Shop top categories that ship internationally

The Good Fight: Why Liberals---and Only Liberals---Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again

3.9 de 5 estrellas (35)
3.6 en Goodreads
(88)
Pulsa dos veces para ampliar
Ver todos los formatos
See all formats
US$17.99
Devoluciones internacionales gratis
Sin depósito de derechos de importación y US$12.36 de envío a Austria Detalles

Detalles de envío y tarifa

Precio US$17.99
Envío de AmazonGlobal US$12.36
Depósito de cuotas de importación estimadas US$0.00
Total US$30.35

Entrega el lunes, 13 de enero. Realiza el pedido en 13 hrs 21 mins
O entrega más rápida el viernes, 3 de enero
Sólo hay 1 disponible(s).
US$US$17.99 () Incluye las opciones seleccionadas. Incluye el pago mensual inicial y las opciones seleccionadas. Detalles
Precio
Subtotal
US$US$17.99
Subtotal
Desglose inicial del pago
Se muestran los gastos de envío, la fecha de entrega y el total del pedido (impuestos incluidos) al finalizar la compra
Enviado por
Amazon.com
Enviado por
Amazon.com
Vendido por
Amazon.com
Vendido por
Amazon.com
Devoluciones
Se puede devolver hasta el 31 de enero de 2025
Se puede devolver hasta el 31 de enero de 2025
En la temporada navideña de 2024, los artículos elegibles comprados entre el 1 de noviembre y el 31 de diciembre de 2024 se podrán devolver hasta el 31 de enero de 2025.
Lea la política de devoluciones completa
Devoluciones
Se puede devolver hasta el 31 de enero de 2025
En la temporada navideña de 2024, los artículos elegibles comprados entre el 1 de noviembre y el 31 de diciembre de 2024 se podrán devolver hasta el 31 de enero de 2025.
Lea la política de devoluciones completa
Pago
Transacción segura
Tu transacción es segura
En Amazon, nos esforzamos por proteger tu seguridad y privacidad. Nuestro sistema de seguridad de pagos encripta tu información durante la transmisión de datos. No compartimos los datos de tu tarjeta de crédito con vendedores externos, ni vendemos tu información a terceros. Más información
Pago
Transacción segura
En Amazon, nos esforzamos por proteger tu seguridad y privacidad. Nuestro sistema de seguridad de pagos encripta tu información durante la transmisión de datos. No compartimos los datos de tu tarjeta de crédito con vendedores externos, ni vendemos tu información a terceros. Más información
US$6.98
Sin depósito de derechos de importación y US$12.36 de envío a Austria Detalles

Detalles de envío y tarifa

Precio US$17.99
Envío de AmazonGlobal US$12.36
Depósito de cuotas de importación estimadas US$0.00
Total US$30.35

May have limited writing in cover pages. Pages are unmarked. ~ ThriftBooks: Read More, Spend Less
Entrega por US$8.39 entre el 17 de enero - 10 de febrero. Ver detalles
Disponible
US$US$17.99 () Incluye las opciones seleccionadas. Incluye el pago mensual inicial y las opciones seleccionadas. Detalles
Precio
Subtotal
US$US$17.99
Subtotal
Desglose inicial del pago
Se muestran los gastos de envío, la fecha de entrega y el total del pedido (impuestos incluidos) al finalizar la compra
Vendido y enviado por ThriftBooks-Atlanta.
No se pudo guardar el artículo. Inténtalo de nuevo más tarde. Este artículo no puede ser eliminado de tu lista. Por favor inténtalo más tarde.
{"mobile_buybox_group_1":[{"displayPrice":"US$17.99","priceAmount":17.99,"currencySymbol":"US$","integerValue":"17","decimalSeparator":".","fractionalValue":"99","symbolPosition":"left","hasSpace":false,"showFractionalPartIfEmpty":true,"offerListingId":"%2BcsU5mosPZjFwdwC%2FqMyyKxHo35VYfl7c3KTc%2FAxcDsD1ke4%2F5jMgYlXguh3CKnG6XYTY4rWlyqvzzya5aDCF773Qhx%2FfE%2BQkkB4vQ07%2B52V8%2BQy2kyQ6jUJwV3smZb1o7TJusTqwRE%3D","locale":"es-US","buyingOptionType":"NEW","aapiBuyingOptionIndex":0}, {"displayPrice":"US$6.98","priceAmount":6.98,"currencySymbol":"US$","integerValue":"6","decimalSeparator":".","fractionalValue":"98","symbolPosition":"left","hasSpace":false,"showFractionalPartIfEmpty":true,"offerListingId":"%2BcsU5mosPZjFwdwC%2FqMyyKxHo35VYfl7NzCStwoo5wNY81rTp0qSFjMhhUUWdwq1sMmTUN%2FV6QwkHePWtTel3RSpgzyY1GHg%2Ff3HTqNLoMudAi%2FK5voKip06tFGiT9f7lunH6w8vfqrczmvhz6ueELw8ts4L2xkYEHYohhYBsVQ%3D","locale":"es-US","buyingOptionType":"USED","aapiBuyingOptionIndex":1}]}
Brief content visible, double tap to read full content.
Full content visible, double tap to read brief content.
Brief content visible, double tap to read full content.
Full content visible, double tap to read brief content.

Otros vendedores en Amazon

Comparar Nuevo y Usado (11) de
US$11.28
Brief content visible, double tap to read full content.
Full content visible, double tap to read brief content.

