Customer Reviews

Why We're Liberals: A Handbook for Restoring America's Most Important Ideals

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(10)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Republicans have devoted a lot of resources to the smearing of liberals, but Eric Alterman is not going to let them get away with it. He has a mission to correct misconceptions spewed by conservatives and regurgitated by mainstream media. His well-researched Why We're Liberals: A Political Handbook for Post-Bush America is chock-full of the staggering statistics, rational reasoning, and liberal principles that are under-represented - and sometimes completely absent - in the so-called "liberal media." This history of liberalism is an opportunity for young progressives to read about a time when liberalism was unbelievably popular, and to discover the origins of stereotypes that plague modern liberalism, many of which are baseless.

In chapters like "Why Do Liberals Hate Patriotism?", "Why Do Liberals Hate Religion?" and "Why Are Liberals Such Wimps?", Alterman attacks the assumptions that liberals are "soft" on national defense and crime and rejects the nonsensical labels - like "elitist," "tax-and-spend," and "anti-family" - that form the modern liberal public relations crisis. While any self-described liberal should realize the ridiculousness of these accusations, many are treated as fact by both conservative and moderate pundits and media sources. Proud liberals may feel the book is preaching to the choir, but as the old saying goes, "That's how you make them sing." Liberals have a lot of singing to do if they want to reclaim their good name, and provide the logic and compassion America needs to fight the reactionary politics and religious fundamentalism offered by conservatives.

Alterman insists that liberals have a unique opportunity at this particular moment, and also acknowledges the difficulties we face. He has no problem with telling liberals what they're doing wrong, and he makes some interesting suggestions for politicians and pundits in the wake of the utter catastrophe of the Bush regime. Some of his ideas are already being used by prominent Democrats; however, other ideas of his walk a fine line between pragmatism and abandoning liberal ideals. Alterman does not want liberals to make the same mistakes they have made in the past - a logical, if somewhat bloodless stance.

The most inspiring part of Why We're Liberals may be the argument that a supermajority of Americans hold liberal viewpoints, but do not call themselves liberals. In his conclusion, Alterman writes: "...most Americans are indeed liberals. They'd prefer to live in a society with increased equality of opportunity; greater access to health care for all; a more equitable system of taxation; a healthier respect for the environment; and a less belligerent and more cooperative foreign policy." If liberals are in fact a silent majority, it is time for us to demand the representation we deserve.

Eric Alterman's "Why We're Liberals", is a thoughtful if overly dry book about liberalism in America today. It has some merit, much to the author's credit. For a generation, the right has pounded the left to the point where "liberal" is one of those four-letter words, and then some. Alterman reminds the reader that until liberals stand up and defend that term, (politicians especially) we're not going to move very far.

Much of the book has little to do with why so many of us are liberals, but rather focuses in on how conservatives view liberals and how they go about their mischievous deeds with inaccuracies that go beyond the pale. Alterman does a good job in citing quotations to that end and indeed that is his finest contribution. But he also has a proclivity to sink into polls and other factual numbers that don't elevate what should be a terrific exposé of the right wing. When speaking of Maureen Dowd he quotes a journalist as saying that "she's a liberal by default". Given Alterman's fixation on non-liberal thinking I felt myself in exactly the same position....liberal by default.

Alterman concludes with a terrific last few pages about why we are liberals. I wish I had seen more evidence throughout his book regarding the positive aspects of being on the left, but for those who want some comfort food, "Why We're Liberals" will provide some snacking along the way.

Not since Joe Conason's "Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How it Distorts the Truth" have I found such a wonderful guidebook defending the liberal/progressive ideology while simoultaneously revealing the myths and lies of the republicans for what they are. For decades now, the republicans have systematically associated the "liberal" label with any number of negative stereotypes in the minds of the American people. Their smear campaign against liberals has become so successful that even the most liberal of politicians now shies away from the word for fear of it sinking their political career. Thanks to right-wing politicians and the Punditocracy, Americans have come to associate "liberal" with permissive attitudes, spendthrift "tax and spend" fiscal policies, elitism, political correctness, immorality, socialism, communism, and even treason.

