The Blueprint

If you’re a regular reader of the blog, you’ve read my rants about how I hate reading political books. I promised myself I wouldn’t rant about how awful all political books are (as I did plenty here and here). But Ken Blackwell and Ken Klukowski’s book The Blueprint: Obama’s Plan to Subvert the Constitution and Build an Imperial Presidency got me riled again. Another rant is forthcoming, and you are warned.

Like I’ve said before, I am on the liberal end of the political spectrum. However, I have plenty of friends and relatives who are conservative, and I like to think that reading books like The Blueprint will give me some insight into these friends and relatives viewpoints. I know that these books won’t change my mind or my political slant, but its always good to be exposed to multiple viewpoints. Unfortunately, political books are really terrible way to get reasonable arguments (and I mean political books written by both conservatives and liberals). In these books, authors will manipulate facts and quotations to serve their argument. These authors will demonize their opponents and discredit any point-of-view that doesn’t match their own. It’s awful. Usually, though, these tactics will ease in: the hatred will build up as the book continues. With The Blueprint, though, it began on page two. And I knew it was going to be a painful read.

In The Blueprint Blackwell and Klukowski (or “The Kens,” as I like to think of them) argue that President Barack Obama is manipulating (and ignoring) the constitution to build more power for his party and himself. Separated into eight chapters—the subjects of which range from the appointment of czars to gun control to the bias of the media—The Kens lay out a string of actions Obama has taken (or will take) to grab as much power as he can.

One of the things that bothered me most about The Blueprint was its hypocrisy. Many of Obama’s actions that Blackwell and Klukowski had problems with were things conservative presidents had done in the past (and will do in the future). Take, for example, their complaint that Obama will have the opportunity to appoint multiple justices to the Supreme Court, and that the justices he appoints will be liberal. Of course they will be liberal. Just as the three justices appointed by President Ronald Reagan, two justices appointed by President George HW Bush, and two justices appointed by President George W Bush were conservative. It’s just how the system works. Would it be better if presidents selected moderate appointees rather than those that match their political party? Probably, but that’s not what happens.

What was the worst, though, were the offensive, borderline-hateful statements the authors occasionally made. Things like the insistence that illegal aliens must always be referred to as such (and never “illegal immigrants,” or “undocumented workers”) or that schools that acknowledge homosexuality are “toxic learning environments.” There were multiple times I found myself wanting to rip the pages of the book, and it was a library book! (Since I am a year away from becoming a librarian, understand the gravity of that statement).

I could go on listing my problems with The Blueprint (like how any book attempting to be serious should never compare the President-- any president-- to Emperor Palpatine), but enough is enough. It gets a 1/5.

Watch Jon Stewart's interview with Ken Blackwell

Buy the Book

Beyond Fundamentalism

Reza Aslan’s, Beyond Fundamentalism: Confronting the Religious Extremism in the Age of Globalism is a thought-provoking, worthwhile read. In three, moderately short sections—“The Geography of Identity,” “God is a Man of War,” and “The End of War as We Know It”—Aslan gives a background of group identity, fighting on behalf of a religion (or extreme interpretation of it), and the current state of fundamentalism, focusing especially on the Middle East.

Aslan writes in a clear, yet intelligent, voice. Though I often found myself pausing to fully comprehend ideas he put forth, Beyond Fundamentalism could be read quickly, even in a day or two. However, I would recommend reading the book only a chapter or two at a time to get the most of it. I’ll admit, I wasn’t able to do this for the entire book, but I wish I had. It's worth taking the time to think about what Aslan writes.

Though there were many aspects of Beyond Fundamentalism that made me think, one key issue was the feeling of group identity. Aslan points out that one such form is national identity—however, with the increasing globilization, this nationalism in becoming weaker, for better or worse. Some then turn to religion for the feeling of belonging, and, in the extreme, this religion can take the form of the incredibly fundamental groups that encourage terrorism.

Similar to the issue of group identity is the idea of unity and belonging, and the importance that this unity involves inclusion (which allows for differences), rather than assimilation (which emphasizes sameness). Though the creation of the European Union has increased unity of many European countries, it has also highlighted the “otherness” of those who do not belong. Until I read Beyond Fundamentalism, I was not aware of the struggles Muslims face in many European countries—that some school cafeterias in France won’t serve halal meat to Muslim students, that The Netherlands has legislation attempting to ban the Qur’an, and that “Islam Out of Britain” is a rallying cry of the British National Party. Though terrorism is never the way to fight back against these inequities (and, in itself, engenders more hatred and fear), this persecution of Muslims only feeds the fire of these radical groups.