Detalles del libro

  1. Número de páginas
    320 páginas
  2. Idioma
    Inglés
  3. Fecha de publicación
    29 Enero 2008
  4. Dimensiones
    5.31 x 0.72 x 8 pulgadas
  5. ISBN-10
    0060841605
  6. ISBN-13
    978-0060841607
  7. Ver todos los detalles
Brief content visible, double tap to read full content.
Full content visible, double tap to read brief content.

In this passionate, provocative book, Peter Beinart offers a bold new vision and sounds the call for liberals to revive the spirit that once swept America and inspired the world.

Críticas

“The Good Fight is a book filled with apt insights and common sense … Recommended for liberals and conservatives.” — Madeleine Albright

“Beinart has given Democrats a blueprint for … taking back the White House.” — Samantha Power, author of A Problem from Hell

“Peter Beinart takes us on a vigorous and entertaining search for a usable past … His reasoning must be heard.” — Thomas Frank, author of What’s the Matter with Kansas

“This is a brilliant and provocative book in a great tradition.” — Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.

“An intellectual archeologist, Beinart excavates that vanished intellectual tradition and sends it into battle in his new book.” — The Washington Post

“Beinart, in his deftly argued new book, . . . helpfully grounds the current debate in its oft-forgotten history.” — The Boston Globe

“Insightful, provocative.” — Thomas Friedman, The New York Times

“A thoughtful, provocative, well-written book.” — Washington Monthly

Contraportada

In this passionate, provocative book, Peter Beinart offers a bold new vision and sounds the call for liberals to revive the spirit that once swept America and inspired the world.

Biografía del autor

Peter Beinart is an associate professor of journalism and political science at the City University of New York and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. He is the senior political writer for The Daily Beast and a contributor to Time. Beinart is a former fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of The Good Fight. He lives with his family in Washington, D.C.

Sobre el autor

Sigue a los autores para recibir notificaciones de sus nuevas obras, así como recomendaciones mejoradas.
Peter Beinart
Brief content visible, double tap to read full content.
Full content visible, double tap to read brief content.
Descubre el cuidado capilar de Evo
Innovative hair treatments and styling products.
Brief content visible, double tap to read full content.
Full content visible, double tap to read brief content.

Información de producto

Brief content visible, double tap to read full content.
Full content visible, double tap to read brief content.
Brief content visible, double tap to read full content.
Full content visible, double tap to read brief content.
Brief content visible, double tap to read full content.
Full content visible, double tap to read brief content.

Reseñas de clientes

3.9 de 5 estrellas
35 calificaciones globales

Opiniones destacadas de los Estados Unidos

Traducir todas las opiniones al Español
  • Jason Galbraith
    5.0 de 5 estrellasCompra verificada
    Attacking Jihadists by Mowing Through the Anti-Imperial Left
    Calificado en Estados Unidos el 1 de junio de 2015
    This book has two inseparable arguments. The first is that America's liberals, or at least the "national greatness" school of liberals, are better superintendents of a long struggle against ideologically motivated enemies than conservatives are, because... Ver más
    This book has two inseparable arguments. The first is that America's liberals, or at least the "national greatness" school of liberals, are better superintendents of a long struggle against ideologically motivated enemies than conservatives are, because liberals will seek to impose minimal restraints on American power abroad and somewhat more comprehensive reforms on American injustice at home that will cause us to be, and be seen to be, more legitimate than we would be under conservative rule. The second argument, upon which Beinart actually expends more time and effort, is that liberals can only win the domestic struggle for power by embracing the war on terror as they embraced anti-Communism during the Fifth Party System (which most analysts would now agree ended in 1968 with Nixon's victory over Humphrey).

    The first three chapters of this book are a recapitulation of the entire history of post-World War II American liberalism. The fourth chapter, "Qutb's Children," is about this generation of Americans' greatest enemy, whom Beinart describes as "Salafist totalitarians." It is immediately followed by a chapter entitled "Reagan's Children" explaining the predilections of the conservatives and neoconservatives running the Bush administration's foreign and domestic policies. The last three chapters cover, respectively, the Iraq war and how it was sold (unsuccessfully) to the world and (successfully) to Americans; the 2004 election; and the issues and playing field both domestically and abroad as they stood in 2006, when the book was written.

    Beinart did not anticipate the Great Recession, but his Afterword, written in late 2007, did anticipate the other great test that faced President Obama: the withdrawal from Iraq. Here is what he wrote about that:

    "As Democrats approach 2008, they face multiple challenges. For starters, they must explain why withdrawal from Iraq can help, rather than hurt, America's long-term struggle against salafist terror. It would be dishonest to suggest that US withdrawal will not have real costs. It may give jihadists greater room to operate, and it will certainly allow them to claim victory, bolstering their argument that America is weak. But fighting a war we cannot win does not make America look strong any more than it did in Vietnam. What's more, Al Qaeda's presence in Iraq is small. Foreign salafists are tiny in number, and they are unpopular even among Iraq's Sunnis, who are now turning against them en masse. We are learning in Iraq, as we learned when Afghans rejoiced at the Taliban's overthrow in 2002, that salafism has limited ideological appeal. Its influence has been magnified in Iraq because our occupation allows jihadists to drape themselves in anti-imperialism's banner. Once America leaves, Al Qaeda in Iraq will be a problem, and will require a continued intelligence and special forces presence. If we are very unlucky, it might even become as big a threat as the jihadist fighters holed up in the frontier provinces of Pakistan, whose presence we have permitted (!) by shifting resources from Afghanistan to Iraq. But there is virtually no chance that Al Qaeda will run Iraq. And while the jihadists will gain propaganda value from claiming they defeated the United States, they will also lose their best recruiting vehicle: the sight of American troops occupying a Muslim country. Withdrawal from Iraq will be painful, but it will staunch the enormous damage that the occupation is doing to America's military, our ability to address other challenges, and our good name. And over time, with wise leadership, America will come back (to preeminence on the world stage, not to Iraq, he means)."