And yet, as both this book and Conason's "Big Lies" point out, polls consistently show that a "supermajority" of Americans take the liberal position on almost every issue. America is liberal, it just doesn't realize it.

This book is actually very similar to "Big Lies" and makes almost all of the same arguments. It's better than Conason's earlier book, however, because the references are more up-to-date. ("Big Lies" was published in 2002.) I'd recommend either book - preferably this one - to any liberal seeking verbal ammunition in his/her arguments with republicans. Let Alterman's "Why We're Liberals" (or Joe Conason's "Big Lies") serve as your Liberal Bible: read it, re-read it, memorize what you can, and the next time a republican tries to trounce you with one of those bogus liberal stereotypes, you can fight back. The Right may have won the victory of semantics - successfully making "liberal" a dirty word - but we continue to win the war of ideology, because most Americans DO agree with our positions. We just have to effectively show them we stand for what they, too, stand for.

First, a few qualifiers, for the reader's benefit. I read the book cover to cover. I was traveling a few weeks ago and checked out this book along with several others from our community library. This was my first effort at reading anything by Eric Alterman. I read the dust cover as well as a few pages inside, noting that Alterman is an academic, and according to reviews of previous books, 'a one man truth squad', and 'the most honest and incisive media critic writing today', and his blog, 'Altercation, is easily the smartest and funniest political journal out there'. So, in this election year, I thought it would help me to read this book.

Briefly, this is not an easy read. I had hoped to find out why liberals are liberals. I still don't know. As another reviewer commented, the title is strange, and I would add misleading. Read from cover to cover and you will find it difficult to define 'Why we're liberal'. Given the title, I expected that the author would set out a definiton of Liberalism and then go on to demonstrate why liberalism makes sense to most americans, and as the sub-title indicated, provide "A political handbook for post-Bush America". It doesn't.

The author on page 56, says 'liberalism is notoriously difficult to define'. I read this several times and wondered, is he trying to tell me that I won't understand his explanation of liberalism, or is he telling me that he doesn't know how to define it in relatively direct language? He then goes on to describe liberalisms origins in the Enlightenment, and then later explains the overall goals of contemporary American liberalism by pointing to current social policies in Western Europe. Frankly, it would have been more helpful to me, and I posit to his definitions, had he used our Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to start, rather than European experiences; the former being more relevant to average americans and the political philosophies which formed this country than the latter.

As several reviewers mentioned, Dr. Alterman makes 'liberal' use of Pew polls to argue that Americans are really quite liberal. Here are a few of the examples he uses to butress his arguments: (1) 'roughly 70 percent of all respondents believe that the government has a responsibility "to take care of people who can't take care of themselves"; (2) 69 percent of the people believe that the government should guarantee every citizen a place to eat and sleep; (3) 65 percent say corporate profits are too high and about the same number say that labor unions are necessary to protect the working person; (4) 69 percent agree that we should put more emphasis on fuel conservation that on developing new oil supplies; and (5) 60 percent would be willing to pay higher prices in order to protect the environment. I found the wording of these, along with the percentages of respondents interesting, and compared these to another set of poll results I had recently seen, these the results of six nationwide polls across both democrat and republican party members as well as independents, taken mid 2007(see www.americansolutions.com). Here are the top ten results: (1)96% believe that it is important for the President and Congress to address the issue of social security in the next few years; (2) 95% believe we have an obligation to be good stewards of God's creation for future generations; (3) 94% believe that children should be allowed a moment of silence to pray to themselves in public school if they desire; (4) 93% believe that Al Qaeda poses a very serious threat for the United States; (5) 93% believe that, in the worker visa program, each worker should take an oath to obey United States law, and to be deported if the worker commits a crime while in the United States; (6) 93% believe that it is important to acknowledge today that the reference to God in the Declaration of Independence-that we are endowed by our Creator with rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; (7) 92% believe that our focus should clearly be to provide long term solutions instead of short-term fixes; 91% believe we should dramatically increase our investment in math and science education; (8) 91% believe we should hold local governments to the same standards for cleaning waste water as are applied to private industry; (9) 90% approve of a Christmas tree or a Menorah being placed on public property during the holiday season, and (10) 90% believe we should give tax credits to home owners and builders who incorporate alternative energy sources in their homes, like solar, wind, and geothermal energy. While taking all polls with a grain of salt, in comparing the two sets of results, I note that the percentages in the second set are all significantly greater than those used by the author, not just a majority, or even say two thirds, but 9 out of ten respondents across the political spectrum. I leave it to the reader to decide to what extent the polling results support his contention that the country is moving in a liberal direction.

