Customer Reviews

Why the Left Hates America: Exposing the Lies That Have Obscured Our Nation's Greatness

5 star:		(37)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(22)

 

 

Daniel Flynn does a great job arguing his case that the left generally, and academia specifically, are consumed with an anti-American agenda. He starts with a large series of anecdotes that followed 9-11. They consist of mainly stories and quotes from college profs, students, and protesters who blame "Amerika" for the death of nearly 3,000 Americans that day.

Flynn then explores the roots -- both historical and intellectual -- of anti-Americanism. He traces it back to the Industrial age of the 19th century, where changes in the economy (i.e., prosperity) brought with it a mantra that hasn't stopped since-- economic inequality. This increase in wealth allowed for the formation of a leisure class to contemplate their guilt. And these wealthy individuals, using their time to ponder such issues, became America's first intellectual/anti-American class. This new anti-American class, however, was unorganized and thus resorted to using "bombs and bullets" instead of articulating a coherent refutation of American society. The author then runs us through these violent events.

Flynn then proceeds into the 20th century, exploring the more organized groups that made up American communism and the subsequent Frankfurt School (i.e., Critical Theorists). According to Flynn, the latter development was created in light of the worldwide economic failure of Marxist ideas. Sensing the waning popularity of traditional Marxist thought, these would-be traditional Marxists did something quite clever. Just as a species must adapt to a hostile environment to avoid extinction, so too must an ideology, or a memeplex, adapt to survive in people's minds when faced with facts that fail to support it. The clever move by the CT's was to deny that the struggle between the oppressed and the oppressors was merely a class issue between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, but rather the oppressed are several categories that are much less malleable: Race, Class, and Gender/sexual orientation. These categories, unlike class, are much more durable over time. There will always be women, blacks and homosexuals. This ensures the survival of their holy doctrine. Anyone who has taken a sociology class during the last 30 years will recognize this simplistic, crypto-religious depiction-- complete with its own Holy Trinity (Race, Class, and Gender)_-- and like religious belief, this worldview of the oppressed vs oppressors takes no small amount of faith to accept.

Flynn then moves his attack to the Multiculturalists. His primary claim is that proponents of multiculturalism, since all cultures are not equal, will engage in "leveling" i.e., comparing the worst of the West with the best of other cultures. He provides ample evidence to support this accusation. So, as Fylnn says, the view of much of the left that "all cultures are equal" is a result of this process of leveling. But what if it is discovered that a culture seems to have rather primitive practices? No worries; moral relativism is brought to the rescue. So even if it seems counterintuitive to believe that "all cultures are equal", by invoking the doctrine of moral relativism, it really could be NO OTHER WAY! Like magic, poof! No such thing as "primitive" practices. Isn't that nice? Thus multiculturalism and moral relativism have a survival sustaining, mutually symbiotic relationship.


From here, Flynn goes forward to expose what he calls the "Five Big Lies":

Myth #1: American women live under patriarchy

Myth # 2: America's the World's leading threat to the environment

Myth # 3: America is a racist nation

Myth # 4: The United States is an imperial power.

Myth # 5: The rich get richer, the poor get poorer

Flynn honestly examines each claim acknowledging truth where it exists, but putting things into an historical, global, and fact-based context. These claims/myths, when put under scrutiny, don't hold water for those unwilling to be deceived.

The next chapter is an exercise in comparing various phenomena (e.g., cultural practices, legal institutions, legal punishment, etc.) in other cultures to those same areas in America. Is Flynn doing what he accuses the left of doing (leveling)? No! The reason: he compares apples to apples. That's the opposite of how multiculturalism is taught in the classroom.

The final chapter is an answer to the question, What has America done for anybody? In answering this question Flynn uses example after example to make a positive case for why the world is a better place because of America's existence.

He also makes the supposition that the Real reason the left hates America is because America represents a "massive refutation of every pet theory the left has ever held". This book, along with Dinesh D'souza's book "What's so Great about America" are MUST reads prior to entering the morally backwards, hermetically sealed bubble called college (natural sciences exempt).

