erosion of traditional values.

Johnsons clear reasoning and vivid illustrations from legal and educational history make his book a delight to read, but probably only for those who agree with his assumption that God is fundamental reality. While Reason in the Balance will almost certainly fail to persuade adherents of naturalistic Darwinism to become Christian theists (such an endeavor is beyond the scope of this book anyway), it at least ably demonstrates the thesis that naturalism is the dominant force in academia and elite culture, and why metaphysical naturalists have strong motivation to marginalize theistic dissent.
1947642
If you're taking a course that uses this text, be prepared for an onslaught of liberal, left-wing ideas to flow from its pages. I knew from the first page that this book would be more of an attempt to change minds rather than to teach and expose the student with real methods to facilitate intercultural communication.

When a text starts off with a quote from someone lauding the election of Barack Obama, you know there's something rotten in Denmark. This text makes an effort to marginalize American traditions and Christianity in ways rarely seen in textbooks. Throughout the text America, Christianity and traditional American values are portrayed as obstacles to intercultural communication.

This is a serious attempt to disguise left-wing propaganda as legitimate college curriculum. It encourages students to engage in group think while discouraging assimilation and unity.
789744
Author Larry Schweikart has done the American public a valuable service in exposing the liberal biases in American textbooks that have helped move the public markedly to the left in the last five decades.  He has done this in a very readable fashion -- actually this book is almost fun to read if the subject wasn't so disturbing.

  Schweikart is admittedly a conservative academic historian; a very rare bird indeed and something simply not permitted on faculties of "elite" universities like those in the Ivy League who are promoting the Bilderberg agenda and producing globalist and socialist leaders.  One wonders even how he gets along at the University of Dayton with its overwhelming numbers of leftist faculty.

  Some of the "Lies" Schweikart presents are extremely well researched and argued while others would take many more pages to firmly nail down the truth.  He comes up short, for example, on the leftist contention than North America was populated by vast numbers of Indians (some "historians" go as high as 90 million) before Columbus arrived.  He fails to mention the leftist methodology for arriving at the "high" estimates.  Those promoting such absurd figures take the Indian populations as estimated by colonists and explorers (already high estimates), then after assuming those populations to be only 5% of their former numbers due to European-introduced diseases and European brutality, they fecklessly multiple those numbers by 20.

  Another "Liberal Lie" that troubled me was #3, "FDR Knew in Advance About the Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbor."  First of all, this contention normally comes from the conservative side rather than the liberal.  In addition, the preponderance of evidence shows that Roosevelt did believe an attack at Pearl Harbor was quite possible, but he also believed all necessary precautions had been taken by his military commanders to repel such an attack.  Kimmel was an aggressive commander, and Short supposedly had put the Army at the highest possible alert level.  Unfortunately, Short had reversed the alert level numbers without informing Marshall, so Marshall thought Short was at the highest alert level when actually he was at the lowest.  The rest, as they say, is history.

  The last "Lie" I wish to comment on is Schweikart's correction that Slavery was indeed the driving force behind the Civil War.  As Schweikart points out, Slavery was THE issue causing the South's secession.  However, the motivation for most of the South's men to fight was not to preserve slavery, but rather to defend self-determination and their home-grown rights. (See McPherson, "Why They Fought.")  This is an important distinction, and one not often made in the North.

  Yes, history textbooks are biased to the left, and this work exposes that fact for parents who care how their children are indoctrinated in school.  They should purchase and read this book.  Even if some "Lies" can be subject to discussion, it is exactly this discussion that makes this book so valuable.  Parents could do much worse than go over every one of the 48 "Lies" with their children to help balance their education.  Education is simply too important to be left up to teachers and educators.

  Highly recommended.
763978
Having recently read Bernard Goldberg's "Arrogance" (and reviewed it on Amazon), I dug into David Brock's "The Republican Noise Machine" with the same kind of anticipation -- an expose of the workings of the partisan news media from one who used to labor in the belly of the beast.  However, having also read several enthusiastic reviews of Goldberg's book by other Amazon contributors, I was impressed with how many readers felt their own prior belief in "liberal media bias" had been validated in "Arrogance."  I fear that a lot of people will read "The Republican Noise Machine" looking for just that kind of validation of their passionate perception of a "vast right-wing conspiracy" in the nation's news media.  No news organization, no reporter, is free of the cultural biases that influence all of us.  A "liberal" can be just a quick to jump to conclusions or be "selective" in including or excluding facts as anyone elsewhere on that simplistic political spectrum. One of the great dangers alluded to in Brock's book is the growing tendency of news consumers to read and view only what "confirms" their preconceptions -- a human failing, perhaps, but a failing nonetheless.

Having said that, I found Brock's evidence of a "conservative" media cabal more convincing than Goldberg's claims for "liberal" dominance.  Of course, they're talking about two different types of media distortion.  Goldberg sees primarily a bias of culture in the Elite Media, which he portrays as an exclusive club, sitting smug in its coastal enclaves, looking down its nose on the rest of the country.  But, Goldberg says, there's no organized left-wing conspiracy to dominate Big Media - the bias occurs because "the club" is so restrictive as to who can become a member.  (One wonders how in hell Dan Rather was allowed in?)

