What Should Be Required Political Reading?

[Luke T.]

State in this topic what book(s) with which you think every American should be familiar.

I am a strong proponent of Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville. Written in 1832, I found it to be amazingly prescient and current, and outlines the American political and cultural landscape nearly flawlessly. I actually consider it to be a good idea to give a copy to every Iraqi.

It is difficult for me to explain just how powerful and amazing a read this book is. Instead, I will quote some passages. First, the roots of the South and the North which were to have profound impact later:

(edited to add: I know it is a lot of stuff to read below, and I hate it myself when people post long blocks of text. I almost never do this, so please read it. I think you can't help but be impressed.)

The South's foundation:

Virginia received the first English colony; the immigrants took possession of it in 1607. The idea that mines of gold and silver are the sources of national wealth was at that time singularly prevalent in Europe; a fatal delusion, which has done more to impoverish . the European nations who adopted it, and has cost more lives in America, than the united influence of war and bad laws. The men sent to Virginia were seekers of gold, adventurers without resources and without character, whose turbulent and restless spirit endangered the infant colony and rendered its progress uncertain. Artisans and agriculturists arrived afterwards; and, although they were a more moral and orderly race of men, they were hardly in any respect above the level of the inferior classes in England. No lofty views, no spiritual conception, presided over the foundation of these new settlements. The colony was scarcely established when slavery was introduced; this was the capital fact which was to exercise an immense influence on the character, the laws, and the whole future of the South. Slavery, as I shall afterwards show, dishonors labor; it introduces idleness into society, and with idleness, ignorance and pride, luxury and distress. It enervates the powers of the mind and benumbs the activity of man. The influence of slavery, united to the English character, explains the manners and the social condition of the Southern states.

The North's foundation:

The settlers who established themselves on the shores of New England all belonged to the more independent classes of their native country. Their union on the soil of America at once presented the singular phenomenon of a society containing neither lords nor common people, and we may almost say neither rich nor poor. These men possessed, in proportion to their number, a greater mass of intelligence than is to be found in any European nation of our own time All, perhaps without a single exception, had received a good education, and many of them were known in Europe for their talents and their acquirements. The other colonies had been founded by adventurers without families; the immigrants of New England brought with them the best elements of order and morality; they landed on the desert coast accompanied by their wives and children. But what especially distinguished them from all others was the aim of their undertaking. They had not been obliged by necessity to leave their country; the social position they abandoned was one to be regretted, and their means of subsistence were certain. Nor did they cross the Atlantic to improve their situation or to increase their wealth; it was a purely intellectual craving that called them from the comforts of their former homes; and in facing the inevitable . sufferings of exile their object was the triumph of an idea.

The immigrants, or, as they deservedly styled themselves, the Pilgrims, belonged to that English sect the austerity of whose principles had acquired for them the name of Puritans. Puritanism was not merely a religious doctrine, but corresponded in many points with the most absolute democratic and republican theories. It was this tendency that had aroused its most dangerous adversaries. Persecuted by the government of the mother country, and disgusted by the habits of a society which the rigor of their own principles condemned, the Puritans went forth to seek some rude and unfrequented part of the world where they could live according to their own opinions and worship God in freedom.

My favorite passages on the separation of church and state which I have quoted often here:

Upon my arrival in the United States, the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there the more did I perceive the great political consequences resulting from this state of things, to which I was unaccustomed. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom pursuing courses diametrically opposed to each other; but in America I found that they were intimately united, and that they reigned in common over the same country. My desire to discover the causes of this phenomenon increased from day to day. In order to satisfy it I questioned the members of all the different sects; and I more especially sought the society of the clergy, who are the depositaries of the different persuasions, and who are more especially interested in their duration. As a member of the Roman Catholic Church I was more particularly brought into contact with several of its priests, with whom I became intimately acquainted. To each of these men I expressed my astonishment and I explained my doubts; I found that they differed upon matters of detail alone; and that they mainly attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country to the separation of Church and State. I do not hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America I did not meet with a single individual, of the clergy or of the laity, who was not of the same opinion upon this point.

And the part I think the religious right should have drilled into their heads:

Such is not the natural state of men with regard to religion at the present day; and some extraordinary or incidental cause must be at work in France to prevent the human mind from following its original propensities and to drive it beyond the limits at which it ought naturally to stop. I am intimately convinced that this extraordinary and incidental cause is the close connection of politics and religion. The unbelievers of Europe attack the Christians as their political opponents, rather than as their religious adversaries; they hate the Christian religion as the opinion of a party, much more than as an error of belief; and they reject the clergy less because they are the representatives of the Divinity than because they are the allies of authority.

In Europe, Christianity has been intimately united to the powers of the earth. Those powers are now in decay, and it is, as it were, buried under their ruins. The living body of religion has been bound down to the dead corpse of superannuated polity: cut but the bonds which restrain it, and that which is alive will rise once more.