In Chapter 3, Dr. Alterman describes at length the challenges that liberals must overcome, including, the word liberal itself, the racial and ethnic conflicts originating in the 1964 Civil Rights Act (cost the Democrats the solid south), class conflict abortion and gender politics, secular vs religious conflict, victimization politics, indiscipline and political disorganization, and short-termism, to list just a few. I see these as realistic criticisms / challenges for liberals / democrats. For example one only has to look at the continuing challenges in the primary process on the Democratic side, including the question of what to with the Michigan and Florida delegations, to give a nod to the question of political disorganization. The chapter is reasonably well done. Unfortunately the remainder of the book does little to provide workable answers to these.

Much of the following chapters is less an explanation supporting the book title, than it is a pillorying of Conservatives; from the supposed dominance of Conservative media, to the personal pecadilloes of individual Conservatives, and red states compared to blue states. All make good talking points if your objective is to argue that liberals are 'good' people and conservatives are not, however, do little to explain why any one is a liberal. Also, arguing that Keith Olbermann or Chris Matthews represent a center or even center right while Rush Limbaugh is far far right, and that Media Matters is something other than a liberal media channel, only obfuscate not clarify. Rush is on the right. Media Matters is on the left, not in the middle.

In a particularly strange chapter on activist judges, the author quotes two legal scholars who have created a measure of judicial activism based on decisions to strike down legislation as unconstitutional. Until I read this section, I had assumed, as I believe most do, that activism on the part of the judiciary did not require actual action, ie striking down of legislation. That is judges could be activists by either quietly sitting by and allowing legislation to continue, or by striking down legislation. The common meaning of 'judicial activism', I believe requires examining the grounds on which judicial decisions are made. Judicial restraint is based on the interpretation of laws according to the meaning the words had when the laws were written, while 'judicial activism' allows for any interpretation of the words, from a wide range of sources. Regardless of the role I believe that the Supreme Court should take, changing the definition mid-stream, seems to a sort of 'authorial activisim' to obtain a logically faulty result! I ask, was it really necessary for the author to defend 'activist' Supreme Court decisions by changing the definition of activisim itself? If so, then this ought to be listed in Chapter 4, along with the other historical problems facing liberals!

The final chapter is a reasonably solid effort, and should have come after Chapter 2, obviously written to follow the flow of the argument. Then eliminate the attacks on Conservatives, and go on to exmplain 'liberalism' in positive language. Finally, I do agree with the author, that efforts to replace the term 'liberal' with alternatives such as 'progressive' waste energy, and provide more fodder for those who are not liberals. Accept the term and get on with the political challenges facing the country. Libertarians are happy to be named such, and conservatives don't have a problem with their appelation. The problem isn't the name it is the failed policies and inconsistent, short-term behavior that needs to be addressed.