Brock, on the other hand, makes a valid case for a well-organized, well-financed campaign by "conservative" Republicans over the past 35 years or so to dominate various channels of information by which Americans get the news - and to shift the parameters of public debate "back" toward the right's agenda.  Chapter by chapter, he lays out a plausible narrative detailing the interaction of certain foundations and corporate funders, conservative think tanks and religious organizations, Republican politicians, and journalists-with-agendas who move easily across ethical lines.  The sheer size of the enterprise is staggering, encompassing not only obvious right-wing organs like Fox News and "The Washington Times," but at least portions of the "liberal" media that Goldberg assails - e.g., "The Washington Post" and CNN.  The usual suspects whom "liberals" love to hate - Limbaugh, Coulter, O'Reilly - are given ample space, along with less-well-known advocates of a "conservative" propaganda network - Richard Mellon Scaife, Brent Bozell III, William Kristol, Roger Ailes and many others.

There are times when the sheer volume of information Brock presents in "The Republican Noise Machine" seems a bit numbing, but little of it is extraneous.  My only major quibble is that there are not more notes detailing sources of information, but this doesn't affect the overall credibility of the book.

Brock's earlier "expose" of the "conservative" media, "Blinded by the Right," was essentially the personalized confession of a rather naive young man who seems to have been disillusioned not only by the right-wing media's lack of integrity and journalistic ethics, but by the Republican party leadership's hypocritical anti-gay agenda.  The earlier book came across as a little whiney, however credible its insights.  "The Republican Noise Machine" is a far more solid piece of work.  Brock doesn't offer any "solutions" to the issue of right-wing media bias, save the obvious - constant monitoring of media misstatements, half-truths, and outright lies, and greater support for news outlets that strive for the unobtainable - and, thus, all the more noble - ideal of objective reporting.
1215347
This is a well-written and interesting book that elaborates the Marx/Engels view of ideology. The book supports and expands Socialist views of ideology by supplementing Marxist formulas with sympathetic and conforming ideas found across the face of Western culture and history. Throughout, Hawkes pummels Capitalism with a hammer in one hand and a sickle in the other. During this drubbing, one gets a whirlwind review of philosophy (particularly on the topic of epistemology) and the greats of English literature--provided their works may be used to favorably amplify Socialist thinking on ideology. This cultural review makes the book readable and fun.

Ideology as narrowly defined by the author (and his Marxist cohorts) becomes an epithet used against Capitalism and Christianity, elaborating how these rival ideologies are wrong and false. (One might question whether Christianity is a rival or sympathetic ideology to Socialism, but leave that be.) Tellingly, nowhere in the work is Socialism or Communism examined as an ideology--Socialism is simply a liberating truth, the unmasking of other repressive ideologies. Communism, the most profoundly impactful ideology of the past century (perhaps millennium) gets not a single mention. Neither can the author name Islamism an ideology, writing that "9/11 can not be understood as a clash between competing ideologies." So what Hawkes means by "ideology" is a far distance removed from what most of us proles would recognize as a universal definition. It is a focused and targeted definition to be used against Capitalism. The book provides an ideological justification for a particular view of ideology--there's some irony in that.

What, then, is ideology to Hawkes (and Marx and Engels)? It's the idolatry of man-made objects, commodity fetishism, worship of the works of men's hands, a false consciousness, an illusory representation of reality. In a nutshell, it is the vile and evil marketplace. It is getting up in the morning and going to work, buying what you need to live, being concerned about money, and realizing that somewhere there is a contemptible Capitalist who is richer than you are. The false reality of our market-driven economy beguiles the repressed proletariat, who must rise up and overthrow their Capitalist oppressors--men like Buffet, Zukerberg, Bezos, Katzenberg and Soros, perhaps--to live in a society of equals. But under the guardianship of an intellectual elite, of course, since due to their ignorance, "the peasants cannot represent themselves." Men like Hawkes, perhaps, can represent us.

