God in the Obama Era: Presidents’ Religion and Ethics from George Washington to Barack Obama

Review

Though Americans do live in a “secular age” (9), Rice University Professor of Philosophy and Religious Thought Niels C. Nielsen points out very quickly that religion still shaped our political leaders – for better or for worse. We as a nation should be striving towards a more all-encompassing perspective, accepting the philosophies of the religious and non-religious alike. But, at the same time, there is no denying that the various faiths to which past presidents adhered (or did not adhere) did come to impact their policies. Not everyone may be terribly enthused about this, but that won’t change the fact that it does, did and still happens. Nielsen sites a plethora of reliable primary and secondary sources to back up this main thesis, which revolves mainly around how presidents past compare with Barack Obama from religious, historical and – of course! – political angles.

In spite of the title, God in the Obama Era actually stretches all the way back to George Washington, stopping at 18 different presidents along the way. Each one receives an in-depth analysis of his connection (or disconnection) with a given spirituality and major political and personal successes and failures. All of their stories tie back into the title as Nielsen discusses how they relate back to Obama’s current challenges today, a nice melding to illustrate how the triumphs and mistakes of the past have come to mold the present. Some very interesting questions start popping up along the way as well. I started wondering what the evangelical, highly conservative Christians affiliated with the George W. Bush campaign would have made of Thomas Jefferson’s “denial of the Trinity” (67) and adherence to deism and Unitarianism. And the question of whether or not the only Catholic president – John F. Kennedy – will ever be joined by a second also comes to mind as well. Will the general public still believe him or her subservient to the Pope’s bidding? What facets of morality are generally universal, and is there or should there be a place for specific religious beliefs to pass policies that cater to their own interests? What are the pros and cons of secularism? Pluralism? Which approach would the American peoples prefer? Given how all presidents up to this point had a religious foundation – almost exclusively Protestant Christians – would Americans ever open their arms to an openly atheistic president? That’s what I really enjoyed about this book. All sorts of questions regarding politics, religion, history and their plentiful intersections started materializing the more I read. Fans of analyzing and discussing these topics have plenty of fodder to fuel civil debates here, and I’d encourage them to give God in the Obama Era a chance.

I doubt, however, that Obama’s detractors will have much interest in this book. Nielsen clearly holds high hopes for his presidency, which I didn’t mind so much. More conservative readers might, though. The content does admittedly dry out from time to time, but the author keeps his chapters on the shorter side and writes in a clear, concise manner that makes the book extremely accessible to an audience without an extensive background in the topics at hand.

It’s worth mentioning that Morgan James Publishing donates 1% of all book sales to Habitat for Humanity, so buying a new copy of God in the Obama Era puts a bit of money in the pocket of a worthwhile charity. They have a 4-star rating on Charity Navigator, for the record!

Bibliographic Information

Nielsen, Niels C. God in the Obama Era: Presidents’ Religion and Ethics from George Washington to Barack Obama. New York: Morgan James, 2009.

Further Reading

Because God in the Obama Era does ultimately tie into the eponymous presidency, anyone curious about how he personally resigns his religious and political beliefs with one another should read Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance. Niels C. Nielsen does, of course, plumb the depths of Barack Obama’s personal and spiritual background in his own book. But the best way to firmly grasp where he’s coming from is by reading everything in his own words.

~Riot

A Presidental Energy Policy: Twenty-Five Points Addressing the Siamese Twins of Energy and Money

Review

Laden with technical speak and extensive histories of economic and environmental policies, Michael C. Ruppert’s A Presidential Energy Policy: Twenty-five Points Addressing the Siamese Twins of Energy and Money feels incredibly inaccessible to those with little background in the subject matter. This is fine, of course, as not every book can be expected to cater to every audience lest it stretch itself too thin and lose the ultimate message. But anyone interested in checking it out ought to understand that this book is not intended for novices. As I happen to fall into this category – my familiarity with climatology as a science is negligible on a good day, and I can speak with no authority on traditional and alternative sources of energy – it will be the perspective from which I speak.