I approached this book with the mindset of a liberal who would like to understand the logic behind the idea that criticism of America = anti-Americanism.

While I found the book to be painstakingly factual and relatively free of the emotional rhetoric that the title boasts, I did find some logical issues with it.

Flynn argues the difference between the "left" and "liberal", but never really defines the difference except for "hatred and constant criticism of America". He provides few examples of what he deems the Left, although he does mention Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky several times. His thesis is that the Left controls intellectual pulpits in this country and that they are trying to tear the USA apart by their hatred for it.

He provides many quotes as example of 'Leftist hatred' of America, but all of these are criticisms of the USA and how can one distinguish the difference between a liberal who utters them and an America-hating Leftist?

The issue I have here is that the number of people living in America who genuinely HATE IT is tiny. The number of Americans cheering after 9/11 in a genuine way was also very tiny. Flynn takes quotes post-9/11 such as "we had it coming" and uses these as examples of Anti-Americanism, when in my opinion many of these quotes are the just the bitter moanings of people who are frustrated with their government.

It doesn't add up to me that intellectual strongholds in the United States seek to criticize this country because of some innate HATE. When you love something and care about it, you want to improve upon this, and you take the effort to speak up about it. Many of the quotes and examples that Flynn uses to portray "anti-Americanist hatred" are really the cries of people who want to improve upon the conditions within the US.

The book ends up being a "here are all the reasons that the USA is wonderful and better than the rest of the world" rather than a convincing argument that there is a powerful America-hating Left faction in the USA.

The truth is, criticism and introspection are NECESSARY in order to progress and improve. Flynn criticizes feminists and racial activists now for only pointing out the inequalities in American life, when in reality things are much better than before. However, I would like to ask Flynn, "How did change ever come about if people in the 50s and 60s never spoke up against the status quo?" Using his thesis that those who point out the present injustices are "haters", then we can look back and say that the Founding Fathers were anti-British haters and that Elizabeth Cady Stanton and John Brown and Martin Luther King Jr. were also "America-haters".

I understand his point that there is a faction of people in the USA who see nothing but the negatives in American politics and foreign policy, but I do not believe that these are the majority of the people who currently protest the status quo. The people who "hate" and seek to destroy America are in fact the minority.

There is grave danger in calling people who protest 'anti-American' and 'haters' - we run the risk of becoming a static society that accepts the status quo and believes that politicians and corporations hold the general public's best interests at heart. Humans are, by nature, very selfish, and its up to the people of the United States to chart a course for this nation - and the USA should constantly be seeking to hold itself to higher standards and to be honest with itself and its people; meaning that both the good and the bad should be addressed.

Flynn's argument is ultimately underwhelming.

Most of the people that have written reviews that say this book is shallow have obviously not read the book. These people have obviously read nothing more than the title of the book and possibly the blurb on the back. I feel that they have chosen to "review" the book just to keep others from even considering reading it. Dan Flynn does not define the LEFT as people who are merely liberal or Democrats. The LEFT in his mind is something completely different from the vast majority of America, and they are hardly represented in our government as well. He defines the LEFT as extreme and radical. They include people like movie stars with the bully pulpits who constantly tear down our country. These are the people who say terrible things and then run to other countries to hide all the while spending money made by entertaining an uninformed public. Before you close your mind to this book, make sure that you know what the book is about. The person who said that he is talking about 30 percent of the population obviously did not even read through the first pages of the book. This book is about a much smaller and far more dangerous population.

Inflammatory? Yes.

Does this author deliver over-the-top narration about the holes in his adversaries opinions? Yes.

Does this author have a good point? Absolutely!