Hawkes makes many interesting circles around his conception of the epic battle between labor and capital, between proletariat and bourgeois, between work and investment, between truth and falsehood, between life and death. What he misses, is that we moderns are one of the Hegelian syntheses--a combination of both prole and bourgeois. We labor *and* we invest. We work so we *can* invest. Marx's dichotomies are of long ago and far away, with the catastrophic failure of the USSR separating Marx from us, and this book, the labor of so much intellectual straining, seems oddly detached from the real and present ideological struggles, unrecognized in this book, that engulf the world.
2243678
An authoritative look at the ideology of the prison movement and its politics in California prisons then and now. And it gives us a view of how we have interpreted this phenomenon--often incorrectly.
4882293
It helps you see how a nation can be moved toward an ideology like Nazism.  Koonz takes various perspectives on the question so you can see the conflation of influences that led to the acceptance of the "Nazi Conscience."
2866393
"God in Man's World" represents an attempt in Biblical historiography--that is, the derivation of ethical and empirical principles from scripture with the view of applying them to the reading of history.  Although Davis denounces the cyclical view of history as un-scriptural  (scripture views history as definitely teleological), he recognizes that  history follows certain patterns.  What is unique about this study is its  attempt to derive those patterns from the Bible's teachings and to see how  they work themselves out in history.
Davis deals with many such  principles, such as sowing and reaping, the creation principle, the sin  principle, the dominion principle, the principle of diligence and  perseverance, and others.  Davis shows dramatically how these principles  have worked themselves out in history, as humanity has fluctuated between  repentance and humility before God and rejection of God and exaltation of  the self (humanism).  The last two chapters are particularly exciting, for  here Davis draws out a scenario for the future based on how the principles  reveal themselves in the present.
This book is highly recommended for  Christians interested in prophecy and history, and for academic historians  interested in an alternative historiographical theory that has  unfortunately been all but ignored in the last century (but was once taken  as a matter of course).
3551023
The writing is good -clear and stylistically pleasant to read, but there appears to be an underlying political bias in this interpretation of the time period.
2478506
As someone who has come to conservatism at the end of the twentieth century, this book opened to me my own political prehistory, the thinking underlying conservative ideas.  To some extent, it forced me to decide what kind of conservative I am.
The book is not strictly chronological in its discussion.  Nash begins with one chapter apiece on each of the three principal strands of American conservatism post World War II: libertarianism, traditionalism, and anti-communism.  Each strand is discussed chronologically and in terms of its principal proponents, leading works, publications, organizations, roots and, of course, theory.
Subsequent chapters discuss the efforts of these three groups to cooperate and to consolidate, the efforts to find specifically American roots for conservative ideas, and the growth of the conservative movement in the thirty years or so following 1945.  An Epilogue written for the 1996 edition discusses subsequent changes in American conservatism, including neoconservatism and the religious right.
The title correctly identifies the subject matter of the book -- it is a history of an intellectual movement, and only secondarily a political history.  Certain watershed events in contemporary conservatism (the McCarthy investigations, the election campaign of Barry Goldwater, and similar) are touched upon, but principally as phenomena to which conservatives react or by which they are shaped.
Highly recommended.
4681615
"What Terrorists Want" provides a valuable academic perspective on the history and anatomy of terrorism as a social, political and military phenomenon.  Relatively free of ideological posturing, Louise Richardson's analysis cites examples of terrorists movements from the middle ages through the Iraq War, across a variety of religious (and secular) traditions, and draws thereby a host of salient conclusions about the prominent motivations behind terrorist action. Along the way, she handily refutes the most common (and durable) misconceptions about terrorism generally; i.e., that it is a symptom of psychological disfunction, religious indoctrination, or the verities of disaffection, poverty or navet.

The latter part of the book tends to get sidetracked by the political issues and controversies of the Iraq War and the policies of George W. Bush. As the first edition was published in 2006, this is perhaps excusable to some degree, but it tends to diminish the timelessness of her central points. (It can be reasonably argued that U.S. foreign policy is subject to a cornucopia of non-counterterrorism-related influences, and any serious critique of same should at least make an attempt to acknowledge this.) The essential correctness, however, of her central thesis about terrorism is well able to withstand scrutiny. In the final analysis, Richardson gives a clear, focused and infuriating account of why terrorism is adopted as a tactic of psychological warfare and how the inability or unwillingness to acknowledge its underlying social mechanics threatens us all.
2409261
This is aa very well-written book filled with specific examples that illustrate its point.  Historically, it is conservative political elements that have tried to silence opposing points of view (e.g. McCarthy).  It is disturbing that it is those who describe themselves as liberals who are today trying to silence everyone else.  One hopes that liberals will find their way back to the First Amendment absolutism that has made them so effective in the past.
2883747
This book gives a clear, rational and well-researched argument that liberalism is nothing more than pure snobbery and elitism - something I have suspected for a long time.

I work in an industry dominated by those on the left, and their contempt for traditional American middle class values, religion, even shopping habits could not be more obvious. Sometimes it can be humorous to watch them try to outdo each other as they boast of their purity in political thought and good taste.

They detest simplicity. Everything must be "nuanced," as if that alone demonstrates intellectual and aesthetic superiority. Yet when they are asked why they believe what they do, they suddenly lose all ability to defend themselves, resorting to leftist memes and name-calling. Perhaps somewhere deep inside, they know that their ideology is built upon a "better than thou" attitude, and challenges to their belief system create cognitive dissonance that causes them to lash out at those who question them.

Siegel's book resonates with my own experiences and suspicions, and makes a convincing historical argument that modern liberalism is nothing more than elitism underneath a veneer of compassion. A must read!
4222703
I'm reading this book for a class I'm taking.  It's pretty obvious that Stephen E. Ambrose was a democrat.  He doesn't blatantly put it out there like you see in today's media, but the fact that you can tell means I have to take everything he says with a grain of salt.  History isn't supposed to be written with bias, it should just state the facts, all the facts, and let the reader make the determination on what to think about the event.  When you present historic events with bias, you do not honestly represent those events.