Honestly, I struggled quite a bit with this book. Ruppert’s thesis is clear enough – he believes that if Americans hope to end their dependence on oil and gas and protect the environment from harm, then the economy will gradually improve. He touts that “money and energy are inextricably intertwined” (225) and “can live together in harmony and sustainability” (225), supporting these statements with 25 main ideas as to how this can be accomplished. Chapter 15 explains everything in more simplistic terms, so anyone unfamiliar with the charts, graphs, histories, and explanations of the previous 14 may find it easier to skip ahead in order to understand Ruppert’s core points. Many times, he sites his own works From the Wilderness and Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil sources. As I have never read either the newsletter or the book, I can neither confirm nor deny if the information contained therein remains reliable. Unfortunately, he also relies on Wikipedia and blogs in many cases – though more credible websites, journals, and periodicals do crop up in his bibliography. This mixed bag of sources both generally accepted and highly questioned, however, leads me to be somewhat wary of his research.

Regardless of my questioning attitude towards Ruppert’s choice of citations, I found the attitude he displayed throughout the book rather off-putting. While I do believe that people should not outright dismiss the independent media, I also think anyone with an opinion outside the mainstream would better reach an audience if they display a more open, accepting demeanor. It’s one thing to be forthright and challenging, it’s entirely another to come off as overly confrontational and declaring, “…nothing intimidates me anymore” (216) to readers with little to no intention of causing him alarm. Ruppert’s prose falls squarely in the second category, giving off an air of macho posturing – even paranoia at times. After a while, his tirades against the American government and the mainstream media begin to overshadow the ostensible main message of how to bolster the economy using alternative energy as a conduit. I could not tell if Ruppert meant to promote his ideas or promote himself. Whether left, right, moderate, or another ideology entirely, anyone hoping to convey a particular perspective ought to do so by attacking opinions instead of the people who hold them. To his credit, the author does admit “[he] will make errors” (14), but overall the impression I got was of a man who feels frustrated with his place as a political commentator and chooses to adopt a less-than-productive aura of bitterness as a result.

Bibliographic Information

Ruppert, Michael C. A Presidential Energy Policy: Twenty-five Points Addressing the Siamese Twins of Energy and Money. Los Angeles: New World Digital, 2009.

Further Reading

I may not necessarily always agree with everything that independent media figures have to say – or some of the tactics and sources used to convey it – but that does not mean that they need to perpetually go ignored, either. People ought to look at as many sides of an issue as they can before forming a cogent opinion, even if it means reading material that induces anger. Because Michael C. Ruppert uses himself as a source so frequently, anyone who wishes to read A Presidential Energy Policy ought to become acquainted with his From the Wilderness, Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil, and his own blog. Be forewarned that some rhetorical techniques used appear to mimic many of those used in supermarket tabloids – discussing ambiguous “Washington sources” (as seen here on Ruppert’s From the Wilderness biography) to imply reliability instead of solidly establishing it. Some may not mind this tactic, of course, but others may want to know about it before clicking the link.

~Riot

The Art of War

Review

It’s almost impossible to write a worthy review of a book with as much undeniable historical significance as Sun Tzu’s The Art of War. What more can be said about this eloquent and revolutionary tome? Even though I personally abhor war and violence, I still believe that Sun Tzu could not have picked a more appropriate title. “The road to survival or ruin” (63) is paved with intelligence, analysis, cunning, and understanding – mental factors which also play into the creation of more popular forms of art such as painting or sculpture. Though The Art of War revels in the glory of battle, Sun Tzu stresses that “to capture the enemy’s army is better than to destroy it” (77) – a provocative and reflective statement that acknowledges the core humanity inherent  even in adversaries. And that preservation of basic human dignity stands as the reason why this book has endured for more than two millenia – it doesn’t revel in violence for the sake of violence, nor does it promote war for the sake of war. Rather, Sun Tzu accepts armed conflict as an inevitability and provides richly detailed and thoughtfully penned stratagems for all aspects of armed conflict, from terrain to head count to the best times of day to strike.