This book outlines some of the arguments posited against the longest standing democracy in the world. While he readily acknowledges the shortcomings of our current system, he decries the Left/Socialist critique of America. Dating back to earliest attempts to subvert our democracy by Socialism and chronicling the various attempts after, Flynn documents the history of Communism/Socialisms chronic attacks on our freedom and way of life. Starting with Marx, W E B Du Bois, the US Communist Party, and their illegitimate offspring multi-culturalism, Flynn gives a blow by blow account of how the jealous elite wants to subvert all of our freedom.

If you have become frustrated by the continuing liberal slant in the news media and from the universities, this is your road map for understanding what is really behind the nonsense. This is your chance to unlearn the unsupported attacks on our country and its founders that you received in school.

Deal with the hyperbolic language and you will find this a well-researched gem that with help you understand the wellspring of Leftist whining and extremists attacks on our country. It may also help you re-educate the brainwashed liberal next door.

For what it's worth, let me start by saying that I consider myself moderately liberal. I do not necessarily take what TV pundits would label the "liberal" view on every issue. But more often than not, I come down left of center. That said, I want to note that my purpose here is not to criticize the author's (or anyone else's) conservative views or to call people names. Unlike most of the "critics" who have posted here (both liberals and conservatives), my purpose here is strictly to critique the book itself.

Overall, the book was disappointing. Not terrible, but disappointing. First and foremost, I was very disappointed that the book didn't answer the fundamental question posed by its title - WHY does the left hate America? Instead, the book is equal parts "left-wing radicals hate America," "why America is great," and "why non-western countries are not great." In reality, a more appropriate title for this book would have simply been "The Radical Left Hates America (and Why They're Wrong)." Of course, that wouldn't have sold nearly as many copies because it'd be stating the obvious. But at least it would have been an honest reflection of the book's actual contents.

To be sure, the author does attempt to answer the title's question in one paragraph in his concluding chapter. But even this paltry explanation fails. His conclusion is that the left hates America because it goes against every "pet theory" the left has ever come up with. This is a cop-out, and certainly not what most of the book is about. Moreover, it doesn't really answer the question, and here's why - Presumably, the "pet theories" he's referencing are myths like "America is more unfair to women than anywhere else" or "America is more unfair to poor people than anywhere else." But these misguided sentiments, if anything, are merely symptoms of an already-existing disdain for America. Certainly, a radical feminist, for example, doesn't hate the U.S. because it goes against her "pet theories." In fact, it is more logical that her pet theories are a product of her dislike for America. And while he does an ample job showing that many segments on the far left have disdain for America, he never really explains the root of this disdain, despite the book's having a title that purports to do just that.

One additional criticism - While he makes a strong case that life in the U.S. is better than most developing countries, he conveniently omits almost any comparison to other industrialized nations. In so doing, he implies that the U.S. has the BEST record on civil rights, equality for women, opportunity for poorer citizens, etc. This was rather disingenuous. Sure, the U.S. may have a better record on women's rights than, say, Iran, but the advantage is obviously far less apparent (or even existent) when other "advanced" nations join the comparison.

Other than these shortcomings, this book has some merit. The book is at its best when the author compares the United States with many non-western countries. As he intended, he does successfully debunk the myth that people in many of these nations are better off than in the U.S. Much of what he says is obvious, but I think that was part of his point - that radicals overlook the obvious to find imaginary flaws. Another strong point in the book was the author's discussion, mostly in the introductory chapter, of the behavior of radical leftists on college campuses (i.e. shouting people down, burning books, etc.). Like the author, or any other freedom-loving (liberal or conservative) citizen, these stories [trouble me]. In fact, the idea that some of these people may even share some of my political views [troubles me] even more. Thus, for its strong points, I give the book 3 stars, especially because it was better than I had expected it to be. But, overall, I can't get past that the book fails to answer its own fundamental question.

First a review about the other reviews (something I have never done or felt the need to do but in this case it is warranted) and then a review about the book.