This is the typical three star political book: some good points but one-sided and ultimately convincing only if you're already a believer. Worth a read if you have some time to kill, but there's nothing profound to be found in Why We're Liberals. I can't see even an open-minded conservative becoming a liberal after reading this. Alterman has written much better books-try When Presidents Lie and Who Speaks for America.

Alterman never provides a succinct answer to the question, Why We're Liberals? The answer, however, is obvious. We're liberals because we couldn't be anything else. Our understanding of how the world works corresponds only with a liberal perspective, a perspective from which we have "a fundamental commitment to the values of the Enlightenment, [to] the force of reason and the ability of men and women to join together to create a society for the common good (p. 56)." It is an understanding, partly idealistic, partly pragmatic, that the individual is freest when all are free and a realization that all political endeavors must work towards the greatest good for the greatest number, the common good. We operate from the understanding that freedom is counterintuitive: the more freely granted to the least of us, the more there is for all of us. Liberalism is a perspective, a way of engaging the world and others, not an ideology, and is therefore very broad in its inclusivity.

Alterman confesses that "liberalism is notoriously difficult to define (p. 56)" because the concepts of which it is comprised are individually difficult to define: fairness, reciprocity, equity in political and financial opportunities, a profound respect for our own humanity and for the humanity of others, an intense desire to see even handed treatment for all in our courts, our schools, and our political institutions, and a deep reverence for freedom and reason. These concepts are as hard to articulate into policy as they are difficult to define, and the liberal understands that the interactions of people are intensely complex, that that's the way he or she perceives the world because that`s the way the world is. We fervently believe that men can be free and that these goals are attainable because man is endowed with reason and the desire to see all men equally free. We believe that a political system which fails to ponder these goals at every turn, that is to say, constantly, is doomed to failure because it eliminates fairness and reciprocity, replacing them with preconceived and practiced responses which totally miss the point at hand and hold no consideration for the long term.

Alterman does not discuss in detail the important philosophical foundations or humanistic goals of liberalism, choosing instead to fall into the snare of trying to answer the multiplicity of complaints from an opponent who uses a fog of accusations as a tactical weapon to suppress well thought-out, coherent answers. Liberals try too hard to justify themselves when the obvious response to so much of the fog is simply Bah! Humbug! Unfortunately, liberals like complete answers because the world is a complex place and simple answers are anathema to that complexity. Alterman, therefore, goes through a laundry list of "conservative" charges, answering each of them clearly, succinctly and accurately, but never coming to the sweeping positive assertion, as he should have, of what liberals represent in a chaotic political world which seems intent on making some people freer or "more equal" than others, using financial holdings as a measure of equality, rather than one's innate humanity.

He repeatedly cites the conservative equivalents of the harpies, people like Beck, Hannity, Coulter, and O'Reilly, whose proclivity for saying just about anything without regard for truth or accuracy, makes complete answers difficult. By this process, he defines liberalism through a series of negatives. "We are not this; we are not that, despite what our opponents say." Trying to respond in this manner is falling into the snare set by our opponents. Liberals want to provide a clear, precise, and complete answer to all questions, even when the questions are specious because they believe all men are capable of rational understanding, even when it is shown that they reject the opportunity to understand. The pronouncements of these harpies are most commonly based on emotionalism and have nothing to do with the world as the liberals comprehend it or as it truly exists. It's a combat between reason and emotion, between the perception of certainty and an uncertain world, between self-centeredness and society affirming behaviors. Conservatives well understand that their continued success depends upon keeping reason fogged and emotions peaked. Clearing the fog is the challenge, and Alterman endeavors to do just that.


In his concluding chapter, Alterman describes why liberals had the upper hand in the 2008 elections, not because they earned it through political genius, but because the last conservative president did such a miserable job. The liberals won the election after the book was published, or at least a moderately liberal faction did, and I would like to see Alterman's answer for the political environment since President Obama's inauguration. I hope he will write a sequel to give us his thoughts on the subject, especially now that the mid term elections have taken such a negative turn.