Translator Samuel B. Griffith provides ample supplementary material, discussing the book as it relates to Taoism and China’s dynastic structure. Admittedly, many of his tracts were difficult to grasp, as I am only familiar with Taoist principles and have not studied Chinese history in too much detail. However, I fully appreciated his essays, as they provided a fascinating and necessary context for The Art of War. Like all classics, Sun Tzu’s masterpiece remains both firmly rooted in its time as well as sending a message that is purely timeless. Griffith’s contributions help to balance its history with its transcendence, though the main text can certainly still do so on its own accord.

Bibliographic Information

Tzu, Sun. The Art of War. Trans. Samuel B. Griffith. New York: Oxford University Press, 1971.

Further Reading

Griffiths speaks extensively on how Sun Tzu’s The Art of War would later come to influence Mao Tse-Tung’s writings. On Guerilla Warfare especially draws from its esteemed predecessor, garnering enough influence to be included in the bibliographies of some U.S. Army Field Manuals.

~Riot

[Diversity Rocks! Challenge Progress: 15/24]

The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot

Review

Informative and well-researched, Naomi Wolf’s The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot may already be dated in terms of its commentary on the Bush administration, but its message of remaining “dangerously naïve” (25) of the original tenets of democracy still ring true.  Ostensibly an open letter to an idealistic younger contemporary, Wolf warns him and her other readers about the negative effects of political apathy. She voices concern over electing “powerful men and women far away from the citizens” (5) and their everyday needs, believing that the burgeoning split between ruler and ruled opens up the floodgates for paranoia, oppression, and even fascism.

Wolf supports her main thesis by showing the ways in which Americans allowed the Bush administration to get away with bucking the terms of the Geneva Convention. She states desensitization to violence in the media as one of the many reasons why revelations of the illegal waterboarding at Guantánamo Bay didn’t impact or shock American citizens nearly as much as it should have, for example. In addition, she also chides censorship of news sources and urges readers to “abandon the passive role [they] have accepted” (132), lest they find themselves eventually at the mercy of a “dictatorial regime” (152). Wolf draws a number of startlingly eerie parallels between the Bush administration and the fascist movement of the early twentieth century, tracing how the ten steps towards the system line up with many of the president’s Post-9/11 policies. One of the key elements of instilling a totalitarian system usually involves an anaesthesized populace accepting anything and everything their elected leaders feed them. She encourages everyone to tackle the “patriot’s task” (154) and educate themselves on the origins and intentions of a true democracy, where the people themselves are freely involved in watchdogging leaders and exercising their First Amendment rights against any injustices they witness.

Though Wolf’s examples give her work an undeniably partisan stance, she nevertheless correctly points out that “any leader of any party” (149) still runs the risk of abusing his or her power and entirely derailing the Founding Fathers’ ideals. A system with “an absence of traditional checks and balances” (149) – or one with such concepts heavily compromised or twisted – means either the left or the right can still hijack the country “through edict rather than submitting to the arduous process of negotiation and compromise” (149). The only way to combat the possibility is for Americans to take a stand against any signs of power abuse they may find and assume a brave and active role in stopping fascism before it can even start.

Bibliographic Information

Wolf, Naomi. The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green, 2007.

Further Reading

For a sociological glimpse into how Americans gradually became so disconnected with their society, Robert D. Putnam’s Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community offers a few different possibilities as well as solutions to the issue. The twin pandemics of apathy and desensitization cannot solely be yoked onto the shoulders of the Bush administration – the roots dig much further back than that.

~Riot

Don’t Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate

Review

Borrowing its title from a popular psychological concept, George Lakoff’s Don’t Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate stands as essential reading for anyone who leans to the left politically. Because of his background in linguistics and cognitive science, Lakoff presents his theories regarding framing, the “strict father model” (6), the “nuturant parent model” (11), and the ways in which liberals and political progressives can reassess their arguments to combat negative stereotyping by some - but not obviously all - adherents to the right wing perspective. He crams an impressive amount of clearly defined and researched information into a relatively small book, outlining six different general philosophies within the liberal community and eleven concise steps towards respectfully reframing arguments and debates in order to accentuate the positive aspects.