MEGLIN1228 & SCOTRUGBY Reviews

You need to READ and then THINK and then try to COMPREHEND the book before you review it. If you did you would have found out these things. The book over and over states the difference between liberals, who DO NOT hate America and what the book defines as those on the left, WHO DO. The author continually speaks about the founding fathers and usurpation of the constitution as being a threat to America. One of his strongest points is that the first amendment must be embraced so we CAN HAVE discourse on both sides of the issues. Nowhere does he even suggest the antithesis of this.

DUSTIN NEUMAN

Each study that I have read has shown the anti-podal of your belief. The higher the IQ the more likely to be conservative, while the lower the IQ the more likely to embrace liberal philosophies. Sorry Dusty, the truth hurts, try to live in reality.

PHILLIP

1. The author encourages disagreeing with presidents and even gives a great story about Thomas Jefferson encouraging this as a staple of liberty in the book (198-199)

2. Questioning war is not anti-American, it is healthy as the author points out, what is anti-American is showing only the worst of war and claiming that this is the norm. (30, 45, 86, 129, etc)

3. Please read his book Phillip, you might understand how wrong you are.

JOESPH LINDEN & A reader from San Diego

You say he forgot to mention "slavery" Try READING these pages 9, 33-39, 61, 90-96, 126-128, 150 - 158, 178-180, 211. Flynn covers slavery comprehensively; perhaps if you had READ the book you wouldn't seem so ignorant.

PHILIP PALMER

You have your panties in a bunch about fascism, but if you took time to read the book you would find that Flynn attacks Fascism too. It makes sense since the book is titled "Why the LEFT hates America" that the author would go after the left's only success in governing, Fascism. For more info. READ 54-57.

S ROSS

Thank you for reading the book, your review was very well done. Just one comment, you wrote "While he makes a strong case that life in the U.S. is better than most developing countries, he conveniently omits almost any comparison to other industrialized nations." The argument THE LEFT has is that WESTERN civilization is worst than NON-WESTERN civilizations, what the author has done is compare America (representing the West) to non-western civilizations. This is the only fair comparison since it responds directly to the left's argument. BTW he does in many cases, go on to compare America afterwards to the likes of Japan, France, Great Britain, Germany, etc.

MY BOOK REVIEW

First of all the title is BAD and noxious; I wasn't going to read this book because of it, but I was assured by a friend that it was not malicious tripe. I was surprised the writing inside is very good, there is no malice even to those whom the author disagrees with. Instead we have a well researched and fully documented book, complete with footnotes and an index. (Something that is missing in most books from the left)

Let's get a few things clear. The author clearly delineates between THE LEFT and LIBERALS and draws a very distinct demarcation line. Once you realize who the author refers to as THE LEFT you can quickly see that it is true indeed that they seem to have a hatred of this country. The book is also quick to point out that liberals are not on the left and questioning this countries actions, or looking critically at its policies in hopes of making the US a BETTER place, is good. (This is actually one of the most even-handed books I have ever read; I sure wish the author had used a different title, I am sure the sale of this book would have gone up to those on the right, since its invective title seems to actually bait the left and turn-off those on the right.)

While the book itself is fantastic, its biggest is failure is what S Ross points out it in his review, the book does not answer the question of why does the left hate America? The book does try, but the answer itself leaves the reader wanting something more. But to be fair I don't know if the question can be that easily answerable. I think there are varied reasons for each of those on the left. Fear, greed, desire for totalitarian power, lordship all of these seem to play a role in some way with the left's maniacal need for power. Does the left hate America because it proves their theories wrong? I would say no, but they might hate America because it is stopping them in their desire for world dominance.

THE BOTTOM LINE

Excellent book, doesn't answer the main question, but the substance inside of it makes up for that.

Daniel Flynn has done a remarkably cogent and level-headed job of examining and revealing why there is a faction of Americans in this country who have been indoctrinated to hate themselves and their prosperous country - a strange phenom that has been increasingly evident since the horrific attacks of 9/11. All of the sudden, more than ever before, all the ills of the world are the fault of the USA. Flynn probes the origins of this bizarre trend - and what he uncovers has a decidedly sinister base (Communism). But Flynn writes with intelligence and care. This book should be taught in high schools and on college campuses.