On slavery:

It is important to make an accurate distinction between slavery itself and its consequences. The immediate evils produced by slavery were very nearly the same in antiquity as they are among the moderns, but the consequences of these evils were different. The slave among the ancients belonged to the same race as his master, and was often the superior of the two in education and intelligence. Freedom was the only distinction between them; and when freedom was conferred, they were easily confounded together. The ancients, then, had a very simple means of ridding themselves of slavery and its consequences: that of enfranchisement; and they succeeded as soon as they adopted this measure generally. Not but that in ancient states the vestiges of servitude subsisted for some time after servitude itself was abolished. There is a natural prejudice that prompts men to despise whoever has been their inferior long after he has become their equal; and the real inequality that is produced by fortune or by law is always succeeded by an imaginary inequality that is implanted in the manners of the people. But among the ancients this secondary consequence of slavery had a natural limit; for the freedman bore so entire a resemblance to those born free that it soon became impossible to distinguish him from them.

The greatest difficulty in antiquity was that of altering the law; among the moderns it is that of altering the customs, and as far as we are concerned, the real obstacles begin where those of the ancients left off. This arises from the circumstance that among the moderns the abstract and transient fact of slavery is fatally united with the physical and permanent fact of color. The tradition of slavery dishonors the race, and the peculiarity of the race perpetuates the tradition of slavery. No African has ever voluntarily emigrated to the shores of the New World, whence it follows that all the blacks who are now found there are either slaves or freedmen Thus the Negro transmits the eternal mark of his ignominy to all his descendants; and although the law may abolish slavery, God alone can obliterate the traces of its existence.

The modern slave differs from his master not only in his condition but in his origin. You may set the Negro free, but you cannot make him otherwise than an alien to the European. Nor is this all we scarcely acknowledge the common features of humanity in this stranger whom slavery has brought among us. His physiog- nomy is to our eyes hideous, his understanding weak, his tastes low; and we are almost inclined to look upon him as a being intermediate between man and the brutes. The moderns, then, after they have abolished slavery, have three prejudices to contend against, which are less easy to attack and far less easy to conquer than the mere fact of servitude: the prejudice of the master, the prejudice of the race, and the prejudice of color.

The inevitability of the end of slavery:

But this truth was most satisfactorily demonstrated when civilization reached the banks of the Ohio. The stream that the Indians had distinguished by the name of Ohio, or the Beautiful River, waters one of the most magnificent valleys which have ever been made the abode of man. Undulating lands extend upon both shores of the Ohio, whose soil affords inexhaustible treasures to the laborer; on either bank the air is equally wholesome and the climate mild, and each of them forms the extreme frontier of a vast state: that which follows the numerous windings of the Ohio upon the left is called Kentucky; that upon the right bears the name of the river. These two states differ only in a single respect: Kentucky has admitted slavery, but the state of Ohio has prohibited the existence of slaves within its borders. Thus the traveler who floats down the current of the Ohio to the spot where that river falls into the Mississippi may be said to sail between liberty and servitude; and a transient inspection of surrounding objects will convince him which of the two is more favorable to humanity.

Upon the left bank of the stream the population is sparse; from time to time one descries a troop of slaves loitering in the half-desert fields; the primeval forest reappears at every turn; society seems to be asleep, man to be idle, and nature alone offers a scene of activity and life.

From the right bank, on the contrary, a confused hum is heard, which proclaims afar the presence of industry; the fields are covered with abundant harvests; the elegance of the dwellings announces the taste and activity of the laborers; and man appears to be in the enjoyment of that wealth and contentment which is the reward of labor.

The state of Kentucky was founded in 1775, the state of Ohio only twelve years later; but twelve years are more in America than half a century in Europe; and at the present day the population of Ohio exceeds that of Kentucky by two hundred and fifty thousand souls. These different effects of slavery and freedom may readily be understood; and they suffice to explain many of the differences which we notice between the civilization of antiquity and that of our own time.

Upon the left bank of the Ohio labor is confounded with the idea of slavery, while upon the right bank it is identifies with that of prosperity and improvement; on the one side it is degraded, on the other it is honored. On the former territory no white laborers can be found, for they would be afraid of assimilating themselves to the Negroes; all the work is done by slaves; on the latter no one is idle, for the white population extend their activity and intelligence to every kind of employment. Thus the men whose task it is to cultivate the rich soil of Kentucky are ignorant and apathetic, while those who are active and enlightened either do nothing or pass over into Ohio, where they may work without shame.