    I believe it would be fruitful for people reading this review to unpack this paragraph and its assumptions in comments on this review. All the same, the spectacle of the Islamic State does compel me to finally (at least for the next few years) cast my lot with the national greatness liberals against the anti-imperial left. That doesn't mean I will vote for Hillary. It means, rather, that I accept that the use of American military force may, in some limited situations, be more moral than letting a totalitarian ideology seize power. America's loss of the Vietnam War did not herald the end of freedom worldwide (and may even have delayed the end of the Cold War). But most of our major wars have not been so misbegotten; the Korean War, for example, allowed us to preserve what is today one of Asia's most vibrant and democratic societies against a threat from a uniquely evil neighbor (which unlike most of its Communist allies has remained uniquely evil).

    After this book, Beinart wrote what I suspect is a somewhat more substantive one comparing the three great mistakes of American foreign policy in the last 100 years: our interventions respectively in World War I, Vietnam, and Iraq. "The Good Fight" is a well-written book and makes me more likely to read that book. More importantly, it makes me more willing to defend an assertive American role in the world as long as assertiveness is matched by realism and tamed by self-restraint. It came out recently that the chief limitation of the American airstrikes against the Islamic State is that they are carefully calibrated to avoid killing more than a few civilians. But this is as much an asset as a limitation. The use of force is most legitimate when the enemy is clearly killing more innocent people than we are. If we were to kill more Iraqi Sunnis than the Islamic State did, we (and its other enemies) would have no hope of defeating it in Iraq. It may well be true that we have no realistic strategy to defeat it in Syria, but that does not mean that invading Syria is a solution (though such would probably be undertaken by the next Republican President if they were convinced that an invasion of Iran was impractical without a draft, as it is). Given that one necessary precondition for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing, doing nothing in the Middle East does not make us good men and women.
    This book has two inseparable arguments. The first is that America's liberals, or at least the "national greatness" school of liberals, are better superintendents of a long struggle against ideologically motivated enemies than conservatives are, because liberals will seek to impose minimal restraints on American power abroad and somewhat more comprehensive reforms on American injustice at home that will cause us to be, and be seen to be, more legitimate than we would be under conservative rule. The second argument, upon which Beinart actually expends more time and effort, is that liberals can only win the domestic struggle for power by embracing the war on terror as they embraced anti-Communism during the Fifth Party System (which most analysts would now agree ended in 1968 with Nixon's victory over Humphrey).

    The first three chapters of this book are a recapitulation of the entire history of post-World War II American liberalism. The fourth chapter, "Qutb's Children," is about this generation of Americans' greatest enemy, whom Beinart describes as "Salafist totalitarians." It is immediately followed by a chapter entitled "Reagan's Children" explaining the predilections of the conservatives and neoconservatives running the Bush administration's foreign and domestic policies. The last three chapters cover, respectively, the Iraq war and how it was sold (unsuccessfully) to the world and (successfully) to Americans; the 2004 election; and the issues and playing field both domestically and abroad as they stood in 2006, when the book was written.

    Beinart did not anticipate the Great Recession, but his Afterword, written in late 2007, did anticipate the other great test that faced President Obama: the withdrawal from Iraq. Here is what he wrote about that:

    "As Democrats approach 2008, they face multiple challenges. For starters, they must explain why withdrawal from Iraq can help, rather than hurt, America's long-term struggle against salafist terror. It would be dishonest to suggest that US withdrawal will not have real costs. It may give jihadists greater room to operate, and it will certainly allow them to claim victory, bolstering their argument that America is weak. But fighting a war we cannot win does not make America look strong any more than it did in Vietnam. What's more, Al Qaeda's presence in Iraq is small. Foreign salafists are tiny in number, and they are unpopular even among Iraq's Sunnis, who are now turning against them en masse. We are learning in Iraq, as we learned when Afghans rejoiced at the Taliban's overthrow in 2002, that salafism has limited ideological appeal. Its influence has been magnified in Iraq because our occupation allows jihadists to drape themselves in anti-imperialism's banner. Once America leaves, Al Qaeda in Iraq will be a problem, and will require a continued intelligence and special forces presence. If we are very unlucky, it might even become as big a threat as the jihadist fighters holed up in the frontier provinces of Pakistan, whose presence we have permitted (!) by shifting resources from Afghanistan to Iraq. But there is virtually no chance that Al Qaeda will run Iraq. And while the jihadists will gain propaganda value from claiming they defeated the United States, they will also lose their best recruiting vehicle: the sight of American troops occupying a Muslim country. Withdrawal from Iraq will be painful, but it will staunch the enormous damage that the occupation is doing to America's military, our ability to address other challenges, and our good name. And over time, with wise leadership, America will come back (to preeminence on the world stage, not to Iraq, he means)."