There is so much anti-American sentiment worldwide that one is not surprised to find that these strident deniers of all worthwhile things traditionally American are often of the homegrown variety. In WHY THE LEFT HATES AMERICA, Daniel J. Flynn takes the Left to task as he analyzes who they are, why they think the way they do, and what the Right can say to refute the Left's most egregious charges. Flynn places current vitriolic hatred of America within an historical context. He notes that those who shout the loudest are often the same ones who in the mid 1960s stormed the ivy citadels of Columbia University in their protest against the Vietnam War. Those bearded radicals upset far more than the placid decorum of a few harried college administrators. Over the next few decades they became the new generation of administrators and teachers. They wrote books revamping history, taught a brand of history that focused only on America's acknowledged blighted past and carefully overlooked an unacknowledged glory filled record of achievement. Flynn notes that the trend toward anti-American thought began with the early Communist converts of this country in the mid 1920s. It was not difficult for these converts to attract the leaders of a series of oppressed minorities to their cause: W. E. B. DuBois, Paul Robeson, and Lincoln Steffens. With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the race toward finishing the job begun by DuBois, Robeson, and Steffens accelerated. I seem to recall that it was only then that I began to read about a new source of blame America first; the Frankfurt School of Max Horkheimer, Erich Fromm, Theodor Adorno, and Georg Lukacs revamped their then debunked Critical Theory to criticize American culture from top to bottom. Flynn does a thorough job of connecting the ideological dots between the early Communists, the later neo-Communists, and the born again Critical Theorists, all of whom made it clear that in the contest between literal truth and inflexible ideology it must be the latter that had to triumph. In fact, a central tenet of Flynn's book is that nearly all of those who shout out that the United States is to blame for all of the world's real and imagined ills share the common belief that any rumor or discredited theory that vindicates their core beliefs must be accepted as literal truth, regardless of hard evidence to the contrary. The reverse is also true; any proven fact that contradicts their core beliefs is either conveniently ignored or-what can only be seen as a colossal gall-that such evidence is admitted to be true but still does not discredit those beliefs.

The most fascinating part of Flynn's book is his chapter on The Five Big Lies:
Myth #1: American women live under a patriarchy
Myth #2: America is the world's leading threat to the environment
Myth #3: America is a racist nation
Myth #4: The United States is an imperial power
Myth #5: The rich get richer, the poor get poorer
Flynn examines each of these in turn since the typical anti-American sentiment most often involves one or more such charges. Flynn debunks each one not by denying America never suffered from any of them, but by noting that America now looks pretty good in comparison with the rest of the world. Ultimately, Flynn defends America not by claiming that it is some impossibly perfect utopia, but by pointing out that there must be a reason why so many third world inhabitants suffer greatly to arrive here, rather than indulge in the reverse. For those who wonder why the extreme Left fringe of the Democratic Party truly hates America in general and George Bush in particular, Flynn's book is a good place to begin.

This book is a rigorous rebuttal of the lies and half-truths I have been told about my country since high school and throughout college so far. This book isn't motivated by hate for the left, but by love for America. It is a very uplifting and funny book whose main theme is why America is worthy of our love.

The left thinks we are a classist, patriarchal, environmentally destructive, oppressive empire. If they were right about these things, they would be right to hate us. Luckily for us and for the world, they are wrong -- and Flynn presents the facts to prove it beyond any reasonable doubt.

Many leftists can't believe anything that doesn't fit with their brainless, America-is-evil ideology. But Flynn has provided extensive endnotes to show us where to look for more information. Crazies like Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, and Gore Vidal (and those silly, black-clad, rock-throwing anti-capatalist protesters we see more and more of) make wild accusations against the US without any proof whatsoever (e.g., the war in Afghanistan was motivated by our greed for oil!?). In contrast, Flynn shows us the respect of meticulously citing his facts.