I think the book well worth reading because Alterman tries to provide a broad and reasoned perspective to the complex topic of liberalism. Liberals will find themselves and some of the responses they need in this book, the undecided may gain new perspective on the assault on democratic ideals by conservatives, and conservatives will be surprised by the soundness of his points, even though they may choose to reject those points. The book is typically liberal: broad, inconclusive, thought-provoking, and very interesting.

It's all here in spades.

While some books are very thin on facts and heavy on opinion this book is just the opposite- for every point he makes, the author backs it up with numerous and highly memorable statistics, studies, relevant examples from recent and past history before finally giving the reader an overall perspective on each issue. For instance, when he debunks the notion of a liberal media, he does so by not through ranting but through citing studies which tallied the number of liberal talking heads that have appeared on the Sunday shows over the past years, how many hours of total time anyone resembling a liberal gets on cable and network T.V.. When he talks about how little conservatives are willing to deal in shades of gray on issues, he gives numerous very cogent examples of exactly this then goes on to cite studies that show things like people who self-identify themselves as conservatives have less activity in their prefrontal cortexes when they attempt to resolve ambiguous visual stimuli in laboratory conditions, i.e. is that letter an "M" or a "N"?

If you're looking for facts you can use in conversation or debate, you'd better be ready to take notes. Can you remember every hypocritical Congressman or Senator or political figure of the right who attacked Clinton or gays or drug addicts or the left while engaging in exactly the behavior they were self-righteously condemning? Can you remember their names and positions and what they said and exactly what they did? I lived through all the examples he cites and was disgusted by each, but I have to confess I forgot the names and details. To see them all paraded here was edifying and astonishing- I had no idea there were so many of them and that they were so shamelessly hypocritical; I'm now a lot more fun at Thanksgiving dinner. For instance, Newt Gingrich is gearing up to Being Somebody another go. He lead the charge to impeach Clinton. He's also the guy who dumped his first wife, who put him through college, with the words "she's not young enough or pretty enough to be a First Lady" and served her divorce papers at her hospital bed where she was being treated for cancer, then went on to marry a younger woman, then dumped HER later when she came down with MS and finally married another woman 23 years his junior. Still he thought himself in a position to lecture the country, and the Clintons, about the importance of family values and the sanctity of marriage and all that.

Another example: I didn't know that there was a measure of health care which specifically isolates "cure rate of diseases which are amenable to treatment". This is important because it shows very starkly just how mediocre American health care really is compared to other countries. This is not something you'll learn about on Fox.

This is a high quality work. Conservatives will hate it and quite frankly it's hard to imagine them reading it through, so the audience is probably the converted, but it's well worth the time it requires to read it. You'll come away with a ton of facts which, even if you're politically savvy, you probably haven't heard before and which taken together devastate a long list of conservative articles of faith such as, "America was founded as a Christian country" or "Europe is in economic decline" or "the U.S. has the best health care in the world" or "there's a liberal bias in the media" or "the majority of people are conservative" or "the economic golden age of 1945-60 in this country was a result of low taxes and limited government".

A solid work, a moral work, packed with memorable and effective facts. All stuff, no fluff. Enjoy.

What an amazing defense of liberalism. But what's sad is that liberalism even needs to be defended in the first place. What Alterman does is set down facts and evidence that will make you see that conservatives in this country will do and say about anything to get power and keep it. He makes it known that the right wing has demonized the term "liberal" and "liberalism" when in fact the country is leaning more and more towards what the real definition of "liberalism" is. Definitely a book every liberal (and non-liberal) needs to read.

This book gets four stars because part one is a moaning about how liberals (real ones) have lost opportunities.

The essence of the book is in part two. Here Mr Alterman takes stereotypes (put out by the lunatic fringe of the conservatives) about liberals and proves how wrong the stereotypes are.