    I believe it would be fruitful for people reading this review to unpack this paragraph and its assumptions in comments on this review. All the same, the spectacle of the Islamic State does compel me to finally (at least for the next few years) cast my lot with the national greatness liberals against the anti-imperial left. That doesn't mean I will vote for Hillary. It means, rather, that I accept that the use of American military force may, in some limited situations, be more moral than letting a totalitarian ideology seize power. America's loss of the Vietnam War did not herald the end of freedom worldwide (and may even have delayed the end of the Cold War). But most of our major wars have not been so misbegotten; the Korean War, for example, allowed us to preserve what is today one of Asia's most vibrant and democratic societies against a threat from a uniquely evil neighbor (which unlike most of its Communist allies has remained uniquely evil).

    After this book, Beinart wrote what I suspect is a somewhat more substantive one comparing the three great mistakes of American foreign policy in the last 100 years: our interventions respectively in World War I, Vietnam, and Iraq. "The Good Fight" is a well-written book and makes me more likely to read that book. More importantly, it makes me more willing to defend an assertive American role in the world as long as assertiveness is matched by realism and tamed by self-restraint. It came out recently that the chief limitation of the American airstrikes against the Islamic State is that they are carefully calibrated to avoid killing more than a few civilians. But this is as much an asset as a limitation. The use of force is most legitimate when the enemy is clearly killing more innocent people than we are. If we were to kill more Iraqi Sunnis than the Islamic State did, we (and its other enemies) would have no hope of defeating it in Iraq. It may well be true that we have no realistic strategy to defeat it in Syria, but that does not mean that invading Syria is a solution (though such would probably be undertaken by the next Republican President if they were convinced that an invasion of Iran was impractical without a draft, as it is). Given that one necessary precondition for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing, doing nothing in the Middle East does not make us good men and women.
    A 2 personas les resultó útil
    Útil
    Compartir

    Reportar esta opinión

    Opcional: ¿Por qué denuncias esto?

    No es acerca del producto

    Irrespetuosa, con odio, obscena

    Pagada, no es auténtica

    Otra cosa

    Verificaremos si esta opinión cumple con nuestras normas de la comunidad. Si no las cumple, la eliminaremos.

    Enviar
    Reportar
  • Aizel Zarek
    5.0 de 5 estrellasCompra verificada
    INFORMATIVE ABOUT POST-WORLD WAR II POLITICS
    Calificado en Estados Unidos el 30 de julio de 2008
    This book provides a history of politics that may fill in some blanks for those who came of age as late as Vietnam and thereafter. Specifically, the portrayal of post-World War II politics instills an appreciation for the Democratic party that may be new for those who... Ver más
    This book provides a history of politics that may fill in some blanks for those who came of age as late as Vietnam and thereafter. Specifically, the portrayal of post-World War II politics instills an appreciation for the Democratic party that may be new for those who lean Republican and were raised on the MSM since the 1968 era.

    Beinart's main thesis is that the Democratic party once demonstated a more nuanced and effective foreign policy than that of the Republicans and that it should be trusted and encouraged to take up the mantle of leadership in the current fight against the forces that threaten world peace.
    This book provides a history of politics that may fill in some blanks for those who came of age as late as Vietnam and thereafter. Specifically, the portrayal of post-World War II politics instills an appreciation for the Democratic party that may be new for those who lean Republican and were raised on the MSM since the 1968 era.

    Beinart's main thesis is that the Democratic party once demonstated a more nuanced and effective foreign policy than that of the Republicans and that it should be trusted and encouraged to take up the mantle of leadership in the current fight against the forces that threaten world peace.
    A una persona le resultó útil
    Útil
    Compartir

    Reportar esta opinión

    Opcional: ¿Por qué denuncias esto?

    No es acerca del producto

    Irrespetuosa, con odio, obscena

    Pagada, no es auténtica

    Otra cosa

    Verificaremos si esta opinión cumple con nuestras normas de la comunidad. Si no las cumple, la eliminaremos.

    Enviar
    Reportar
  • David Thomson
    4.0 de 5 estrellasCompra verificada
    Message to Peter Beinart: Wishing Alone Will Never Make it So
    Calificado en Estados Unidos el 16 de junio de 2006
    Peter Beinart finally concedes on page 188 that "since whatever its failings, the right at least knows that America's enemies need to be fought." One frustratingly "could easily think that liberals have no enemies more threatening, or more illiberal, than... Ver más
    Peter Beinart finally concedes on page 188 that "since whatever its failings, the right at least knows that America's enemies need to be fought." One frustratingly "could easily think that liberals have no enemies more threatening, or more illiberal, than George W. Bush," continues the author. Beinart seems hesitant to face the harsh fact that the majority of today's liberals believe the employment of violence against Islamic nihilism merely encourages further death and destruction. After all, these brown skinned people are presumably victims of Western imperialism. We are only enduring the blowback which we so richly deserve. The radical Muslims are primarily upset with our defense of Israel. Everything would be fine if only the Jews moved out of the Middle East.

    The author refers to the centrist liberals of a half century ago who valiantly opposed Communism. Pray tell, what does that have to do with today's reality? At this very moment Democrats Senator Joseph Lieberman and Congresswoman Jane Harman are being persecuted by the leftwing elements within their own party. The Connecticut senator may even have to run as an independent. Even Hillary Clinton is feeling the heat. Could they all fit in a telephone booth If there was a national convention of fighting Democrats? Yesterday's liberals often believed there were things worthy of enormous self-sacrifice even to the point of death. Their progeny, on the other hand, are often nothing less than disingenuous pacifists. Subconsciously, if not even consciously, the United States is perceived to be the main threat to peace in the world. How can they die for something they don't really believe in?

