Customer Reviews

The art of political war: How Republicans can fight to win

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

 

 

Mr. Horowitz has penned a terse manual on the art of political war. The thesis is miitaristic, like the title: politics is a form of battle, in which the side with the greatest will to win, usually does. Horowitz outlines this clearly when he states that the attacker usually wins. This is typically true because 80% of the damage done to a reputation is done by the accusation, with little of it undone by later exonoration. Case in point: Reagan's first Labor Secretary, Raymond Donovan, after being acquitted of highly-publicized, false racketeering charges, asked in court, "When do I get my reputation back?" Democrats demogogue Republicans routinely on issues like Social Security; calm recitation of fact and principle will not sway the little old ladies frightened by scare tactics into reconsidering their reflexive vote. Horowitz recommends delegitimizing the Left; this is both good tactics and good morally. The Democrats use good tactics in the pursuit of bad policy; Republicans should do the like in pursiut of the common weal. Outing the Left is duty as much as it will be fun. -Lloyd A. Conway

"Grow up Conservatives!" That was the admonition from Barry Goldwater in 1964. And as we enter the 21st century, Conservatives have yet to take heed. The heart and soul of America is not a game. Achieving congressional majority status is only the means to an end ... of reclaiming America from the Leftists who have torn down her institutions and her heritage. Conservatives had better get with the program and it begins by learning the art of political war -- learning what works and what doesn't. And then taking those lessons to the street to engage the average citizen. Then, and only then, can we expect to see America return to her roots as a groundswell emerges demanding more personal freedom and less government control.

In The Art if Political War and Other Radical Pursuits author David Horowitz asserts that decreasing support for the Republican party is the result of Republicans' failure to engage in political warfare. He defines political war as purposely misleading the public into believing something other than the truth in order to gain political advancement. According to Horowitz, any Republican failure to pass legislation, win an election, or create policy caused by their refusal to lower themselves to the level of Democrats by making false statements and gaining support unethically. Various situations are analyzed and Horowitz points out alternative responses to crisis that could have resulted in increased credibility for the Republican party.
In analyzing George Bush's ephemeral one-term presidency Horowitz concludes that it was directly caused by of Democrats' political scheming: "This was the dilemma George Bush faced when he agreed to the Democrats' deal to raise new taxes..." (42). Bush's primary campaign was "No new taxes." The argument assumes that going against one's word and failing to do what one is elected to do is excusable. In the second year of his presidency he broke this promise to the American people by raising taxes. Horowitz justifies this act by explaining that congressional Democrats would only support Bush's war effort if he agreed to pass their proposed tax increase. Bush valiantly chose to put the nation's security ahead of his own political agenda, thus Horowitz deems Bush's actions "morally sound, but politically stupid" (42).
While Horowitz presents valid evidence to support his claims, his thesis is deeply flawed. I find it hard to believe that Republicans are inept politicians and don't understand the way the media, society, and voters interact to chose leaders and pass or reject legislation. Because of intense right-wing political campaigns I have observed (such as the California Proposition KK which stripped California homosexuals of their rights and Proposition 187 which urged voters to deny legally born children of immigrants their rights as U.S. born citizens,) I am unconvinced that Republicans are naive and simply unskilled at political warfare, or that they are unwilling to use unethical means to gain political achievement.
Flaws: -Many Republicans do engage in "political warfare."
-There has not been a more significant decline in support for the Republican party than there has been for the Democratic party.
I would recommend this book to anyone interested in politics, race, or social class in the United States. While there are significant flaws in Horowitz's arguments, he presents opinions that will challenge many readers' beliefs. Whether readers agree or disagree with Horowitz's controversial ideology, The Art of Political War will cause them to reexamine their social attitudes.

In The Art if Political War and Other Radical Pursuits author David Horowitz asserts that decreasing support for the Republican party is the result of Republicans' failure to engage in political warfare. He defines political war as purposely misleading the public into believing something other than the truth in order to gain political advancement. According to Horowitz, any Republican failure to pass legislation, win an election, or create policy caused by their refusal to lower themselves to the level of Democrats by making false statements and gaining support unethically. Various situations are analyzed and Horowitz points out alternative responses to crisis that could have resulted in increased credibility for the Republican party.
In analyzing George Bush's ephemeral one-term presidency Horowitz concludes that it was directly caused by of Democrats' political scheming: "This was the dilemma George Bush faced when he agreed to the Democrats' deal to raise new taxes..." (42). Bush's primary campaign was "No new taxes." The argument assumes that going against one's word and failing to do what one is elected to do is excusable. In the second year of his presidency he broke this promise to the American people by raising taxes. Horowitz justifies this act by explaining that congressional Democrats would only support Bush's war effort if he agreed to pass their proposed tax increase. Bush valiantly chose to put the nation's security ahead of his own political agenda, thus Horowitz deems Bush's actions "morally sound, but politically stupid" (42).
While Horowitz presents valid evidence to support his claims, his thesis is deeply flawed. I find it hard to believe that Republicans are inept politicians and don't understand the way the media, society, and voters interact to chose leaders and pass or reject legislation. Because of intense right-wing political campaigns I have observed (such as the California Proposition KK which stripped California homosexuals of their rights and Proposition 187 which urged voters to deny legally born children of immigrants their rights as U.S. born citizens,) I am unconvinced that Republicans are naive and simply unskilled at political warfare, or that they are unwilling to use unethical means to gain political achievement.
Flaws: -Many Republicans do engage in "political warfare."
-There has not been a more significant decline in support for the Republican party than there has been for the Democratic party.
I would recommend this book to anyone interested in politics, race, or social class in the United States. While there are significant flaws in Horowitz's arguments, he presents opinions that will challenge many readers' beliefs. Whether readers agree or disagree with Horowitz's controversial ideology, The Art of Political War will cause them to reexamine their social attitudes.

To the reader from Maryland: If you want less government control and more freedom, you should read some anarchist writings. Conservatives, both traditional and classic, believe that government should control and mold society, not promote individual freedom. It is ANARCHISM, not conservatism, that believes in personal freedom, that government harms human beings and brings out their worst qualities. The belief that conservative government officials seek to promote individual liberty is a common fallacy expressed by Horowitz and other conservatives such as yourself who haven't the slightest idea about the political philosophies you follow like a herd of sheep.