Politics thread recommended book list?

[andyandy]

We have a permanent sticky thread in the science section for book recommendations, how about a similar idea being used in the politics section?

I've just finished "Descent into Chaos (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Descent-into-Chaos-Extremism-Afghanistan/dp/0713998431/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222612679&sr=8-1)" by Ahmed Rashid which documents the various agents involved in the war on terror in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asia. For an understanding of the complexities of the situation in Pakistan,it is exceptionally informative. There is plenty of discussion on ISI (the Pakistan intelligence agency) complicity in supporting the Taliban as a counterweight to Indian influence in Afghanistan and use of terrorist training camps to provide the next generation of Kashmiri separatist fighters. Discussion on the relationship between the US administration and President Musharaf, on the role of the CIA and extraordinary rendition, on the invasion of Afghanistan and failures of policy, the flight of Al Qaeda into the tribal regions of Pakistan, and the Taliban insurgency of the past couple of years. I would definitely recommend this to anyone with an interest in the region.

I'm also part way through "Terror and Consent (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Terror-Consent-Wars-Twenty-first-Century/dp/0713997842/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222612882&sr=1-1)" by Philip Bobbitt, which is a brilliant analysis of terrorism in the 21st century. I might write more when I have finished it, but suffice to say so far it is excellent. :)

If you think that a politics booklist is a good idea, please petition your local moderator to let them know your support ;)

[Francesca R]

Well in the meantime here's my booklist of sorts, (rated but not reviewed): http://www.librarything.com/catalog/Francesca-Rizzi&tag=political%2Bscience

[andyandy]

Well in the meantime here's my booklist of sorts, (rated but not reviewed): http://www.librarything.com/catalog/Francesca-Rizzi&tag=political%2Bscience

An interesting selection, I might add a couple of books to my "to read" list, (though probably not the one about feminism and raunchiness :) )

[Francesca R]

Probably stetching it to call that politics--I only have a tag of "political science" though. You would find that book in the sociology section really. I don't think I rated it that highly anyway.

[andyandy]

Well, I thought I would write up my review of "terror and consent"

I wrote this for Amazon but it seemed to get lost in the system. The book presents a compelling argument for how the global nature of terrorism is in itself the product of our shift to globalisation. Where the terrorists create a virtual state through the internet which plays the role of virtual community, propaganda disseminator, fund raiser, recruiter, and knowledge circulator. Where terrorists employ the same outsourcing techniques as big business in providing a franchise model, where supporters can use the Al Qaeda "brand" anywhere in the world and however they see fit after having received centrally provided training.

There is in-depth discussion of the Iraq war, Al Qaeda's justification for targeting civilians, Al Qaeda's pursuit of chemical/biological/nuclear weapons and potential impacts on society, and an examination of how society might change in response to a prolonged and heightened risk of terrorist attack.

It is a very intelligently written discussion, with literally hundreds of footnotes, citations, and references to expert analysis. It is also very readable and a fascinating examination of how globalised terrorism will affect 21st century politics.

Edited to add: whilst it has no reviews on the UK Amazon site, it has quite a few on the American site (http://www.amazon.com/Terror-Consent-Wars-Twenty-First-Century/dp/1400042437/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222805951&sr=8-1). Mostly very positive (except from the writer of a rival book on terrorism, maybe touting his own wares ;) )

[Darth Rotor]

None dare call it Treason.

Printed in the 50's.

Given the current vitriol in American politics, it will fit right in.

DR

[andyandy]

I have just read The Shock Doctrine (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0312427999/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224006230&sr=8-3) by Naomi Kleine, and I thought it was an excellent read. She documents the damage that wholesale deregulation/privatisation/free market reforms can have when pressed upon a country against democratic will and at an extremely accelerated pace. Chile, Argentina, Russia, and more recently Iraq provide more than enough evidence of the massive societal shock, western profiteering and widening of the social divisions that such policies result in.

I only read the book as a result of it being recommended on this forum, what I had previously read about the book/author (quite a lot negative) I found to be largely inaccurate. It was nice therefore to find it a thought provoking and intelligent read..... the most interesting aspect of the book is how it deals with the changing face of war, where Army functions are outsourced to private contractors in ever greater numbers. This creation of a massive private industry with tens of thousands of employees, state-of-the-art military hardware and multibillion-dollar turnovers certainly does raise questions about how future wars will be fought, and in whose interest they will be entered into. I would definitely recommend it to anyone with an interest in politics, regardless of political persuasion.

[D'rok]

Thucydides - The History of the Peloponnesian War. Timeless and insightful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Peloponnesian_War

[Francesca R]

I have just read The Shock Doctrine by Naomi KleineDammit . . .

I have just started this (http://www.librarything.com/work/book/36490130) (but no reviews yet)

[dudalb]

Thucydides - The History of the Peloponnesian War. Timeless and insightful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Peloponnesian_War


I recommend highly the Landmark annotated edition. It is more expensive them most, but the added material is so massive and extensive it is well worth it. The maps alone are worth the extra money.

[dudalb]

If you want a single book that will tell you why the Middle East is such a mess, I recommend "The Peace To End All Peace" by David Fromkin. It is a history of the last years of the Ottoman empire and the Rise of the modern Mideast in it's wake.