Though Don’t Think of an Elephant! certainly cannot claim a nonpartisan approach, Lakoff encourages readers to “acknowledge what conservatives have done right” (33) as a means of better nurturing understanding between the two and dissolving the more demonizing arguments that crop up on both sides. He includes a dizzying slew of examples, but his most intriguing analysis involves “the study of family values” (5). The highly subjective term family values has long been a staple of conservative arguments. Lakoff sites the origins of the ways in which people inherently liken a broad group structure such as American society to smaller elements such as family – a common cognitive phenomenon that the conservative movement siezed upon with gusto.

As a result, their arguments make appeals to people’s sense of family and security, framing the opposition as a threat to these basic needs. The strict father model takes something of an authoritarian stance, reinforcing an awareness of “an absolute right and an absolute wrong” (7), with the latter posing imminent danger to traditional patriarchal family structures. With this framing device, the conservative movement automatically paints the opposition as actively trying to destroy the elements associated with a comfortable, stable family life. Lakoff encourages liberals and progressives to react not with anger, but to show that they carry the same respect for a filial unit as well. The nuturant parent model adheres to almost-universal values such as “freedom” (13), “honesty” (13), “fairness” (13), “opportunity and prosperity” (13) and “service to the community” (13) – all of which the strict father model seeks to encourage as well. Both models seek the same end, but they take radically different routes to get there. The strict father model employs more disciplinarian tactics, whereas the nuturant parent stresses “empathy and responsibility” (12). Neither mindset is inherently wrong nor inherently right, but they both must acknowledge that they don’t hold a monopoly on encouraging basic virtues and values, either. Obviously, I have oversimplified my summary, but the book itself explores these perspectives as well as the middle ground with extremely clear and concise detail.

Bibliographic Information

Lakoff, George. Don’t Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate. New York: Chelsea Green, 2004.

Further Reading

As George Lakoff himself would certainly attest, the freedom and ability to express one’s opinion should not be the exclusive domain of neither the right, the left, the apathetic, and those in between. Anyone looking for a nonpartisan guide to finding ways to create compelling arguments for debates, essays, or conversations would do well to read Scott F. Crider’s superb The Office of Assertion: An Art of Rhetoric for the Academic Essay. Like Don’t Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate, it conveys its ideas with extreme clarity so that anyone without a background in the subject at hand can follow and understand the main points.

For something both completely different and unapologetically liberal, I was recently given the honor of participating in a round table podcast over at Equal Measure. “Day of Debate,” Episode 8 of the series, focuses on the recent rulings from the California Supreme Court regarding Proposition 8. There is a small section in which we discuss the role that framing devices have played in the gay rights movement and the ways in which the pro-gay rights camp can better phrase and push their ideals to combat misconceptions and misrepresentations. So there’s one way to listen to Lakoff’s strategies in action.

~Riot

On Politics and the Art of Acting

Review

Originally penned as the 2001 Jefferson Lecture for the National Endowment for the Humanities, Arthur Miller’s slender, eloquent, and insightful tome On Politics and the Art of Acting dissects how politicians “in an age of entertainment” (4) must fine-tune their image as a means of appealing to the public’s desire for spectacle rather than intellectual stimulation. Using the ’00 American presidential race between Al Gore and George W. Bush as his primary emphasis, Miller analyzes both of their failings as actors and juxtaposes them with comparatively more convincing predecessors Bill Clinton, JFK, FDR, and – naturally – Ronald Reagan.