What slavery does to the character and work ethic of the master:

The influence of slavery extends still further: it affects the character of the master and imparts a peculiar tendency to his ideas and tastes. Upon both banks of the Ohio the character of the inhabitants is enterprising and energetic, but this vigor is very differently exercised in the two states. The white inhabitant of Ohio, obliged to subsist by his own exertions, regards temporal prosperity as the chief aim of his existence; and as the country which he occupies presents inexhaustible resources to his industry, and ever varying lures to his activity, his acquisitive ardor surpasses the ordinary limits of human cupidity: he is tormented by the desire of wealth, and he boldly enters upon every path that fortune opens to him; he becomes a sailor, a pioneer, an artisan, or a cultivator with the same indifference, and supports with equal constancy the fatigues and the dangers incidental to these various professions; the resources of his intelligence are astonishing, and his avidity in the pursuit of gain amounts to a species of heroism.

But the Kentuckian scorns not only labor but all the undertakings that labor promotes; as he lives in an idle independence, his tastes are those of an idle man; money has lost a portion of its value in his eyes; he covets wealth much less than pleasure and excitement; and the energy which his neighbor devotes to gain turns with him to a passionate love of field sports and military exercises; he delights in violent bodily exertion, he is familiar with the use of arms, and is accustomed from a very early age to expose his life in single combat. Thus slavery prevents the whites not only from becoming opulent, but even from desiring to become so.

The chapter on the races in America, from which I quoted some of the slavery issues just now, is worth reading all by itself. THE PRESENT AND PROBABLE FUTURE CONDITION OF THE THREE RACES THAT INHABIT THE TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES

This book is number two on my Top Ten Favorite Books. Second only to Cannery Row.

 

[Brown]

de Tocqueville is great. I marvel when I read what he wrote.

Another good political book is 1984 by George Orwell. We can only hope that things don't get this bad; unfortunately, it is becoming clearer that many of the events described in this book, even if not inevitable, are at least within the realm of possibility.

I also favor the writings of Thomas Paine, especially "Common Sense."

A good modern book that gives real insight into politics is "The Final Days" by Woodward and Bernstein. (By contrast, "All the President's Men" is more focused upon journalism than politics.)

Although not a book, I think every American citizen should read the entire Declaration of Independence, not merely the bits and pieces that people like to quote.

 

[Luke T.]

de Tocqueville is great. I marvel when I read what he wrote.

Another good political book is 1984 by George Orwell. We can only hope that things don't get this bad; unfortunately, it is becoming clearer that many of the events described in this book, even if not inevitable, are at least within the realm of possibility.

I also favor the writings of Thomas Paine, especially "Common Sense."

A good modern book that gives real insight into politics is "The Final Days" by Woodward and Bernstein. (By contrast, "All the President's Men" is more focused upon journalism than politics.)

Although not a book, I think every American citizen should read the entire Declaration of Independence, not merely the bits and pieces that people like to quote.

I've read 1984 three times, and its watered down version Animal Farm. Great books.

I have not read "Common Sense", but it has long been on my when-I-get-a-Round-Tuit list. But I have read The Federalist Papers which gave me an immense appreciation for James Madison.

And the DOI is also a great document, and I can understand why Jefferson was more proud of being its author than he was of the Constitution. It is a great lawyers brief. And for some reason, parts of it are highly amusing to me. Throwing your caution aside, I will quote my favorite funny bits:

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

 

[CapelDodger]

Dune and Gormenghast. Spinoza. Swift. Gibbon. J K Galbraith. And in a perfect world there would be a test before you graduate as a Voter.

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

"Lies, and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them". It's laugh-out-loud funny, and we all need a good laugh now and then. I did "try" (100 pages or so), to read Coulter, O'Reilly and Hannity. No yucks in any of them.

I'd recommend any poltical book that appears to disagree with your viewpoint. It's good to "know thine enemy".

I would like to read any recommendations of SF or other genres of books that have political themes as well. (ie The Plot Against America by Philip Roth - haven't read yet, but on my list) that anyone would like to post.

Charlie (me like reading good) Monoxide

 

[epepke]

The Prince by Machiavelli.

 

[epepke]

I would like to read any recommendations of SF or other genres of books that have political themes as well.

"In the Mold of Yancy" by Philip K. Dick.

 

[Luke T.]

The Prince by Machiavelli.

I have read that. For anyone who is interested, it is a quick read.

 

[Luke T.]

I would like to read any recommendations of SF or other genres of books that have political themes as well.

I don't know if it was a book, but THX 1138 is a good SF movie with a political theme.

(edited to add: Just looked it up and it is a book. By Ben Bova. Color me red.)

 

[jj]

The "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich".

Very instructive.

 

[Luke T.]

The "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich".

Very instructive.

If I know you and how you feel about America's leadership right now, I'm sure you meant "Very prescient."

 

[Brown]

I did "try" (100 pages or so), to read Coulter, O'Reilly and Hannity. No yucks in any of them.