    Do I totally disagree with the author? Nope, he accurately rebukes the Bush administration for not realizing "before the war that Iraq democracy had to be built, and not simply unleashed." He also says a few others things in The Good Fight deserving of a hearing. But so what? He is first, last, and foremost, a Democrat. He is, to be blunt, on the side of the losers. These individuals are rarely serious adults. Only Republicans can be trusted with the defense of the United States. Is it possible that Peter Beinart may be upset with my remarks? Well, that is his problem and not mine. He was granted an opportunity to make a strong case for his position---and failed to do so. I can only conclude that Beinart, in his heart of hearts, knew that his project was doomed before it ever started.

    David Thomson
    Flares into Darkness
    Peter Beinart finally concedes on page 188 that "since whatever its failings, the right at least knows that America's enemies need to be fought." One frustratingly "could easily think that liberals have no enemies more threatening, or more illiberal, than George W. Bush," continues the author. Beinart seems hesitant to face the harsh fact that the majority of today's liberals believe the employment of violence against Islamic nihilism merely encourages further death and destruction. After all, these brown skinned people are presumably victims of Western imperialism. We are only enduring the blowback which we so richly deserve. The radical Muslims are primarily upset with our defense of Israel. Everything would be fine if only the Jews moved out of the Middle East.

    The author refers to the centrist liberals of a half century ago who valiantly opposed Communism. Pray tell, what does that have to do with today's reality? At this very moment Democrats Senator Joseph Lieberman and Congresswoman Jane Harman are being persecuted by the leftwing elements within their own party. The Connecticut senator may even have to run as an independent. Even Hillary Clinton is feeling the heat. Could they all fit in a telephone booth If there was a national convention of fighting Democrats? Yesterday's liberals often believed there were things worthy of enormous self-sacrifice even to the point of death. Their progeny, on the other hand, are often nothing less than disingenuous pacifists. Subconsciously, if not even consciously, the United States is perceived to be the main threat to peace in the world. How can they die for something they don't really believe in?

    Do I totally disagree with the author? Nope, he accurately rebukes the Bush administration for not realizing "before the war that Iraq democracy had to be built, and not simply unleashed." He also says a few others things in The Good Fight deserving of a hearing. But so what? He is first, last, and foremost, a Democrat. He is, to be blunt, on the side of the losers. These individuals are rarely serious adults. Only Republicans can be trusted with the defense of the United States. Is it possible that Peter Beinart may be upset with my remarks? Well, that is his problem and not mine. He was granted an opportunity to make a strong case for his position---and failed to do so. I can only conclude that Beinart, in his heart of hearts, knew that his project was doomed before it ever started.

    David Thomson
    Flares into Darkness
    A 16 personas les resultó útil
    Útil
    Compartir

    Reportar esta opinión

    Opcional: ¿Por qué denuncias esto?

    No es acerca del producto

    Irrespetuosa, con odio, obscena

    Pagada, no es auténtica

    Otra cosa

    Verificaremos si esta opinión cumple con nuestras normas de la comunidad. Si no las cumple, la eliminaremos.

    Enviar
    Reportar
  • A Free American
    1.0 de 5 estrellas
    This is book is bad on an astronomical level.
    Calificado en Estados Unidos el 7 de septiembre de 2017
    “Once upon a time, liberals knew what they believed.” This has got to be the most absolute DUMBEST way to lead into book. The publisher should consider a complete recall of this embarrassment of human literature to remove this garbage from book shelves, public archives and... Ver más
    “Once upon a time, liberals knew what they believed.” This has got to be the most absolute DUMBEST way to lead into book. The publisher should consider a complete recall of this embarrassment of human literature to remove this garbage from book shelves, public archives and the internet the world over. It makes absolutely no logical sense why only liberals, since they apparently rarely know what they actually believe in, are the only political party and belief system to make America great again? It’s this ridiculously arrogant way of thinking that is ruining our great American society by further dividing us as a people and making enemies of individuals who have different beliefs when we should be encouraging the diversity of our culture and take advantage of the strengths we have through unity when all the political parties work together as a united nation. The ONLY reason this review has a single star is because I could not write this review without it, and there is no option for negative stars. Peter Beinart’s liberal vision is so arrogant and ignorantly unrealistic that I can’t believe this was published in the first place. Peter needs to wake up from the fairytale he’s living in and come back to real world. I’d like to see Peter go spread his liberal views overseas to nations such as North Korea. A nation persuaded to HATE every aspect of the United States and American way of life, believing their leader is of divine lineage and power. Go to the middle East where groups of dangerous militants use religion to justify extreme acts of terror and mass murder on the innocence around the world. I can only hope that our youth don’t get emotionally brain washed and led down the same stupid rabbit hole of idiocy Peter Beinart pleasures himself in, further dividing our society and weakening our country. Peter Beinart should be fined or charged with murder for all the tree’s and resources that were wasted on this collection of moronic personal opinions. Opinions that are so poorly backed up with accurate factual information, using out of context scenarios to dramatize situations and points he’s trying to justify, layering on a thick liberal spin and manipulation as being the answer to America’s problems. Therefore, to conclude this review, Peter Beinart and his “liberal vision” is a toxic injection of cancer into our society and a virus that can potentially weaken the security of our great nation.
    “Once upon a time, liberals knew what they believed.” This has got to be the most absolute DUMBEST way to lead into book. The publisher should consider a complete recall of this embarrassment of human literature to remove this garbage from book shelves, public archives and the internet the world over. It makes absolutely no logical sense why only liberals, since they apparently rarely know what they actually believe in, are the only political party and belief system to make America great again? It’s this ridiculously arrogant way of thinking that is ruining our great American society by further dividing us as a people and making enemies of individuals who have different beliefs when we should be encouraging the diversity of our culture and take advantage of the strengths we have through unity when all the political parties work together as a united nation. The ONLY reason this review has a single star is because I could not write this review without it, and there is no option for negative stars. Peter Beinart’s liberal vision is so arrogant and ignorantly unrealistic that I can’t believe this was published in the first place. Peter needs to wake up from the fairytale he’s living in and come back to real world. I’d like to see Peter go spread his liberal views overseas to nations such as North Korea. A nation persuaded to HATE every aspect of the United States and American way of life, believing their leader is of divine lineage and power. Go to the middle East where groups of dangerous militants use religion to justify extreme acts of terror and mass murder on the innocence around the world. I can only hope that our youth don’t get emotionally brain washed and led down the same stupid rabbit hole of idiocy Peter Beinart pleasures himself in, further dividing our society and weakening our country. Peter Beinart should be fined or charged with murder for all the tree’s and resources that were wasted on this collection of moronic personal opinions. Opinions that are so poorly backed up with accurate factual information, using out of context scenarios to dramatize situations and points he’s trying to justify, layering on a thick liberal spin and manipulation as being the answer to America’s problems. Therefore, to conclude this review, Peter Beinart and his “liberal vision” is a toxic injection of cancer into our society and a virus that can potentially weaken the security of our great nation.
    A 4 personas les resultó útil
    Útil
    Compartir