This book completely lacks malice. Leftists are wrong and dangerous, but just kind of silly. By the end of the book you feel sorry for them because they don't see all the good that America does in the world.

They are convinced that America is a force for bad. Flynn proves them wrong. It's very uplifting, and often very clever. This book reminded me of real, proven reasons to love my country and to defend it against leftist slander and foreign attack.

Author Daniel Flynn is a man who feels strongly about America's place in world history, its legacy, and its contributions to world culture. He doesn't appreciate it when people attack the USA from within and in this book he explains what he feels are the root causes and the motives of those who engage in this type of behavior on a regular basis. Originally published in 2002 and then updated in 2004, this provocative book challenges the positions taken by those on the so- called "Left", with the author explaining why he feels the activism of these people is not only wrong, but also anti- American at its core.

One thing that should be explained right away is what the book means by the "Left", because I was confused by this at first. When I started to read, I thought the book was referring to today's Democratic Party when it attacked members of the Left, but this isn't quite the case. The group the book is referring to isn't your average, run of the mill Democrat. What the book is actually referring to are the more radical elements within the liberal sector: Those who feel the USA is to blame for most of the world's problems and who openly speak out against the place they call home whenever anything goes wrong in the world.

This book has a few good points to make in this book and positions on key criticisms are explained fairly well, even if the author is a little too brief and blunt at times. For example, I like the book's explanations about the tendency of feminists, minority rights activists, and others to exploit any little incident they can find, past or present, as a way to further their cause. These various groups do, indeed, make exaggerated claims on a regular basis and they are quick to blame the American system when something goes wrong. Many activists are guilty of this, and the book makes a valid complaint on this point. I also like his refutation of some of the pet theories of the "Left" and why they are so wrong, like the loathing of the system of capitalism even though it has created the world's wealthiest nation. These, and other topics like them, are defended well and what the book says makes good sense. These arguments can also be supported with facts, adding to their validity.

With the remainder of the book, the arguments are not as solid and the author tends to get carried away with his blind patriotism. The author doesn't directly admit it, but he seems to suggest that any criticism of government makes a person unpatriotic. To this, I must ask the author the obvious question: At what point does one stop accepting anything the government says or does as morally correct? Where does one draw the line? According to this book, no criticism is valid because the USA, while not perfect, has a better record than any other nation and that we, its citizens, should be grateful to live here and should sing our nation's praises on a daily basis. This blind patriotism seems very shortsighted and it makes me wonder if and when the author would consider the actions of government to be worthy of criticism.

Another thing about this book that is less than appealing is its extremist language. The book argues against liberal extremists, but the author feels so strongly about the "Left" and its anti- American sentiment that he sees no problem using some extreme talk of his own. Statements like "The Left slanders America" and "The Left despises capitalism" are made throughout this book and it starts to get a little irritating after a while. I can agree that there are some on the Left who really do feel this way, but I don't think words like "despises" and "slander" are accurate words to use when talking about the majority of the people who consider themselves members of the Left. I can agree, for example, that some members of the Left are against unequal economic status. But I don't think the majority of them would advocate eliminating capitalism to solve the problem.

The United States of America has offered much to the people of the world and to the progress of mankind. This book is correct when it points out the contributions made by Americans during the industrial age; the many inventions that were created at the hand of an American citizen; and the generosity of Americans toward others in the world during a natural disaster or other time of great need. The book takes pride with these accomplishments and there is no problem with that. But the book goes overboard when it speaks about patriotism like it is an obligation- a duty to which there are few if any exceptions. And to think differently, to criticize American government policy, makes one guilty of treason according to the line of reasoning used in this book.

The title used for this book and its blunt language are certain to get some people steaming mad and that is the way the author intended it. The book is a mixed bag as far as its content and message, so I'm going to give this book a rating of three stars and a recommendation, but not by much. It has some important points to make, yes. But I could have done without the author's self- righteousness and his tendency to generalize everyone on the Left as someone who despises his/her country.