Both Gore and Bush – as well as droves of politicians in America and beyond – attempt to win favor “by assuming personalities not really theirs” (22), but cannot truly understand or “connect with ordinary Americans” (22) due to their elite standing “as scions of successful and powerful families” (22). No matter how much they claimed otherwise, they could never honestly relate to the struggle of average, middle- or lower-class individuals and families – the meme is simply missing from their understanding of reality. Likening the public and the media to “disguised theater critics” (32), he points to their desire for “style and inventive characterization” (32) over honesty, integrity, and intelligent, well-researched, and decipherable solutions as the catalyst for this phenomenon. By contrast, Miller points to former Hollywood B-lister Ronald Reagan as “the consummation of the actor’s ability to incorporate reality into the fantasy of his role” (40). He appealed to the American public by projecting “the reassurance that we are in the hands of one who has mastered events and his own uncertainties” (40), an ability he claims was later embodied competently by Bill Clinton.

Miller asserts “that as a general rule…the closer one approaches any kind of power the more acting is required” (26)*; it’s a statement that stands as general knowledge, but one frequently in need of vocalization. He then goes on to ask “How much?” (26), questioning at what point a politician ceases to merely try coming off as affable, humble, and honest and instead delves into tabula rasa territory – a blank slate eager and willing to reflect back what the masses want over what his or her heart earnestly wants. It’s an eerie thought, and it poses the further question of what sorts of people or dreams or possessions many politicians and aspiring politicians have been forced to leave behind in the pursuit of leadership and influence. How many perfectly supportive spouses or partners have been callously abandoned because their hair did not appear perfectly coiffed from an exclusive salon? How many debts have been incurred when the reasonably-priced houses and cars could not impress donors and constituents? How many small, fulfilling aspirations had to be cast aside in order to appeal to perceived superiors? How many idealistic young altruists sacrificed their own earnest opinions, leanings, and alliances for the smallest shred of power? It’s quite sad and disheartening that our society has come to hold those in leadership positions to the same callow, impossible standards they hold celebrities. Ostensibly elected to correct society’s ills and ensure freedom to the masses, instead the people expect them to be an unrealistic pastiche of eloquent, charming, self-deprecating, attractive, intellectual, sophisticated, worldly, in possession of the finest possible goods, and – to top it all off – still able to fully understand and acknowledge the plight of the common man. In short – everything they idealize but could never relate to, because of the queasily enjoyable sense of schadenfreude incurred when the façade begins to crack. Built up in order to be toppled down and trodden over. No longer a leader tasked with curing injustice, but a mirror of our own hypocrisies, prejudices, and failures.

One wonders what Miller would have made of this past election – with a former beauty queen awkwardly inserting vernacular into a formal debate, muckraking commercials tossing about harsh accusations of empty, useless celebrity, and an absolutely useless, unproductive national obsession with Obama’s use of a teleprompter and occasional verbal slip-ups when exhaustion renders him unable to read them. It seems that while Americans embraced Change at the polls, they still can’t set aside their sense of glee when the President has difficulty with technology that isn’t exactly a cakewalk to maneuver. With public speaking standing as one of the most popular phobias and verbal tics and trips and slips a daily reality, why is it one of the few common failings of humanity falls under such scrutiny when a public figure is involved? We ask for someone we can relate to, but an understandable misstep in improvisation strangely does not go unpunished. In many ways, that right there drives home Miller’s main thesis.

*Full quote is as follows: “that as a general rule, an axiom if you will, the closer one approaches any kind of power the more acting is required.” Edited to better fit in the sentence.

Bibliographic Information

Miller, Arthur. On Politics and the Art of Acting. New York: Viking, 2001.

Further Reading

Even in his fictitious works, Arthur Miller’s keen eye did not stray from political commentary. His incendiary play The Crucible uses the Salem Witch Trials of 1692 as an allegory the interrogations led by the House Un-American Activities Committee and the paranoid McCarthyism which Miller himself personally faced.

~Riot

Blue Dixie: Awakening the South’s Democratic Majority

Review

The Nation‘s Bob Moser penned Blue Dixie: Awakening the South’s Democratic Majority with the intent of revealing the leviathan of liberalism that lay in wait beneath what is wrongly perceived as a solid red region of the United States. Though his aim is certainly not objective, he culls together an effective and provocative thesis from almost 30 years in the field of  journalism as well as voter turnouts and other statistics. While Moser ultimately provides little detail in the way of effective methods through which the Democratic Party may better court their Southern constituants, he succeeds beautifully in dispelling many of the myths associated with political practices in the region.

