Product Description
The bestselling author demolishes myths about liberalism in a spirited polemic
Thanks to the machinations of the right, there is no dirtier word in American politics today than “liberal”—yet public opinion polls consistently show that the majority of Americans hold liberal views on everything from health care to foreign policy. In this feisty, accessible primer, bestselling author Eric Alterman sets out to restore liberalism to its rightful honored place in our political life as the politics of America’s everyday citizens.
In Why We’re Liberals Alterman examines liberalism’s development and demonstrates how its partisans have come to represent not just the mainstream, but also the majority of Americans today. In a crisply argued though extensively documented counterattack on right-wing spin and misinformation, Alterman briskly disposes of such canards as “Liberals Hate God” and “Liberals Are Soft on Terrorism,” reclaiming liberalism from the false definitions foisted upon it by the right and repeated everywhere else. Why We’re Liberals brings clarity and perspective to what has often been a one-sided debate for nothing less than the heart and soul of America. Why We’re Liberals is the perfect election-year book for all of those ready to fight back against the conservative mud-slinging machine and claim their voice in the political debate.
|
|
 Eye opening
This is a book that every narrow-minded republican should read. To bad they won't.
|
 Exactly Why Are They Liberals ?
The first question this title (by a noted Ph.D., pundit, and intellectual) brings to mind is: don't they know why they are liberals. Or, shouldn't they have thought about it before they became liberals. Or, honestly, what are they - idiots. To conservatives, liberals are, quite simply, and impolitely, people who don't think or who can't think very well. So, you have to give Mr. Alterman much credit for being a liberal who is so proud, pugnacious, and intellectual that he is one of the very few in their ranks to even consider that there ought to be a reason for being a liberal beyond,for example, hating the way Bush struts and talks or their own perfect hindsight about the war in Iraq that 1) the Congress voted for and continues to fund, 2) deposed a Nazi-like dictator, 3) we are now winning after a surge which liberals said could never work, 4) still might spread democracy throughout the Middle East and 5) may, in the fullness of time be a decisive front in the on-going war on terror.
The book starts out with the admission that there is no doctrine to liberalism and so it really can't be taught or explained on, for example, talk radio the way conservatism can, but that it is, nevertheless, extremely nuanced and intellectual to the point where it just defies classification or even description. It is, in short, a critique of pure reason applied to every new issue in a creative and inexplicable way and, rest assure, a very very thoughtful way that has always yielded superior results throughout American History. Mr. Alterman's assumption seems to be that if you've got an IQ over 125 you probably "get it" and you're in the liberal club; if not, you're a dolt conservative. He would undoubtedly appreciate the Denise Richards reality show whose subtitle is, "its complicated."
To demonstrate the transcendent creativity of liberal thought, and its integral connection to the founding, the author approvingly quotes Thomas Jefferson's dictum that the gov't which governs best governs least, but then goes on to assure the reader that creative liberalism can also mean the opposite too. It all depends on the situation, and there are lots of opposing situations. The opposite presumably is the monarchical, communist, or liberal notion: the gov't which governs best governs most. "It's complicated", as Denise Richards and Mr. Alterman like to imply.
In a court room there are two sides to every issue: the prosecution and the defense. There is a reason for that which Socrates explained long ago. In this book like, admittedly, so many books there is the prosecution and the straw man, and for 400 long pages. What you get is an exhaustive stream of one sided liberal diarrhea, albeit a well done one befitting a serious minded Ph.D., but one from which it is, nevertheless, impossible to learn a thing. However, if you want to know about Rush Limbaugh's sex life or how Newt Gingrich told his second wife he wanted a divorce or any other gossip that might reflect badly on Republicans, directly or indirectly, this book is for you. It may well go down in liberal history as the comprehensive official record of the Bush years. No detail is too trivial or too irrelevant to be of interest to the author .
In the end the meandering author almost proves his point that there is no doctrine or organized philosophy to explain why they are liberals. If there was he would surely have know it and explained it, or so it seems. So, you are left with a liberal passion that can only be fueled by self-righteous hatred which in turn must be fueled by mistaking feelings or reactive judgements (toward Bush's verbal skills, for example) for thoughts or reasonable arguments.
What the author blatantly refuses to say, while claiming to be patriotic and Jeffersonian, is that he is a liberal socialist who hates America like so many liberals do. He thinks nothing of telling us, for example, how superior the countries of Europe are to our own country. American inferiority has always been taken as a given among liberals. To them the old world is the new world simply because it has more tax and spend programs. In reality, describing liberalism is no more complicated than that, but still, liberals must obfuscate to survive.