I read Limbaugh's first two books. The writing style was, in my judgment, about what you'd expect from a seventh grader. In other words, the books were worse than amateurish, and there was a hell of a lot of room for stylistic improvement.

The stuff that was supposed to be funny wasn't.

Some of the points that were apparently serious were laugh-out-loud funny.

When he discussed subject matter about which I have a good amount of knowledge, he was jaw-droppingly ignorant, but he presented his views so as to give the false impression that he really knew what he was talking about. Naturally, this trashed his credibility as far as I was concerned. But all I could do was sigh and say, "Too bad some people are going to mistake this crap for actual knowledge."

 

[Brown]

The Prince by Machiavelli.

Good one. Creepy, but good.

 

[Frank Newgent]

Science and Sanity
by Alfred O. Korzybski

 

[BPSCG]

Atlas Shrugged.

Why people are more familiar with The Communist Manifesto than Ayn Rand's magnum opus, which might well have been subtitled The Capitalist Manifesto, is beyond me. Yes, the writing is often turgid; Francisco doesn't smile, he gives "a gravely courteous smile", whatever that looks like. The characters are strictly one-dimensional, even more so than a Tom Clancy novel, and it runs about two or three hundred pages more than a typical Clancy book.

But as the logical, empirical, and ethical justification for capitalism, it is without peer. It will pitilessly challenge your assumptions of right and wrong, human rights and property rights, and individual freedom and if you read it with any kind of an open mind, it will change the way you think. Most people think of Marx's dictum, "From each, according to his abilities, to each, according to his needs" as being, at worst, unworkable but well-intentioned. Rand mercilessly exposes the logical fallacy behind it, builds a distopic vision of America that lives by that principle, and shows why it is more than just unworkable - it is flat-out evil.

I know at least two people who refuse to read it because, they quite frankly told me, they are afraid to. When was the last time you read a book and were frightened that it might clarify your thinking?

 

[Jim Bowen]

I'd recommend 'Round about a pound a week' by Joseph Rowntree. A very influential work in its time, although probably better known in Britain than overseas.

Jim Bowen

 

[epepke]

Atlas Shrugged.

Why people are more familiar with The Communist Manifesto than Ayn Rand's magnum opus, which might well have been subtitled The Capitalist Manifesto, is beyond me. Yes, the writing is often turgid; Francisco doesn't smile, he gives "a gravely courteous smile", whatever that looks like. The characters are strictly one-dimensional, even more so than a Tom Clancy novel, and it runs about two or three hundred pages more than a typical Clancy book.

If there were ever a book in need of a Reader's Digest version, it would be this one. It's like 36 hours of watching a dead horse get flogged. Just the John Galt radio speech has significant soporific qualities.

Also, I'm sure it was dated by the time it was published. Whenever I read it, I think of people dancing around in their top hats in Metropolis. Come on, trains as the main means of distribution after Eisenhower planned the interstate system? Soybeans as some new "liberal" thing when soybean oil had been extracted for decades, and even Henry Ford researched soybeans to make plastic? Typewriters? Even John Brunner figured out we'd have computers. And that stuff about how if you have a big enough penis, you can disregard the laws of thermodynamics. And this: http://www.angryflower.com/atlass.gif

But, yeah, some good stuff in there. About 100 pages.

 

[Snide]

Thanks for the thread, Luke, and your suggestion. The church v. state part was enough to move me to buy it ASAP.

 

[Ladewig]

I can't put it on the required reading list, but for the suggested reading list:

"Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do. The Absurdity of Consenual Crimes in a Free Society." by Peter McWilliams

This book caused me to change my views on marijuana laws.

 

[Frank Newgent]

Atlas Shrugged.

Why people are more familiar with The Communist Manifesto than Ayn Rand's magnum opus, which might well have been subtitled The Capitalist Manifesto, is beyond me. Yes, the writing is often turgid; Francisco doesn't smile, he gives "a gravely courteous smile", whatever that looks like. The characters are strictly one-dimensional, even more so than a Tom Clancy novel, and it runs about two or three hundred pages more than a typical Clancy book.

But as the logical, empirical, and ethical justification for capitalism, it is without peer. It will pitilessly challenge your assumptions of right and wrong, human rights and property rights, and individual freedom and if you read it with any kind of an open mind, it will change the way you think. Most people think of Marx's dictum, "From each, according to his abilities, to each, according to his needs" as being, at worst, unworkable but well-intentioned. Rand mercilessly exposes the logical fallacy behind it, builds a distopic vision of America that lives by that principle, and shows why it is more than just unworkable - it is flat-out evil.

I know at least two people who refuse to read it because, they quite frankly told me, they are afraid to. When was the last time you read a book and were frightened that it might clarify your thinking?

How about a link? Galt's Gulch meets Umar's Umm Qasr.