Customer Reviews

U.S. Versus Them: How a Half-Century of Conservatism Has Undermined America's Security

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

 

 

Peter Scoblic, foreign policy expert, historian, journalist and editor, reveals the mystery of the thinking that has driven U.S. foreign policy. This book is at once highly intellectual and thoroughly entertaining, regardless of where, if anywhere, one falls along the spectrum of liberal to conservative leanings.

Scoblic shows us how human nature causes even the political elite to gravitate to a state of moral clarity. Everything is easier once you achieve moral clarity and it provides a very saleable message, getting results in elections. It divides the world into "us" and "them", which would be fine if we didn't have to deal with "them".

The problem is that more than ever, the U.S. has to deal with other countries all over the world, especially because of economic interdependence and the fact that some of them have weapons of mass destruction. In this sense, the human nature to define what is not well understood into clear issues of good and evil is a liability. Thus, there is a need for professional diplomacy and politicians that work well with this function.

Scoblic traces American diplomacy's tug of war between the intellect and the hardwired brain from the beginning of what he calls the conservative movement to what he calls it's culmination in the Bush administration. What is so amazing about Scoblic is his ability to understand America as both an insider and also as an observer. And this is the gift that he gives us in U.S. vs THEM.

After reading Scoblic, you will be able to understand why apolitical intelligence has been distrusted at the highest levels of U.S. government. This is one of the biggest mysteries of our time.

More than that, I think readers will be able to apply some of these principles to our own lives. That is what great scholars can do for us, and I count Scoblic as one of the best. Hopefully, he will one day come out with a documentary.

Scoblic's book is exactly the sort of well researched, intelligent exploration of the Bush administration's foreign policy that I have been looking for. I have always known that there is something seriously flawed about Bush's foreign policy, and the conservative approach in general (it was Reagan's talking with the Soviets as much as his spending the ended the Cold War)- but didn't have the facts to back it up. Now I do.

Not only does the overall concept of this book original and insightful, but Scoblic manages to avoid the trap of too many politically oriented books- he does not veer randomly into tabloid style right wing bashing while simply sprinkling his book with facts. The book sticks coherently to it's main message and backs up its ideas strongly.

Finally- the book is written with a slight fictional flare- the opening line in: "This book is about a mystery." This style, applied delicately as it is, helps to move the reader through the detailed and at times complex themes and arguments, making US VS THEM, a seriously important book, not only informative, but entertaining and engaging.

I read in one review something along the lines of "if you have to read on book before the upcoming elections, make it this one." I couldn't agree more. No matter what happens in November, the Republicans have tapped into something in the American Psyche so that, no matter how badly they screw things up and are caught in scandals, they are still never far from power. Their overall policies and strategies aren't going to change dramatically. US VS THEM gives invaluable insight into why, whether you are on the left or right, the Republicans have to change their foreign policy or American will be in even more trouble than it is now.

First off, start by reading the 1 star reviews. No, seriously... I will wait for you.


Now, after reading them, you'll have a clue what this book is about. The conservative movement, as described by this book, is one where the only choices are black or white, hot or cold, up or down, us vs them. This is the underlying problem with the ideology. There is no in between. And since there is no in between, facts must either fit into the world view, or facts must be discarded when they do not fit. In addition, since the desired outcome is already known, facts may not even be needed. Sure, that may be fine if you are the guy who shopped at Costo, picked up the book, flipped to the middle, read one page, and then decided to post a one star review of the book here. Unfortunately it is not fine if you are in a position on world leadership. Ignorance never is.

The negative reviews from this book are actually a bit startling. They are basically attacks at on opposing view. The book, however, is fairly straight forward, and does little to attack the conservative mindset itself. Quite often, it rationalized the behavior and applied praise for a necessary political voice. I found myself a bit more open and understanding as to the how's and why's of the mindset. I actually read portions to my conservative co-workers, and they agreed with much of the author's points. This is a book that conservatives should read, to be honest. It gives understanding and insight, without the typical drama seen in right wing vs left wing literature.

Unfortunately, one of the points made in the book is that education and understanding are needed to return to rational discourse. After seeing the reviews of others here... I'm again forced to come to the conclusion that conservative people will never find value in education, nor will they ever appreciate those who have taken on the difficult task of understanding.

This book is a must read for anyone under fifty who wants to understand the conservative movement better. Don't be misled by the reviews. This is a book written from a liberal perspective so liberals will love it and conservatives will rate it without reading it.

I recommend it particularly for readers under fifty - those of us who came of age after the Sixties -- because the book filled in a lot of gaps for me. It explained the significance of conservatives such as William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater. These personalities were already conservative icons by the time that I started following politics.