Most people who consider themselves "conservative" are honest, peaceful, hard-working, law-abiding, God-loving persons. So are most liberals. However, the lunatic fringe -- a very tiny percentage of the conservative group -- is extremely vocal, virulent, and strident. People like Limbaugh, Coulter, et at (the "pundits") promote hatred and fear, tell vicious lies, call themselves "Christians" (but don't follow the basic precepts of their own religion), encourage divisions between people, show blatant prejudice to minorities, etc.

It is the lies by the pundits of the conservative lunatic fringe that, unfortunately, get broadcast, and too many people believe them. So this book is an antidote for the virulent hatred of the radical right.

Having just read the determined viewpoint of Jonah Goldberg, editor-at-large for National Review Online, in his provocative Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning, I looked forward to reading about the other end of the spectrum when it comes to the current state of liberalism. Eric Alterman, columnist for The Nation, clearly and incisively examines the distortion of the liberal agenda without coming across as an extremist. No small feat. Like Goldberg, he is a pragmatic patriot and provides extensive research to support his findings. However, the key difference is that Alterman does not put himself out on a shaky limb as Goldberg does. The conservative pundit contends that motivations which appear the same on the surface lead to the same ideologies and attempts to connect fascism and liberalism in that manner. That's a shaky if intriguing proposition at best. On the other hand, Alterman writes about how the mainstream media have portrayed liberals as hesitant thinkers who can only deal with shades of gray on any issue.

Toward that end, the author shows how conservatives have managed to nudge the media to the right and define liberals in the press with a sometimes overwhelming bias. In response, liberals have stood back while conservatives have attacked through right-wing think tanks, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and their ilk. Alterman points out how a strong majority of cable news anchors lean discernibly to the right - on one side are the likes of Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Neil Cavuto, Brit Hume, Charles Gibson, and Tucker Carlson, while Keith Olbermann represents the lone liberal voice. Even Larry King and Chris Matthews, who are perceived by many to be liberals, reflect a more moderate view. One typical example of this bias was the derisive on-air comment Rush Limbaugh made right after the 2007 massacre at Virginia Tech: "This guy had to be a liberal. You start railing against the rich and all this other stuff - this guy's a liberal...so it's a liberal that committed this act." Alterman sees the fallout of such a shocking remark as more reflective of the fact that Americans have a liberal consciousness despite all the excessive rhetoric about America moving markedly to the right.

He supports his claim with a 2007 Pew Research Center study which consolidated feedback to opinion polls for the last few decades. Findings appear to back up Alterman's points. Seventy percent of respondents feel the government has a responsibility to take care of people unable to take care of themselves. Government-funded health insurance for all citizens was favored by over two-thirds of the respondents, approximately the same percentage who feels corporations have become too powerful and overly focused on their profit margins at a cost to the shareholders and customers. Over four out of five feel we need to be greener and more focused on ensuring protective measures for the environment. Consequently, the tide of opinion is there, says Alterman, but then the challenge becomes translating this inchoate mass of left-leaning public sentiment into a political movement that can be mobilized effectively.

However, the term "liberal" has become a dirty word, as only a minority of liberals identify themselves as such without trepidation. It has become a pervasive identity problem as conservatives have commandeered the word and made it more malleable than it really is. Conservatives identify themselves in clear, black-and-white terms, while they let liberals drown in a morass of misconceptions. In his penetrating study of the power of words and images, Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate--The Essential Guide for Progressives, linguistics expert George Lakoff identified the conservatives' penchant for connecting family and nation and how such images are divided along party lines. Conservative Republicans follow a strict, discipline-wielding father model, while liberal Democrats share a more protective model of sharing. Along similar lines in his book, Alterman feels it's a lot easier to be a conservative today and let liberals disguise themselves as "progressives". He vehemently opposes this because he knows it's about branding and consistency when it comes to providing value on the political landscape. Alterman makes a strong case for being proud to be a liberal during a most politically inopportune time, and his passion is quite contagious.