Liberal Forum

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)

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 [...] 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 poli

 
 

Ok, I know that was a long review, but here's a shorter one.


James R. McDonald
2.0 out of 5 stars MLK a Liberal?
Reviewed in the United States on January 29, 2012
I saw a friend had reviewed this book, and I thought about giving it a read. However, just looking at the cover gave me pause. Dr. King was against abortion, and felt homosexuality was a unnatural state. How can he be called a liberal? In addition, you put FDR & Gore up front? FDR refused to allow a boatload of Jewish refugees to land in American; many of whom were later killed by Nazi's. He also put thousands of Japanese Americans in prison camps. Gore is a hypocrite who talks about global warming - while flying around on a private jet, using more utilities that 10 families, and sold his interest in a tv station to a big oil company that supports terrorists.
4 people found this helpful

This is a middle of the road review.
From the United States
J. Lindner
VINE VOICE
3.0 out of 5 stars Why We're Liberals
Reviewed in the United States on September 26, 2011I should preface this review by stating I do not think of myself as a liberal. I don't think of myself as conservative, either, but the book I'm reviewing is about liberals so my first statement is the more important one. "Why We're Liberals" is an expose on modern American liberalism after it has been bashed by Ronald Reagan, Karl Rove, Jerry Falwell, and a host of others who want people to think of a liberal as the devil incarnate. Conservatives equate all of society's evils with liberals since the conservative philosophy is dependent on having someone to blame.

The book was written after Barak Obama won the 2008 election in the face of high unemployment, a collapse of our investments, and the end of the housing boom. While some people have short memories, it must be remembered that the fall of Merrill Lynch, AIG, and Bear Stearns happened when Republicans controlled the White House. Obama inherited a mess but subsequently failed to return the nation to prosperity. Of course Obama's policies occurred after this book was published, so the author had no way of knowing the liberal ideas intended to correct our challenges would not do so.

Author Eric Alterman analyzes liberal ideals and equates them with the Enlightenment of the 18th century. Alterman believes liberalism is an extension of enlightened thinking. He also uses modern Europe as an example of how high taxes benefits society instead of hurting it. While his research is solid, his pooint is not well taken. Americans have an inherant distrust of their government, no matter how liberal or conservative it may be. Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal had many detractors both at the time it was crafted and ever since.

Alterman tries to cover the entire liberal agenda from gay marriage to abortion rights to school prayer and beyond. He likely won't win over any conservatives to the liberal mindset, but he does give liberals a chance to feel good about themselves. The book is sort of like preaching to the choir, liberals will appreciate it but their numbers won't swell because of it. The book is a counterweight to the volumes of conservative rhetoric available that decry high taxes and government spending. The book lacks the same element these conservative books lack, a sound balance of the need for taxes alongside the need to control government spending. The problem liberals and conservatives fail to see is they both want to give government money away to the undeserving: liberals to the welfare recipients who do not want to work and conservative to the wealthy in the form of tax cuts. Meanwhile, our infrastructure is failing and our environment is threatened.

"Why We're Liberals" is not a bad book, it just doesn't serve much purpose in defining America's true challenges.

This 4 star review is short and to the point. Thoughts?

S. Mitchell
4.0 out of 5 stars Eye opening
Reviewed in the United States on November 16, 2008
Verified Purchase
This is a book that every narrow-minded republican should read. To bad they won't.
3 people found this helpful

Right, I'm a gonna read that feces.