    Reportar esta opinión

    Opcional: ¿Por qué denuncias esto?

    No es acerca del producto

    Irrespetuosa, con odio, obscena

    Pagada, no es auténtica

    Otra cosa

    Verificaremos si esta opinión cumple con nuestras normas de la comunidad. Si no las cumple, la eliminaremos.

    Enviar
    Reportar
  • Juan A. De Jesus
    5.0 de 5 estrellasCompra verificada
    A look back at liberal history and a road map for the future.
    Calificado en Estados Unidos el 24 de junio de 2011
    Professor Peter Beinart gives you the fascinating and often tangled history of the liberal movement in America. From its roots to its pitfalls --to its great triumphs. Not only does he fill in the blanks that have given rise to popular liberal trends, but also how modern... Ver más
    Professor Peter Beinart gives you the fascinating and often tangled history of the liberal movement in America. From its roots to its pitfalls --to its great triumphs. Not only does he fill in the blanks that have given rise to popular liberal trends, but also how modern liberals can help shape the nation. Listen to this book if you want to understand the reasons behind the liberal movement. Peer into the minds of liberal thinkers and understand reasons and instances that forever changed the liberal movement and have helped shape a nation.
    Professor Peter Beinart gives you the fascinating and often tangled history of the liberal movement in America. From its roots to its pitfalls --to its great triumphs. Not only does he fill in the blanks that have given rise to popular liberal trends, but also how modern liberals can help shape the nation. Listen to this book if you want to understand the reasons behind the liberal movement. Peer into the minds of liberal thinkers and understand reasons and instances that forever changed the liberal movement and have helped shape a nation.
    A 3 personas les resultó útil
    Útil
    Compartir

    Reportar esta opinión

    Opcional: ¿Por qué denuncias esto?

    No es acerca del producto

    Irrespetuosa, con odio, obscena

    Pagada, no es auténtica

    Otra cosa

    Verificaremos si esta opinión cumple con nuestras normas de la comunidad. Si no las cumple, la eliminaremos.

    Enviar
    Reportar
  • J. Adams
    2.0 de 5 estrellas
    A one-star title for a 3-star book
    Calificado en Estados Unidos el 7 de septiembre de 2007
    Beinart would have been better off keeping the title to the first three words instead of promising something he does not deliver, and thus the average of the title and contents gets this book two stars. Beinart does a good job of showing that Truman and Reagan had far... Ver más
    Beinart would have been better off keeping the title to the first three words instead of promising something he does not deliver, and thus the average of the title and contents gets this book two stars.
    Beinart does a good job of showing that Truman and Reagan had far more in common when it came to foreign policy than any of the Democrat standard bearers since JFK.
    While the historical notes about the Cold War and what the Democrats did before Vietnam are fairly accurate, the book departs from reality in explaining what the Democrat Party stands for today vs. 50 years ago.
    Beinart is living in a fantasy world if he thinks that the current generation of Democrat Party leaders can abandon the billionaires and Hollywood elites, not to mention the illegal contributions from foreign nationals, who support them from the left. He really does not deliver a single policy proposal that any Democrat candidate could possibly support in today's world, and he really doesn't deliver a policy proposal at all. Citing the Clinton administration intervention in a teacup like the Balkans with massive deadly air strikes on a part of the world with little strategic importance to anyone is not something that has any relevance in the rest of the world, especially the Middle East. If the Balkan experience had any strategic value, in spite of a 500 year history of "ethnic cleansing" it has been far surpassed by 9/11, and the attacks on the US that were ignored by the Democrats going back to bin Laden's fatwas of 1996 and 1998 declaring war on the USA and other infidels.
    This might have been a good book if Beinart weren't so wedded to a Democrat Party that no longer exists. But he is, so this book isn't much of an answer to anything
    Beinart would have been better off keeping the title to the first three words instead of promising something he does not deliver, and thus the average of the title and contents gets this book two stars.
    Beinart does a good job of showing that Truman and Reagan had far more in common when it came to foreign policy than any of the Democrat standard bearers since JFK.
    While the historical notes about the Cold War and what the Democrats did before Vietnam are fairly accurate, the book departs from reality in explaining what the Democrat Party stands for today vs. 50 years ago.
    Beinart is living in a fantasy world if he thinks that the current generation of Democrat Party leaders can abandon the billionaires and Hollywood elites, not to mention the illegal contributions from foreign nationals, who support them from the left. He really does not deliver a single policy proposal that any Democrat candidate could possibly support in today's world, and he really doesn't deliver a policy proposal at all. Citing the Clinton administration intervention in a teacup like the Balkans with massive deadly air strikes on a part of the world with little strategic importance to anyone is not something that has any relevance in the rest of the world, especially the Middle East. If the Balkan experience had any strategic value, in spite of a 500 year history of "ethnic cleansing" it has been far surpassed by 9/11, and the attacks on the US that were ignored by the Democrats going back to bin Laden's fatwas of 1996 and 1998 declaring war on the USA and other infidels.
    This might have been a good book if Beinart weren't so wedded to a Democrat Party that no longer exists. But he is, so this book isn't much of an answer to anything
    A 8 personas les resultó útil
    Útil
    Compartir