Moser analyzes the various strategies the DNC has used in order to better court Southern voters over the past century and concludes that “if they can find their populist voice” (210) and dismiss their preconceived notions that the citizenry below the Mason-Dixon universally adheres to a conservative ideology. While his claims that the DNC has largely ignored the South due to false perceptions that its population is largely “backward, xenophobic, racist, and ignorantly susceptible to the rankest emotional appeals to Jesus, miscegenation, and militarism” (10) are certainly exaggerations, he brings up excellent points that they have not yet – at least as of press time - fully mobilized the region’s liberal potential. Though Dixie plays host to a highly vocal and visible religious right and typically votes conservative on social issues, the gap between red and blue populations is narrower than commonly assumed – and Moser has the demographic statistics to prove it.

This data succeeds in exposing the rich blue earth that lay fertile and underutilized beneath a red topsoil. Moser traces the way the South swung from a Democratic stronghold to an almost surefire victory for the Republican party and on to an increasingly more moderate region. He makes a compelling, albeit largely unnecessary, argument against the Bible-thumping, warmongering, gun-toting, gay-bashing Confederate stereotype – and that is Blue Dixie‘s greatest strength.  The main thesis of the book is certainly provocative, relevant to current events, and effectively supported with a wide variety of evidence both personal and scientific. However, he only offers broad suggestions as to how the DNC can more effectively reach out and unite its followers in the South. They’re intriguing propositions, calling the Democrats to embrace their populist roots and set aside outdated racial issues in favor of coming together over providing more opportunities for the poverty-stricken to vacate their desperate situations. But he stops short of providing details and specifics as to how to most effectively mobilize over issues of class and economic status rather than race. Had he done so, Blue Dixie could have really been an amazing resource for DNC political strategists. Moser had a solid idea that merely needed, I felt, a little more fleshing out in terms of narrowing a broad concept into more realistic, managable pieces.

However, this book was published prior to Barack Obama’s landmark presidential victory. Later editions will surely include mentions of how he claimed victories in three former Confederate states who pledged their electoral votes to George W. Bush in 2004 (a side-by-side comparison of the previous two presidential elections can be found here). Elements of Moser’s suggestions of a more populistic platform certainly resonate with the Obama campaign, and much has been said of his ability to pull in voters from demographics who traditionally opt to avoid the polls on Election Day.

Bibliographic Information

Moser, Bob. Blue Dixie: Awakening the South’s Democratic Majority. New York: Times Books, 2008.

Further Reading

It’s 12:35 in the morning and I have spent the vast majority of my day working. If my “Further Reading” suggestion somehow comes up lacking, the blame lay solely on the fact that my neurons are firing at roughly the pace of a sloth with four broken legs and a head injury severe enough to warrant use of a helmet. But because of the aforementioned parallels between the Obama campaign and Moser’s thesis, I am going to suggest you read Obama for America’s concise outline of his platform, Change We Can Believe In: Barack Obama’s Plan to Renew America’s Promise. You can read both books and make note of what elements of Blue Dixie the campaign employed and do the research as to whether or not they were effective or more beholden to other variables and therefore the data is indeterminate.

~Riot, who seriously needs some sleep before she hallucinates that she knows anything about politics again

On Liberty

Review

This review actually marks the first appearance by a book not written within the past 30 years, which is simultaneously surprising but also not. John Stuart Mill’s 1859 essay On Liberty is the latest work in an ongoing personal project – 5 years and counting - to read as many classic or influential works of philosophy, social politics, and/or political theory as I can in my lifetime. It went on a brief hiatus while I worked on my Master’s, but I am slowly beginning to incorporate more of these books back into my reading list now that I’m taking a break before trying for the big, scary PhD.

