13 Jan 2024 8:53 am
I usually look at the bad/1 star reviews when looking at anything. I find the 5 star reviews to usually be fake. Especially the one word reviews that say things like EXCELLENT! I found a few on this book.
This review really goes in depth. You know that's not fake. The guy gives some insights. Any thoughts?
https://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/ ... filter-bar
Ben Franklin
2.0 out of 5 stars Still Don't know "Why We're Liberal".
Reviewed in the United States on June 2, 2008First, 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.
(continued)
This review really goes in depth. You know that's not fake. The guy gives some insights. Any thoughts?
https://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/ ... filter-bar
Ben Franklin
2.0 out of 5 stars Still Don't know "Why We're Liberal".
Reviewed in the United States on June 2, 2008First, 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.
(continued)