Customer Reviews

Gang of Five: Leaders at the Center of the Conservative Crusade

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

This is a thoughtful, well-researched look at some key figures in the significant shift toward conservatism experienced in the U.S. over the last two decades. The subjects are treated seriously and fairly, whether their strengths or weaknesses are being analyzed. The dramatic shift in the political spectrum since the 1970s is a fascinating phenomenon (I suspect that Nixon -- advocate of price controls and openness with China -- would today be considered too liberal to be a viable candidate for either party) and this book helped me to better understand how it came about.

I could not put this book down! This book was very thoughtful, extremely well written, and told a very interesting story. The book details the lives of five conservative activists (Bill Kristol, Ralph Reed, Clint Bolick, Grover Norquist, and David McIntosh) who shaped conservative thought and activism in the 1980s and 1990s. Though I disagree with the positions of many of these conservative activists, their lives are fascinating. Some are true romantics and others are completely Machiavellian. All in all -- a great book for anyone who considers themselves (or aspires to be) an activist, a revolutionary, or someone that has a fire to make change.

Nina Easton's account of these five horsemen of the apocalypse is simultaneously snappy, wry, nuanced and fair. The five men she writes about are representative of the acolytes of the Reagan years, who yearn for a return to those Arcadian years, or at least to a presidential administration which would allow them to continue the Reagan's administration's mission of dismantling the federal government's role in its citizen's lives.

The account is snappy because it is fast paced and intelligent; Easton can write about wonks and eggheads and their beliefs without entangling the reader in wonkhood. Its wryness comes from Easton's wonderful ability to craft, or quote, the right phrase to convey an idea which in less gifted hands would be clumsily portrayed in a paragraph or page. The differences between and personal strengths of the five portrayed in the book are nuanced, demonstrating that they are not totally unsympathetic, and have some personal experience to ground their beliefs. Finally, though Easton's sympathies clearly do not lie with these knights of the right, her account demonstrates that they (yes, even Ralph Reed) have some sincerely held and reality based principles which point them at the windmills they charge.

It is a shame this book did not come out earlier this year, and was not better promoted, so that more people could soak it up before the election. I bought it only because by chance I saw Easton's interview on Booknotes a few weeks ago. Easton's book is another refreshing alternative to the instant analysis and high cholesterol punditry (is there any other kind) ladled out oversized portions. In an age when a candidate's ability to charm a daytime TV host outweigh ability or desire to understand the fundamental issues facing our government today, Easton's book is a reminder that a candidate propelled to the White House has a lot of hot exhaust behind him. We should know what we are going to have to breath before we vote.

The author utterly fails to come anywhere close to writing a serious, thoughtful book on the five men chosen as its subjects or their ideas and impact on American society and politics. This is a shame because the subject is interesting and vital. She absolutely refuses to take the ideas of the five men whose biographies she writes seriously -- I don't mean that she has to agree with their ideas to write a good book, but an author covering this subject at the very least owes it to her readers (and herself) to become familiar with the ideas and guiding principles of men like this. After all, they are serious well-educated thinkers. She absolutely refuses to do so. Instead, this book is an Oprah-ized People magazine level snide personal attack. The author dwells obsessively on the high school and college years (and mistakes and flaws) of her five subjects and attempts cheap dime-store psychoanalysis. She seems to be of the opinion that holding right wing views is pathological and her approach is to try to explain the causes of this pathology -- preaching to the choir at its worst. And that is the central flaw of this book, which skirts the edge of some vitally important topics and political ideas. Her treatment of affirmative action is particularly illustrative and shabby. Is it a good remedy for America's current racial problems? Or does it foster divisiveness between races, violate the Constitution and do more harm than good to its intended beneficiaries? There are serious arguments on both sides of this issue and it is a subject on which reasonable and thoughtful people can sincerely differ. The author describes and attempts to deal with exactly none of theses matters, but just blithely assumes and states that anyone opposed to affirmative action is a racist. From such starting assumptions and biases the book degenerates into a who-called-whom description of political tactics (never a pretty activity on the left or on the right) and personal smears of its subjects. It is tedious and uninformative in the extreme. It is generally a mistake to write a book about people you dislike and cannot begin to understand; this book shows why.

The author calls the conservative movement an "insurrection", as if conservative ideas are revolutionary and something that needs to be put down. This book does not demand a serious discussion, just a straightforward dismissal. Liberal claptrap at its worst.