    Reportar esta opinión

    Opcional: ¿Por qué denuncias esto?

    No es acerca del producto

    Irrespetuosa, con odio, obscena

    Pagada, no es auténtica

    Otra cosa

    Verificaremos si esta opinión cumple con nuestras normas de la comunidad. Si no las cumple, la eliminaremos.

    Enviar
    Reportar
  • T. Orlando
    5.0 de 5 estrellas
    A must read for liberals and conservatives
    Calificado en Estados Unidos el 18 de junio de 2006
    I have voted Republican in every presidential election since 1988. Peter Beinart would probably consider me a "conservative." It may therefore surprise anyone reading this review that I have given his book five stars. It may also surprise you that I voted for... Ver más
    I have voted Republican in every presidential election since 1988. Peter Beinart would probably consider me a "conservative." It may therefore surprise anyone reading this review that I have given his book five stars. It may also surprise you that I voted for Walter Mondale in 1984, the first time I ever voted in a presidential election.

    I am a product of working class liberals from Cleveland, Ohio. I viewed the arms race as dangerous and needlessly expensive. So Mondale got my vote. Then I spent a year in Europe. Being on one of the front lines of the Cold War transformed my thinking. Totalitarianism, and the threat it posed, was real. The Cold War needed to be fought, and it needed to be won. Reagan's policies gave us a chance to win it. I became a hawk.

    At the same time, I learned a little about WWII and the ensuing Cold War. I came to realize that Republicans were not the original hawks. They were largely isolationists. To my surprise, Democrats were the original hawks. From WWII into Vietnam, the Cold War was fought by Democrats. What happened to the Democrats between Vietnam and 1984, and then into the present? Where did Reagan come from?

    If you have any curiosity about these questions and their answers, Mr. Beinart's book is a must read and earns five stars on his treatment of these historical issues alone. Mr. Beinart is a "liberal" partisan, so kudos to him for criticizing "liberals" where criticism is due and recognizing "conservatives" where recognition is due.

    But Mr. Beinart did not write a book just to tell the history of the Cold War. He writes to persuade us that the war on terror is every bit as real as the Cold war and, perhaps more importantly, every bit as important to fight. In the process, he offers a fair assessment of why the war in Iraq might not advance, and may actually hinder the war on terror, just as the war in Vietnam did not advance, and probably hindered the Cold War. If Vietnam caused a generation of "liberals" to abandon the Cold War, Mr. Beinart is concerned that Iraq may cause "liberals" to abandon the war on terror. He has good reason to be concerned. He reports that "only 59 percent of Democrats - as opposed to 94 percent of Republicans - still approve of America's decision to invade Afghanistan."

    As a "conservative," it is refreshing to hear a "liberal" voice speak honestly and directly about the dangers facing America today and about the need to confront those dangers using all available means, including military means. To the extent anyone, "liberal" or "conservative," needs reminding that the war on terror is real and worth the fight, again Mr. Beinart's book warrants five stars. To the extent anyone, "liberal" or "conservative," wants to critically assess what the war in Iraq means for the war on terror, his book will give any staunch (if open minded) "conservative" something to think about. After all, even George Will concedes that Mr. Beinart may have written "one of those rare books that turns a political tide."

    Mr. Beinart would like to turn the tide for "liberals" and his partisanship on this issue is not subliminal: the subtitle to his book declares that only liberals can win the war on terror and make America great again. The subtitle is unfortunate if it serves to dissuade "conservatives" from reading the book because the very history Mr. Beinart elucidates without bias tells us that someone in either the Truman or Reagan mold can lead America to win the war on terror. Only diehard partisans care whether that person is a "liberal" or "conservative." The rest of us just hope that someone emerges as a leader because Mr. Beinart convincingly persuades that the "good fight" is worth fighting, which makes the "Good Fight" worth reading no matter your political stripe.
    I have voted Republican in every presidential election since 1988. Peter Beinart would probably consider me a "conservative." It may therefore surprise anyone reading this review that I have given his book five stars. It may also surprise you that I voted for Walter Mondale in 1984, the first time I ever voted in a presidential election.