[korenyx]

Jezebel by Lesley Hazleton (www.jezebelbook.com (http://www.jezebelbook.com)). Politics haven't changed much in 3,000 years.

[tomwaits]

I'm a particular fan of Comrades!: A History of World Communism (http://www.amazon.com/Comrades-History-Communism-Robert-Service/dp/067402530X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224646763&sr=8-1) by Robert Service. It gives a great overview of the history of communism, as well as lots of new information about the ComIntern because of the opening of the soviet archives.

[KoihimeNakamura]

As I am starting a new project (mostly articles) on poltical science to edge myself back into writing papers and history, I'll recommend the http://www.constitution.org/liberlib.htm for information on constitutions. Of course, I dunno if I'll be able to work on the project full tilt, but..

[andyandy]

I wonder if a kindly moderator could make this into a sticky? I have already added a couple of new books to my Amazon basket.......:)

[korenyx]

Jezebel by Lesley Hazleton (www.jezebelbook.com (http://www.jezebelbook.com)). Politics haven't changed much in 3,000 years.



I was tired last night and forgot to say: Politics, sex and religion haven't changed much in 3,000 years. Hazleton is very good at showing what she calls "the foundation story of modern radical fundamentalism".

[rmcc4444]

'The Constitution of Liberty' by F.A. Hayek

[MaGZ]

None dare call it Treason.

Printed in the 50's.

Given the current vitriol in American politics, it will fit right in.

DR

Isn’t that a John Birch Society book? I’m surprise you would recommend it.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes is a must read. It pretty much sets up the core assumptions in Western political philosophy.

[Loss Leader]

Probably the most important book I've ever read about the workings of government: James Wilson's Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It (http://www.amazon.com/Bureaucracy-Government-Agencies-Basic-Classics/dp/0465007856).


The book I cite most often on JREF is this one: The Hunting of the President (http://www.amazon.com/Hunting-President-Ten-Year-Campaign-Destroy/dp/0312273193/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225113621&sr=1-1) You will never find another modern history book that so completely lays bare exactly how "politics" operates in the US.

[Francesca R]

Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes is a must read. It pretty much sets up the core assumptions in Western political philosophy.Hmmm, I'd have to de-recommend that ;) having just grappled with 700 pages of 17th century English prose ("Liberty or Freedome signifieth properly the absence of Opposition (by Opposition, I mean externall impediments to motion); and may be applyed no lesse to Irrationall and Inanimate creatures, than to Rationall") and sort-of lost.

I would recommend reading shorter summary/criticism by scholars of Hobbes instead, such as Crawford Macpherson.

And actually, I find Hobbes' conclusions to be a sign of the (then) times--written as they are from the perspective of a shocked survivor of the English civil war. Hence the central thesis of the need for a "leviathan" faded away somewhat since.

[zaphod2016]

"How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World" by Harry Browne

This book blew my mind. Currently out of print, but worth chasing down.

Amazon link (http://www.amazon.com/How-Found-Freedom-Unfree-World/dp/0965603679/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1225489420&sr=8-1)

Highly recommended for left-wingers, right-wingers, moderates, and those who think the bulk of politics is a scam. Just a fantastic perspective to consider, in my opinion.

[D'rok]

Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes is a must read. It pretty much sets up the core assumptions in Western political philosophy.
Which are....?

And actually, I find Hobbes' conclusions to be a sign of the (then) times--written as they are from the perspective of a shocked survivor of the English civil war. Hence the central thesis of the need for a "leviathan" faded away somewhat since.
Bingo. Also, it is a gross misapplication of "physics" to politics.

Still, there are some insights buried in his state of nature teachings.

[Francesca R]

Also, it is a gross misapplication of "physics" to politics.That reminded me somewhat of Socrates (Plato) recommending that rulers spend 5 years studying geometry, astronomy and harmonics before they learn dialectic. Except in the case of The Republic it is more to hone the "love of truth" than to generate socio-political models.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Which are....?

Social Contract Theory, the concept of Rights, the selfish individual perspective on the nature of humanity, etc.

Of course, his attempt at bringing in physics was silly, but his ideas are fundamental to our world view.

[D'rok]

Social Contract Theory, the concept of Rights, the selfish individual perspective on the nature of humanity, etc.


Good answer.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Good answer.

Thanks :) .

Of course, Hobbes never touches economic issues. For two contrasting economic views, I recommend Milton Friedman (libertarian) and Michael Harrington (socialist).

[billydkid]

Of course, I will get slammed for this, but I think the most important, current book you can read involving politics is Ron Paul's The Revolution/A Manifesto. Also, Hans-Hermann Hoppe A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, Ludwig von Mises Human Action, Murray N. Rothbard The Ethics of Liberty and Bastiat's The Law. I don't care if people detest Ron Paul and all he stands for as long as they take the time to actually read and understand what they are detesting rather than relying on what they have been told

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm surprised no one's mentioned The Selling of the President (http://www.amazon.com/Selling-President-Joe-McGinniss/dp/0140112405). It's dated and maybe common knowledge now. But it is still worth reading if you haven't already.