The book also explained the rise of the neo-conservative movement. The author takes a sobering look at how dangerous the conservative world-view can be.

Any book that reminds readers that conservatives such as George Will once accused Ronald Reagan of appeasement for negotiating with the Soviet Union will not appeal to the Right. However, the book is a good read for the times when the Left has an opportunity to make the world a safer place through diplomacy.

This book, by the Executive Editor of The New Republic, is a very intelligent history and critique of conservative foreign policy since the Cold War. It explains the historical roots of the policies of Reagan and the two Bushes, and includes some interesting insights into the ways that Reagan himself differed from the most hard-line conservatives. It is opinion, but also pretty good history.

Peter Scoblic does a good job of detailing the conservative ideology and it's effect on foreign policy since World War II.
Conservatives advocated regime change, unilateral measures, and the ideology that good and evil couldn't co-exist.

He contrasts the conservative positions with the neocon positions which were much more extreme during G.W. Bush's presidency.

Another valid point was that in the myopic pursuit of invading Iraq, the pursuit of nuclear weapons by Iran and North Korea were virtually ignored by the second Bush administration. A major Bush failure was ignoring the issue of loose nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union. This could be a threat in the future.

The zero-sum game thinking that Bush exhibited is now equally apparent in current politics with the GOP following that same disastrous mind-set.

This is a well-written book documenting the conservative approach to everything from the Cold War to the invasion of Iraq.
It doesn't address the effect oil played on the invasion, but it is a clear explanation of conservative foreign policy and the source of neo-conservatism.

Peter Scoblic's US vs Them provides a thorough and highly readable overview of conservative foreign policy, accessable for IR-"novices" and providing some fresh interpretations for experts out there. I find it hard to read this genre without falling asleep... and Scoblic kept me awake.

Excellent book. If you are studying Presidential Decisions, IR or the Cold War in college, I would suggest this book. Did not get 5 stars because I was able to place the book down and do other things.

This book indicts the 'conservative' movement for ruining U.S foreign policy and in the process ascribes all sorts of things to 'conservatives' that are either half truths or completely untrue and also ignores the fact that Democratic and non-conservative Republican administrations carried on the very same policies as the 'conservatives'. The notion of 'US versus them' predates 1958, and in fact dates from the Wilson administration or earlier. The author blames 'conservatives' for the Cold War, yet Buckley's conservatism (The Conservative Revolution: The Movement That Remade America), which the author notes is the fountainhead, does not occur until after Truman had already stood up to Stalin and led America down the path of confrontation. Truman was, lest the readers forget, a democrat and no 'conservative'. Then the conservatives get blamed for ditching 'realism'(seeDiplomacy (A Touchstone Book)) which, lest the readers forget, was a policy of the Republican Richard Nixon, one that was reviled by numerous democrats from the JFK democratic party. And lest the readers forget once again, JFK, the democrat, was the one who confronted the Soviets in Cuba, ordered the Bay of Pigs and fought with the Russians over Berlin. JFK also called framed the cold war as an 'us versus them' war and sent the first American troops to Vietnam. JFK, the democrat, no conservative.

Then George Bush comes in for blame for not stopping North Korea from attempting to develop nukes and for not beleiving an Iranian claim in 2003 that they would 'comply' by international demands. How can one know what the Iranians would have done, taking them at their word is as naive an acceptance by the author as taking Stalin at his word in 1945. Lest the readers forget, it was FDR that did exactly that, he took Stalin at his word regarding 'democracy' in Eastern Europe. To blame George W. Bush for North Korea's nuclear policy is quite far fetched given the fact that the American confrontation with North Korean began under the Clinton administration. Clinton also saw it as an 'us versus them' confrontation.

Where this book came from and how this idea came about is clear. Hindsight in 2008 is 20/20, so the 'conservatives' can easily be blamed for all the problems of U.S foreign policy. But is is not accurate historically to claim this dates back 50 years. The author seems to confuse 'conservative' and 'neo-conservative'Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush's War Cabinet in his understanding of U.S foreign policy. The two are quite different. The former is isolationist and the latter is Wilsonian. And Wilson was a democrat. And, yes, Wilson saw the world in terms of 'us' and 'them. The idea predates the neo-con worldview by at least 100 years and the problems he U.S faces in 2008 are hardly the result of '50 years' of conservative foreign policy.

Seth J. Frantzman

I've read about 70 pages of this book, and I probably won't finish it. It's an interesting subject and thesis, but the author writes 2 pages of text when a paragraph would do. And I ran across more unknown words in the first 12 pages of the book than I've seen in the last 20 books I've read. (I'm not an academic, but I'm no slouch either.) Too bad; the book's subject is quite interesting, but it's too tough to slog through.