    I am a product of working class liberals from Cleveland, Ohio. I viewed the arms race as dangerous and needlessly expensive. So Mondale got my vote. Then I spent a year in Europe. Being on one of the front lines of the Cold War transformed my thinking. Totalitarianism, and the threat it posed, was real. The Cold War needed to be fought, and it needed to be won. Reagan's policies gave us a chance to win it. I became a hawk.

    At the same time, I learned a little about WWII and the ensuing Cold War. I came to realize that Republicans were not the original hawks. They were largely isolationists. To my surprise, Democrats were the original hawks. From WWII into Vietnam, the Cold War was fought by Democrats. What happened to the Democrats between Vietnam and 1984, and then into the present? Where did Reagan come from?

    If you have any curiosity about these questions and their answers, Mr. Beinart's book is a must read and earns five stars on his treatment of these historical issues alone. Mr. Beinart is a "liberal" partisan, so kudos to him for criticizing "liberals" where criticism is due and recognizing "conservatives" where recognition is due.

    But Mr. Beinart did not write a book just to tell the history of the Cold War. He writes to persuade us that the war on terror is every bit as real as the Cold war and, perhaps more importantly, every bit as important to fight. In the process, he offers a fair assessment of why the war in Iraq might not advance, and may actually hinder the war on terror, just as the war in Vietnam did not advance, and probably hindered the Cold War. If Vietnam caused a generation of "liberals" to abandon the Cold War, Mr. Beinart is concerned that Iraq may cause "liberals" to abandon the war on terror. He has good reason to be concerned. He reports that "only 59 percent of Democrats - as opposed to 94 percent of Republicans - still approve of America's decision to invade Afghanistan."

    As a "conservative," it is refreshing to hear a "liberal" voice speak honestly and directly about the dangers facing America today and about the need to confront those dangers using all available means, including military means. To the extent anyone, "liberal" or "conservative," needs reminding that the war on terror is real and worth the fight, again Mr. Beinart's book warrants five stars. To the extent anyone, "liberal" or "conservative," wants to critically assess what the war in Iraq means for the war on terror, his book will give any staunch (if open minded) "conservative" something to think about. After all, even George Will concedes that Mr. Beinart may have written "one of those rare books that turns a political tide."

    Mr. Beinart would like to turn the tide for "liberals" and his partisanship on this issue is not subliminal: the subtitle to his book declares that only liberals can win the war on terror and make America great again. The subtitle is unfortunate if it serves to dissuade "conservatives" from reading the book because the very history Mr. Beinart elucidates without bias tells us that someone in either the Truman or Reagan mold can lead America to win the war on terror. Only diehard partisans care whether that person is a "liberal" or "conservative." The rest of us just hope that someone emerges as a leader because Mr. Beinart convincingly persuades that the "good fight" is worth fighting, which makes the "Good Fight" worth reading no matter your political stripe.
    A 24 personas les resultó útil
    Útil
    Compartir

    Reportar esta opinión

    Opcional: ¿Por qué denuncias esto?

    No es acerca del producto

    Irrespetuosa, con odio, obscena

    Pagada, no es auténtica

    Otra cosa

    Verificaremos si esta opinión cumple con nuestras normas de la comunidad. Si no las cumple, la eliminaremos.

    Enviar
    Reportar
  • Grant McEntire
    5.0 de 5 estrellas
    An Intellectual History On Par With The Vital Center...
    Calificado en Estados Unidos el 9 de junio de 2006
    "Good Fight" is quite possibly the best work of liberal intellectual history since Schlesinger's The Vital Center. It really is that damn good. Beinart knows his stuff. If all you're interested in reading is another empty-minded polemic on the Iraq War,... Ver más
    "Good Fight" is quite possibly the best work of liberal intellectual history since Schlesinger's The Vital Center. It really is that damn good. Beinart knows his stuff. If all you're interested in reading is another empty-minded polemic on the Iraq War, don't buy this book. "The Good Fight" isn't about the War. It's about a historical narrative spanning 60 years. In the age of mind-numbing hyperpartisanship, books like these are becoming increasingly hard to find.
    "Good Fight" is quite possibly the best work of liberal intellectual history since Schlesinger's The Vital Center. It really is that damn good. Beinart knows his stuff. If all you're interested in reading is another empty-minded polemic on the Iraq War, don't buy this book. "The Good Fight" isn't about the War. It's about a historical narrative spanning 60 years. In the age of mind-numbing hyperpartisanship, books like these are becoming increasingly hard to find.
    A 66 personas les resultó útil
    Útil
    Compartir

    Reportar esta opinión

    Opcional: ¿Por qué denuncias esto?

    No es acerca del producto

    Irrespetuosa, con odio, obscena

    Pagada, no es auténtica

    Otra cosa

    Verificaremos si esta opinión cumple con nuestras normas de la comunidad. Si no las cumple, la eliminaremos.

    Enviar
    Reportar
Ver más opiniones
 Escribir una opinión

Cómo funcionan las opiniones y calificaciones de clientes

Las opiniones de clientes, incluidas las valoraciones de productos ayudan a que los clientes conozcan más acerca del producto y decidan si es el producto adecuado para ellos.Más información sobre cómo funcionan las opiniones de clientes en Amazon