Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
45 of 55 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Conceptually Promising, but Factually Failing, May 17, 2008
As a high school government teacher, this book intrigued me as a vehicle to stir debate in my classroom. After the first couple of "arguments", I began thinking about contacting Mr. Fineman about the possibility of creating a textbook version (or at least a supplemental piece). However, once I got to the Presidential Power chapter, my enthusiasm for Fineman's work began to wane. I still like the concept and accept the thirteen selected arguments as important conversations our nation needs to undertake.
But...
After overlooking the poor writing and author bias (even though he is a respected journalist supposedly reporting on arguments that are perpetual), what ultimately piqued me enough to write this review was the two glaring factual inaccuracies in Ch. 9.
First, the War Powers Resolution was a joint resolution, which requires the President's signature to become law, not, as Fineman asserts, a [simple or concurrent] resolution that merely expressing the opinion of the Congress. In fact, the War Powers Resolution was vetoed by the President and then passed over the President's veto with a 2/3 majority vote of Congress.
Second, Fineman continues his Nixon rant by saying that "For the first time in more than a hundred years, the Congress impeached a president..." This, too, is factually incorrect. The House Judiciary committee began the proceedings for impeachment, but Nixon resigned before the full House could vote to impeach, let alone move to the trial process in the Senate. The first time in more than a hundred years that the House did impeach a president was with Clinton in the 1990s, making him only the second to be impeached (the other was A. Johnson).
In summation, what started out as a book with great potential, ultimately falls apart because of the lack of proper fact checking by the author/editor/publisher. As a leading journalist for a leading news magazine, this effort by Fineman makes me doubt his competence to report the news accurately and fairly.
I would still recommend browsing the books chapter headings in the bookstore as a way to begin discussion, but don't waste your money actually purchasing it.
|
|
|
54 of 74 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Alexis de Tocqueville 2.0--Extraordinary Analytic Review, April 22, 2008
The publisher should have done a better job of loading information, such as the complete table of contents, using the Amazon Advantage features that I myself use when offering a book on Amazon.
Introduction: For the Sake of Argument
1. Who Is a Person?
2. Who is an American?
3. The Role of Faith
4. The Limits of Individualism
5. What Can We Know and Say?
6. Who Judges the Law?
7. Debt and Dollar
8. Local versus National Authority
9. Presidential Power
10. The Terms of Trade
11. War and Diplomacy
12. The Environment
13. A Fair, "More Perfect" Union
Conclusion
Some strategic reactions:
+ Conceived in 2005, executed since then, an incredible labor of love
+ As I went through I kept thinking "wow, what a mix of historical unraveling and comparison, current trials & tribulation, and philosophical commentary." This is Tocqueville 2.0, nothing less.
+ I read a lot, so my admiration for the chapters was mostly a reflection of how skillfully I thought this master author and thinker had mined and then hammered into elegant shape a plentitude of sources and perspectives.
The message of the book is revealed on page 243, and I quote:
"We need to calm down, get engaged, and look for leadership. We have been here before: the seeming gridlock; the sudden, uncharacteristic loss of faith in the future; the sense that we cannot produce leaders capable of dealing with real problems. Facing despair and danger, we have always found in our storehouse of conflicting paradoxical traditions a way forward."
The author's bottom line from earlier in the book: never-ending argument is who we are, how we are. It defines us, this never-ending back and forth. His idealistic view is that we cannot afford to NOT be part of the argument, but this does deny the reality that prior to this election cycle, fully half the eligible population refused to engage.
Frequently throughout the book I am struck by the currency of the author's citations and reflections--this is not a book written two years ago and a year in the editing. The author clearly reads and thinks broadly, and it shows.
Some nuggets that grabbed me:
+ New England (revere nature), Virginia (exploit nature), and the Middle Colonies (live within nature) existed as three completely distinct models for 180 years before the convention in Philadelphia. These three models play through each of the arguments.
+ The author irks me slightly when he says early on that the system for choosing presidents is not be best because we have turned it over to primacy voters. Later in the book he recovers with reference to The Broken Branch: How Congress Is Failing America and How to Get It Back on Track (Institutions of American Democracy)
+ NAFTA hollowed out the midwest and many other locations across the USA, and Bill Clinton is as much to blame as anyone. It's led to Mexico importing half what they export to us.
+ Gore could have lost from any of 100 factors, not just Ralph Nader, but the author's favorite is the photo of Gore drinking champagne at 11 in the morning with the Chinese promoting free trade. The UAW acted on that.
+ Somewhere in the middle I have the note, great paper, great spacing, great font. This is an elegantly structured book and it honors the Tocqueville 2.0 status that I for one accord to this author's historical and current reflections.
+ On page 197 he cites Bush as reluctant to answer the question about who his advisors are, but then Bush mentions Wolfowitz, and raises his eyebrows to add significance. THAT was our early warning. See Obama - The Postmodern Coup: Making of a Manchurian Candidate for a similar warning on Zbigniew Brzezinski's last chance to be Dr. Strangelove on Russia.
+ Interestingly, although Dick Cheney appears in the index sufficient times, it is mostly with reference to undermining the environment and capturing energy at any cost [for every three dollars we pay at the pump, Exxon externalizes $12 in costs to us and all future generations].