At one point the author chastises Hillary for deceptively describing herself as a "progressive" when asked if she was a liberal. He notes, very tactically, that "progressive" polls much better than "liberal" but argues that conservatives can demonize that word too with their "slander machine" so liberals might as well draw a line in the sand at "liberal" rather than "pointlessly dodge." Mr. Alterman doesn't seem to realize that his whole book is worse than a pointless dodge in that it is too fearful to even offer a definition of liberalism; yet arrogantly certain that its repugnant smears ought to result in public policy.
Conservatives since the Magna Carta have stood clearly and openly for freedom from gov't; whether it was a government run by monarchs, communists, liberals, or progressives. Mr. Alterman knows full well that he is a big gov't liberal socialist, but he also knows how badly those labels poll and how badly tax and spend gov't welfare programs poll in a country based on freedom. Rather than be honest about this Mr. Alterman completely ignores it and instead has skillfully written a 400 page personal attack on Republicans, which he must have figured was a liberal's only option given that, 1) he stands four squarely against freedom in a country based on freedom, and, 2) the unpopularity of this particular Republican President presents an extraordinary, once in a life time, opportunity for an emotional rant to sink into the minds of independent voters who flip-flop based on their current emotions .
In his grand finale Alterman assures us, inexplicably, that on "issue after issue after issue" America is really liberal, but that 59% of Americans believe gov't stands in the way of their getting ahead? He then, I swear, says liberalism is the natural political philosophy of America because it "stands for freedom of thought, science and technology, teamwork, the wisdom of the many, the sanctity of the individual, realism and yet idealism , and reform." Astonishingly, he also claims liberalism had the strength to defeat communism (even though it was Reagan who defeated communism while liberals argued for co-existence with their sister ideology for which they spied and were sometimes hung ) and is open to its' own evolution, and is patriotic but not blind to its faults.
What all that desperate milquetoast nonsense demonstrates is not that liberalism can't be defined as Mr. Alterman contended in the beginning, but that it is too anti-American to be honestly defined in America. Conservatives can at least be happy about that as they contemplate a President Obama who seemingly will capitalize on the particular vulnerabilities of President Bush - which have noting to do with conservatism- while also choosing not to explain why he is the most liberal Senator in America.
Ted Baiamonte
bje1000@aol.com
th512
|
 Reminds me of Ann Coulter ( i_dont_have_a_nickname_but_am_being_forced_to_enter_one_by_this_ )
As I started reading this book it - strangely enough - starting giving me that "Deja Vu" feeling. I couldn't put my finger on it until I got to the section where Alterman says one of the differences between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives are angrier. That's when it hit me - this sounds just like Ann Coulter. According to her, liberals are well-organized, hateful, self-righteous, control the media and are consipiring to acquire dominion and control over all aspects of our life. According to Alterman, conservatives are the same. The only difference being religion.
They even use the same tactics to define and radicalize the "other side". For example, both authors offer up plenty of examples of columnists/leaders who are admittedly on the "other side" and pick a shocking quote, with the implication that such a quote is *the* position of the other side, not just the columnist/leader. According to Coulter, the liberals are trying to take over the schools and corrupt our youth (e.g., teaching homosexuality and... gasp... evolution). According to Alterman, so are the conservatives (trying to impose conservative Christianity). It's amazing, really, the similarities.
When I read Coulter, I wonder who these strange people are that are so twisted and controlling. When I read Alterman's book, I wondered the same thing. You know, perhaps the real problem is simpler than either will admit. It is neither conservativism nor liberalism, but militantism. Take any viewpoint to the extreme, disallowing any middle ground and you no doubt see enemies everywhere, see your "followers" in disarray (how else do you explain why the side of "good" hasn't "won" yet), and try to alarm everyone with apocalyptic statements about the doom that will follow when the other side has their way.
It's not a bad book but, like Coulter, it's not exactly balanced and objective either.
|
 Still Don't know "Why We're Liberal". ( gphresko2 )
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.
|
An exceptional effort. ( normcp )
In this well-researched and expertly-written book, Eric Alterman succeeds in disproving and discrediting most of the usual right-wing slanders against liberal/progressive individuals and their approach to goverance. In the end, he also gives reason to hope that, in the near future, the liberal political philosophy, incorporating the belief that government is here to help the people rather than to ignore or persecute them, will once again become ascendent in our country. Few Republicans will like this book. Highly recommended!
|
|
View Larger
Add to Cart 
