Reviews for Election 2004: An American Government Supplement

The average rating for Election 2004: An American Government Supplement based on 2 reviews is 3 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2008-08-30 00:00:00 Cris Du I am not as quick to jump on the anti-Obama bandwagon as Roger Hodge is, but his book "The Mendacity of Hope: Barack Obama and the Betrayal of American Liberalism" is a compelling, well-researched, and thought-provoking read, and it is, at the very least, helping to clear the vision of those of us who have kept those rose-colored glasses on for so long. Hodge, a former editor of Harper's Magazine, is the liberal's liberal: someone who clearly understands and appreciates the subtle nuances of both the political Left and Right. He seems to have a knack for seeing through the political bullshit to what is actually going on. There are literally dozens upon dozens of anti-Obama books out there, but most of them seem to be written by sore-loser Republicans and/or right-wing nutjobs who still can't seem to grasp that, yes, Obama was born in the U.S. and, no, he is not a radical Muslim. That Hodge is a liberal---one who is both willing and able to sharply and surgically criticize contemporary American liberalism and its poster boy, Obama---somehow lends a credibility to the book (for me, at least). There is also the added bonus that he is a great writer. Some of his passages come across as beautiful prose poems, which seems extremely surreal and superfluous in a book about politics; it does nothing to add to it but certainly doesn't take anything away from it either. Hodge begins his book immediately on the offensive, claiming that Obama's message of hope and change was a smoothly-calculated ploy to hide his secret agenda of politics-as-usual and, worse, a continuation of the Bush Administration's liberty-destroying policies. Obama's presidency, he writes, has been one in which he has "merely changed the wallpaper and rearranged the furniture in the White House: his financial policies are in essence those set in motion by George W. Bush, and when it comes to the eternal "global war on terror" he has stealthily embraced the unconstitutional war powers claimed by his predecessor or left the door open for their quiet adoption at some later date. (p. 1)" Harsh words, but can he back it up? Actually, he doesn't have to, really. Obama's first five years in office tell the tale. The fact that, as Hodge points out early, none of Obama's campaign promises have actually come to pass (with the exception, maybe, of Obamacare, of which Hodge has many not-so-nice things to say), that a quick glance at Obama's list of "investors" (as Hodge calls his campaign contributors) and the policies that Obama has shaped that conveniently help those investors, and the quiet actions that Obama has made to appease both sides of the political aisle that have succeeded in pleasing neither, tells an interesting story of a pretty ineffectual President. Granted, one could argue that the same arguments could be made for every one of Obama's predecessors. After all, everyone knows ALL politicians lie, especially in their campaign speeches. It's also not a stretch to think that every politician who made it to where they are must in quid pro quo fashion, help those who helped them get there. It's also not a stretch to imagine a president's well-meaning but pointless attempt at pleasing everyone all the time. Indeed, Hodge admits that Obama is just the latest in a string of presidents who has let money and the lust for power guide his actions. One may need a PhD. in economics to understand some of the chapters in Hodge's book. In one chapter, titled "Barack Obama, Inc.", Hodge goes on at length about the derivatives market and Obama's relationship with Robert Rubin, "a former top executive of both Goldman Sachs and Citigroup". I'm not going to pretend that I understood a lot in this chapter, but the main gist seems to be this: the legislation that Obama has passed since coming to office in 2008, in regards to economic policy, have generally been pro-business and more helpful to corporations and more harmful to the little guy. In other words, Obama is actually a Republican. To anyone keeping track at home, according to Hodge, this shouldn't be that shocking. He writes, "Indeed, Obama's senatorial record, and later presidential positioning, were best summed up in an interview he gave to the Chicago Tribune in july 2004: 'There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who's in a position to execute.' (p. 27)" Hodge claims that Obama's entire career has been a calculated effort to become President, and, once he gained the office, to ensure that he obtained re-election. Again, cynical but not really all that shocking. I have heard, time and again (perhaps most famously from a quote by Ralph Nader) that there is no real substantive difference between the Republican Party and the Democrat Party. So why do so many voters (myself included) get duped into thinking one party is better than the other? Hodge seems to think that we shouldn't beat ourselves up too much about it, because both parties have perfected the art of mendacity; basically, the art of lying. The goal of presidential candidates, regardless of party affiliation, is to get elected. While a statement like this should earn nothing more than an inevitable "Duh", it paints a rather bleak and depressing picture about our elected officials. Money rules Washington, and corporations have the money, along with the 1% of the country's super-rich. We are no longer living in a democracy, and we haven't been for a long time. We are, unfortunately, living in a land that our Founding Fathers warned us about, a land where special interest groups and Super-PACs and donors like the Koch Bros. call the shots, and men like Obama, who may have good intentions, are merely corruptable puppets. Most of us know this already, but we live in a kind of "denial" bubble because we don't see any way of changing it. The ending of Hodge's book is far from hopeful. He admits that a drastic change in the way things are done in politics is unlikely any time soon, if ever. He writes that "the prospect of a constitutional remedy is dim. But if we do not at least try to remove the source of the corruption---the money that drives our politics, the equation of spending with political speech and voting---then we might as well give up and join those who ignore politics altogether. If we shrug and say that the system of corrupt influence can never be overturned, then we are truly doomed. But if we are to give up, at least let us avoid the bad faith of pretending that some attractive and eloquent corporate tool like Obama might save us. (p. 232)" Harsh words, indeed, but nevertheless words that need to be said.

Review # 2 was written on 2008-11-19 00:00:00 James Crosby Here we go...a book where I had to Google the cover to make sure I knew the meaning of the word "mendacity." I did. In my dying Borders (or in two dying Borders -- I had to wait until this book was 50% off) I opened a few pages and WOW. I was back to reading Harpers Magazine, in book form. The four or five pages I thumbed through were scathing -- they completely matched my mood about current affairs. I picked up the book for $12.50. I read this book in two whirlwind sessions, about four months apart. Herein lies the book's problem. Mr. Hodge would have done better to spend less time on a single witty, cleverly crafted history lesson on the differences between (Jeffersonian / Madisonian) Republicanism vs. Hamiltonian Federalism. Instead, your eyes will glaze over at points between pages 110ish to 235. Whither Barack Obama? By devoting so many pages to the 18th and early 19th centuries, the author overemphasizes the preamble of his argument, and at times loses the point of the book. But this book deserves four stars. I read through it in two whirlwind sessions, so you can, too. During the final chapter and a half, the pages flew by and I caught myself alternating between chuckles and exclaiming, "hell yes!" to nobody in particular. If you want "easy to read," check out "The Redneck Manifesto," which I have previously reviewed. If you want current affairs, stick to magazines (books are so out of date). But if you want a good, scholarly argument about what's wrong with this country and how we should all get over our differences and fix it, check this one out. It's a good read, and now I can use the word "mendacity."