+ On page 214 the three models come in very nicely on the subject of the environment:
- VIRGINIA: deplete the land, move West
- PENNSYLVANIA: "city in a garden," the "middle landscape"
- NEW ENGLAND: untouched nature, against industrialization (of course this was very early on when Emerson and Thoreau were active.
The author notes that the reigning over-all idea in early America was that nature was our Eden to consume and to subdue.
Toward the end there are two fascinating insights:
+ John McCain used to rail at how the Bushes could muster money just by having "daddy" call everyone he ever gave an Ambassadorship to. The author provides some very powerful insights into John McCain, both the good (an earnest reformer) and the bad (perpetually angry).
+ John Edwards is not part of the system, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama *are* the system--perhaps one explanation he has not endorsed either.
I note: McCain-Edwards? Probably a bridge too far, but wouldn't that be something! It's certainly a ticket I would support, leaving Senator Clinton to be Majority Leader in the Senate. . If McCain can learn to say the word "transpartisan," and mean it, he just might be the best break-out reformist President.]
The author ends with a quote from Bill Clinton in 1993, to wit:
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America."
I agree with that, but only if all Americans pay attention, get into this fight for the soul of the Republic, and demand substance from all three candidates: a transpartisan sunshine cabinet appointed immediately; a balanced budget online for discussion by 4 July 2008; and opening the final presidential debates to candidates from the top five parties in America.
Before I list other books, I want to make one other very important point: the "advisors" to all three candidates are, as a general rule, completely out of touch with reality. What the candidates SHOULD be doing is leading national conversations on the ten threats, twelve policies, and eight challengers, and then converting those conversations, backed up by real budget numbers, into a national consensus. LOSE THE ADVISORS, lead the arguments among us, of, by, and for We the People. THAT is how you lead this country.
Kudos to the author of this great book for timeliness, relevance, and elegance.
Here are eight other books I recommend as we begin demanding substance:
The Revolution: A Manifesto
Don't Start the Revolution Without Me!
What Kind of Nation: Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall, and the Epic Struggle to Create a United States
The Tao of Democracy: Using Co-Intelligence to Create a World That Works for All
Society's Breakthrough!: Releasing Essential Wisdom and Virtue in All the People
The World Cafe: Shaping Our Futures Through Conversations That Matter
The Cultural Creatives: How 50 Million People Are Changing the World
Collective Intelligence: Creating a Prosperous World at Peace
|
|
|
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Argument is a good thing -- really...: 3.5 stars, July 19, 2009
Howard Fineman is a journalist, not a political scholar, and that means this is a lively and readable book. And he has done a remarkable job of honing in on what are -- or should be some of the most fundamental and critical issues that have divided Americans over the centuries since the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock. What is a person? What is free speech? Why is the West's most religious society also so focused on dividing religion from public life in a formal fashion? What makes someone an American? These are fascinating questions, worthy of intelligent debate, and from them flow most of the other issues that Americans quarrel over constantly, from abortion to health care or whether or not the government can tell us to wear seatbelts in our cars.
There are few surprises in this book, but that wasn't necessarily a problem for me. It's been long enough since I first read any American political history that it was interesting to follow Fineman's train of thought as to how these issues came to be so important, and the evidence he assembles as to where the debate stands at present. He's no de Toqueville, however, and any historian is liable to find fault either with the level of over-simplification or the (very) occasional error. (Nixon was never actually impeached -- he resigned.) But I suspect the audience Fineman is trying to reach aren't those individuals -- the people who already know about, think about and care about the issues he's trying to draw attention to. They are already out there in the public arena, arguing away. It's the rest of us that Fineman is trying to reach. Argue more, he urges readers in a cri du coeur.
The book's biggest problem is that, for a book about argument, Fineman pays little or not heed to the nature of public discourse -- or argument. Americans do argue all the time; or at least, they yell at each other across a great divide. Remember CNN's show 'Crossfire', finally yanked from the airwaves after comedian Jon Stewart publicly embarassed its hosts by calling attention to the lack of substance amidst the heated rhetoric? Crossfire may be gone from my television set, but what exists in the great marketplace of ideas that Fineman champions isn't any different. We don't debate, we bicker. We stick to our guns, refuse to defer to anyone else as a matter of principle -- even when faced with facts or a logical argument -- and sometimes close our ears to a point of view that doesn't correspond with our own. Let's face it, audience members who flock to see Michael Moore's documentaries aren't going to head off to the bookstore to buy Ann Coulter's books, just as Coulter's fans would rather be caught dead than watching "Bowling for Columbine."
Fineman is quite good at what he does do, but he is missing the bigger picture: why is it that when we have so many things to debate, all we can do is to argue? That might have been a more helpful question, and could have transformed a relatively pedestrian book into something truly intriguing.
Rated 3.5 stars; rounded down for the lack of broader context about how political discourse has changed and Fineman's willingness to overlook the fact that we do argue, just not in constructive ways. Its single most redeeming factor still makes it worth reading: in an era where so much political writing starts from an ideological premise, Fineman tries (even if he doesn't always succeed) to leave his own biases behind him to identify and address the questions themselves. That's a valuable role -- unfortunately he's left lots of room for someone else to come along and fill in the gaps. Recommended for anyone who is fed up with nasty partisan sniping and who wants to be reminded of what it is that Americans keep returning to in our ongoing debate over who we are as a nation. But get it from the library.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by James W. Felt
by David Maraniss
by a