Though British in origin, the then-controversial ideals expressed in On Liberty extended far beyond the boundaries of the little island. Mill’s thesis is simple and forms the core of liberal and libertarian philosophies as they exist today – that governments ought to allow their citizens the freedom to go about their lives as they please, intervening only if a situation will result in someone getting harmed. Likewise, he states that the workings of the government ought to be dictated by the people rather than vice versa, but acknowledges that a poisonous populace is far more dangerous to a society than a tyrannical political system. Mill essentially desires that power be returned to the ballot boxes and the voices of the people rather than concentrated to a select few. He defines human freedom as the right to speak, meet, and act as one pleases at any given time, so long as no danger is incurred to other people.

At the time, On Liberty was considered shocking and radical, yet Mill had not exactly written anything that had never been written before. He merely expanded upon and modernized philosophies that had already been established. The United States of America had declared its independence from Britain 86 years prior based upon such principles, and the Founding Fathers, in turn, had borrowed their values from the works of John Locke. However, On Liberty still ought to be considered essential reading for anyone wishing to study political philosophy and theory, or even those who want to supplement their understanding of The Constitution or the history of American government with works that delve into similar ideas. Those not used to overwrought Victorian prose (myself included) may struggle to find footing with the text, but once a comfortable rhythm is achieved the reading becomes easier to digest.

Due to its age, On Liberty is now considered in the public domain. I read it in book form, but if you are interested in checking it out online it is available for free in its entirety through a myriad of sources, including Google Books.

Bibliographical Information

Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. Ed. Gertrude Himmelfarb. New York: Penguin Classics, 1982.

Further Reading

Before John Stuart Mill and On Liberty, there was John Locke, whose Two Treatises of Government (available in the public domain here, and for purchase here) pulled from natural philosophy in order to illustrate the freedoms inherant in all humans. Locke, in turn, inspired the Founding Fathers to pen The Constitution of the United States, which led Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison to passionately argue in its favor with The Federalist Papers (public domain here, purchase here). And so you get a relatively balanced look at how these philosophies were interpreted for application to the fledgling nation, be sure to read The Anti-Federalist Papers (public domain here, purchase here) as well.

~Riot

Change We Can Believe In: Barack Obama’s Plan to Renew America’s Promise

Review

Shortly after completing my project to read one book by every 2008 presidential candidate as I could before Election Day, I decided that no matter who was eventually elected I would then go on to read the rest of his (or her, assuming an unexpected turn of events in favor of one of the two third-party female candidates) oeuvere before Inauguration Day. Unless you have been sequestered in a bomb shelter since 1941 or are currently the subject of a psychological experiment involving the effects of isolation from all mass media, then you’re probably aware that Barack Obama is going to be officially sworn in on January 20, 2009. That gives me only a day less than two months to track down and read Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, which is a realistic enough goal. So I decided to up the ante a little bit and go ahead and read Change We Can Believe in: Barack Obama’s Plan to Renew America’s Promise as well. Though penned by the staff of the Obama for America campaign, the president-elect provided the forward, and the volume contains the entirety of seven of his speeches. It is going to be included in this project for these aforementioned reasons.

I would recommend every civic-minded American to at least skim through this book. Regardless of whether or not you agree with him, it provides a clear and concise outline as to what we can expect from his administration over the next four years. Obama is in line to stand as our leader, and supporters and detractors alike ought to read this work so that they may come to understand and reinforce why they believe what they believe. What good is having a political opinion – be it complementary or contrary to those in power - if you do not have information from primary (or reliable secondary/tertiary) sources to back it up? Nobody should read this with the intention of blindly adapting or accepting all of his policies as their own. Rather, it is best approached as a resource for what’s to come, and as a jumping-off point for those who seek to further explore all facets of the issues Obama addresses.