Much of Beyond Fundamentalism resonates with the speech President Obama gave last night announcing the death of Osama Bin Laden, particularly Obama’s insistence that the War on Terror is in no way a War on Islam, and his call for unity.

Though Beyond Fundamentalism occasionally felt out of date (particularly the final chapter, which focuses on the issue of a potential Egyptian democracy), it is certainly still recommended. I give it a 4/5.

Watch Jon Stewart interview Reza Aslan

Buy the book

Note: Beyond Fundamentalism was originally published as How to Win a Cosmic War

A New American Tea Party

Despite being a Liberal, I approached John O’Hara’s book A New American Tea Party: The Counterrevolution Against Bailouts, Handouts, Reckless Spending, and More Taxes with an open mind. In his interview, O’Hara seemed intelligent and reasonable, and I thought that his book could perhaps allow me to see what the tea party movement was striving to be before the crazy latched on.

For about the first third of the book, O’Hara gave me what I was looking for: he shared the history of the development of the tea party, explaining where they were coming from, with only a few snarky comments about the Democrats and Liberals. Though I didn’t agree with much of what O’Hara was saying, I could understand where he was coming from. And then he made the switch from recounting tea party history to bashing the media, President Obama, unions, and health care. The occasional anti-liberal joke expanded into mean-spirited rants, and all of a sudden A New American Tea Party was reading like every other political book. And that’s not a good thing.

Pardon me, while I break into this review to go on a little rant of my own about how much I hate political books. I hate them! The authors of these books—whether Democrat or Republic, Liberal or Conservative – talk about all the great things that their party does and all the terrible things the other guys do, and they back it up with facts. The trouble is, people on the other end of the political spectrum believe the complete opposite, and they have facts to back it up too. As a reader, this leaves me with nothing I can believe. I can’t trust the political writer because I know they will never say anything bad about their own party or anything good about their opponents, despite the fact that both sides have good and bad ideas, good and bad supporters. And that is why I hate political books. Now back to the review.

O’Hara is not a bad writer. He varies his sentence structure (and length), transitions adeptly, and spends a reasonable amount of time on each subject. But his book made me mad, and I didn’t enjoy reading it. It gets a 2/5.

Watch Jon Stewart’s interview with John O’Hara Part 1 Part 2

Buy the book

Things may slow down here at the Daily Shill over the next several months. I just started grad school this week, so I’ll be spending less time on my mission. But I’ll keep chipping away at this and try to make at least 4 reviews a month.

The Bridge

Before I read it, I thought David Remnick’s book The Bridge: The Rise and Life of Barack Obama would be a breath of fresh air. I checked it out from the library at the same time as Marc Thiessen’s Obama-bashing book Courting Disaster and expected the enjoy Remnick’s, if only by comparison. Perhaps I would have had I read The Bridge directly after Courting Disaster. However, in addition to those two books, I had also borrowed A Captain’s Duty, Comeback America, and Between Two Worlds, which left me with lots of other reading material. So when I finally picked up Remnick’s gigantic book, Courting Disaster wasn’t on my mind, leaving me disappointed with The Bridge.

The Bridge, in addition to chronicling Obama’s history, attempts to cover the histories of civil rights, black politicians, Chicago politics, and all of Obama’s ancestors. It does not manage these many subjects elegantly. Instead, the book jumps from one to another, sharing irrelevant information, not even following a simple chronological order. The sections directly dealing with Obama were the book’s strongest, but even those could have used a lot more work; for instance, the sections about Obama’s early life were filled with quotes from anyone who ever had anything to do with him, giving the book a tabloid-esque feel, and randomly inserted into a chapter about the beginning of Obama’s political career was an in-depth book review of Dreams of my Father.

I wouldn’t say that Remnick is a bad writer, and I appreciated that he didn't portray Obama as someone who is all good (or all bad), but The Bridge was in need of another draft. If the book maintained focus on Obama—rather than taking brief forays into other histories—shortened and cut some of its many quotes, and shifted into a clear organizational structure, it wouldn’t be bad. And it would be much shorter, something I wished it were each time I picked up the 600-page book.

I’m giving The Bridge a 2/5. But unlike the last 2 I gave (Get Him to the Greek), The Bridge is at the low end of the spectrum. I certainly don’t recommend it to you.

Watch Jon Stewart’s interview with David Remnick

Buy the book