The book itself is divided into four chapters which emphasize the economy, the role of the middle class, foreign policy, and a return to Constitutional and collectivist ideals. As an American citizen who has formally studied and worked outside of the fields of economics and politics, I appreciated that it was written in language and terminology that I could easily understand. Obviously both subjects are far more complex than the summaries provided, but further information is readily available to supplement them. Obama’s stance on each issue beneath the wider chapter headings is explained in a thorough paragraph or two, and his participation in any relevant legislation is acknowledged where appropriate. It’s all presented in a very straightforward manner, with the main theme of community involvement running throughout. As stated simply in his June 16, 2008 speech in Flint, Michigan – “America invests in you, and you invest in America” (251).

Bibliographical Information

Obama for America. Change We Can Believe In: Barack Obama’s Plan to Renew America’s Promise. New York: Three Rivers Press, 2008.

Further Reading

Change We Can Believe In: Barack Obama’s Plan to Renew America’s Promise is an appropriate companion piece to the president-elect’s own earlier work, The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream. Though Change We Can Believe In explicitly details his platform, The Audacity of Hope delves more into the experiences behind how and why he has come to stand for the values and ideals he has chosen to represent. I would recommend reading them chronologically in order to trace how the philosophies reflected in 2006 came to be incorporated into an entire presidential campaign two years later.

~Riot

Our Character, Our Future: Reclaiming America’s Moral Destiny

Review

Even though I sent in my absentee ballot last Monday, I still want to continue with my project to read one book by every current presidential candidate before November 4th. Unless I can track down a copy of Libertarian nominee Robert Barr’s The Meaning of Is, it looks as if the American Independent Party’s offering this year, Alan Keyes, will be the last writer reviewed for this undertaking. It does not look as if Cynthia McKinney, Gloria La Riva, Brian Moore, Chuck Baldwin, or Frank McInulty have published anything beyond pamphlets or brochures.

I am not, by my nature, easily offended by much of anything. When you work with literature, you have to learn to stomach imagery and concepts that rip you at the core sometimes. However, I was tempted to put down Alan Keyes’s Our Character, Our Future: Reclaiming America’s Moral Destiny after only 18 pages. I stuck with it for the sake of my project and to learn more about a perspective I am not regularly exposed to, but gradually got more and more infuriated by his unsubstantiated attacks against women, homosexuals, liberals, AIDS awareness activists, and pretty much anyone else who disagrees with him. He does little more than hurl accusations at those he opposes, the Clinton family especially, with nary a citation or reference to pinpoint where any of his information is coming from. Considering the man holds a doctorate from Harvard, which is not an easy feat to accomplish, one would think he’d understand the basic concepts of footnotes and bibliographies. And perhaps know that any and all arguments seem completely unfounded without any sort of proof to back them up.

For example, he rails incessantly on homosexuals throughout the book, referring to their condition as a choice rather than something they are born with, and stating that they should be denied basic Civil Rights because of this. Had he done any research whatsoever – and prior to 1996, it was certainly available – or even TALKED TO any members of the GLBT community, he probably would have understood their sexuality better. Maybe he wouldn’t have agreed with it – not everyone’s mind can be changed, and it is certainly their right to hold their own opinion – but at least MAKING THE EFFORT to research, understand, and comprehend what he is condemning would have lent far more credibility to his arguments than merely ranting and insulting.

His main thesis is that the economy should take a back seat to policing morality, and that monetary prosperity would eventually result from forcing his own views on what constitutes virtuous behavior onto the general public. I was hoping that the concluding chapter would reveal that the whole book up to that point was merely a satirical commentary on the state of the religious right in America, but I had hoped wrong. The following excerpt - not taken out of context, mind you – pretty much sums up how he plans to execute his socioeconomic policies:

“They will choke on the suggestion, but what about a tax on risky sexual behavior including a surtax on adulterers, homosexuals, and anyone who has more than one or two sexual partners in a given year? Wouldn’t that be a more effective way to control AIDS-related medical costs than spending additional billions looking for a cure that may not be found for years, if ever?” (101)

There is nothing else that needs saying. Keyes speaks for himself.

Bibliographical Information

Keyes, Alan. Our Character, Our Future : Reclaiming America’s Moral Destiny. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.

Further Reading

Anything but hatemongering like this. I implore you.

~Riot