Along that same line but with more information about current politics, two books by Amy Goodman and her brother are well worth reading: The Exception to the Rulers and Static (http://www.democracynow.org/store/category/5).

I think it's great to read all about theory and reality in politics, but one also needs to read more about the part of history of governments that are rarely discussed in such books. I also recommend, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man: How the U.S. Uses Globalization to Cheat Poor Countries Out of Trillions (http://www.democracynow.org/2004/11/9/confessions_of_an_economic_hit_man). I learned incredible lessons about the real US government in the real world when I traveled in Central America in the late 70s. This book reinforced that experience.

[Kodiak]

American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House

[noch1Narr]

Two books on economics, but closely related to politics, especially these days. Recommend 2 reviews (Chalmers Johnson, Nicholas von Hoffman). Read others before considering picking up either.....

Bad Money- Kevin Phillips
Bad Samaritans - Ban Joon Chang

Have started on the first one.

Michael

[qwints]

Steve Coll's Ghost Wars - really changed my outlook on US foreign policy

Thomas Frank's What's the Matter with Kansas Not one I agree with, but a good perspective.

Hobbes is a must read to understand western political thought. As is John Stuart Mill.

My best recommendation is to stay away from the hacks. Neither Franken nor Coulter is going to aid your understanding of politics.

[JihadJane]

Charlotte Dennett and Gerard Colby’s Thy Will Be Done: The Conquest of the Amazon

- an “expose of the manipulation of missionary efforts in South America by the Rockefeller family to lay the groundwork for the economic domination of the Amazon region by Rockefeller corporate interests.”

http://www.cephas-library.com/church_n_state_rockefeller_and_evangelism.html


Michael Ruppert’s Crossing the Rubicon. The Decline of the American empire an the End of the Age of Oil

“describes the horrendous crisis our civilization is headed into because of the coming end of the age of oil.” A must-read!

http://freepress.org/departments/display/17/2004/791


I’ve got Russ Baker's Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, the Powerful Forces That Put It in the White House, and What Their Influence Means for America on order. Anyone read it yet?

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Family-of-Secrets/Russ-Baker/e/9781596915572

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I'm going to recommend "My Pet Goat".

I haven't read it myself, but I've heard a lot about it.

[Francesca R]

I can recommend "The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies" by Brian Caplan, although it's at least as much economics as politics (and because of that it may switch off non-economists, not that I'm an economist). Anyway I wrote this review:The author calls a spade a spade in ways that no politician ever would (if they knew the mic was on, that is)--voters are not just rationally ignorant, they are irrationally daft. And that includes you.

In precis: rational ignorance is not the cause of democratic folly, because via the wisdom of crowds, the smartest non-ignorant voter on every issue would prevail over the randomised noise, and the result would be policymaking at its finest. Instead, the errors are not random, but reflect the insidious working of Caplan's four main biases that voters have: 1) the market does not know best all that often, 2) foreigners are foes, 3) jobs are better than efficiency and 4) yesterday was better than today. Apparently these systematic biases previal because they feel good, and the return of good feeling is demanded by folks, so they supply the biases to get it. From another ten miles high, this actually all seems optimal (the people get what they want), but only in the same way as belief in Santa or faith healing are similarly demanded because they feel good to the mistaken.

And it's less innocuous than that too (as may be the faith-healing market)--if special interest groups (those poised to reap concentrated gains) can exploit the rationally not-bothered public (they pay diffuse costs), then they sure can do a job on the irrationally wrong public. Or so it would seem. Mancur Olson's thesis on collective action (renamed "classical public choice") gets an airing for this important reason.

What's the solution? It would seem that some of it is to let the market decide more often, and some of it is perhaps more devolution of policy to arms-length technocrats. So Churchill's proclamation that democracy is the "worst" form of government "except for all the others" seems to get the response: "Not always". And of course, democratic societies already know this to be true, since they have independent judiciaries and monetary authorities. However, this reviewer did not get to sense an abundamce of solutions. And at times, she wondered if the text was edging towards rule by Plato's philosopher kings (except that they would more likely be economist kings).

In that regard, it is possible to run away with the idea that the author is merely lamenting the failure of electorates to choose policies that he approves of. Non-economists would be quite likely to get rather irritated by chapter three, which had a persistent tendency to give this reviewer the impression that if she wasn't one, then by default her views were less correct. She suspects that this charge is going to seriously limit the penetration of Caplan's thesis in popular assessment, even if she can get over it herself. But in doing this, Caplan appears to trip himself up a little, since the rest of the text is noticably dotted with pockets of defence of dismal scientists against the foes he apparently imagines are already banging at the door. More likely--and this is unfortunate--they stopped reading some time ago.

[andyandy]

A couple of recommendations for books on Al Qaeda :

The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda's Road to 9/11
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Looming-Tower-Al-Qaedas-Road/dp/0141029358/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234647114&sr=8-1

The Search For Al Qaeda: Its Leadership, Ideology, and Future
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Search-Al-Qaeda-Leadership-Ideology/dp/0815774141/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234647298&sr=1-1

the first book is a meticulously researched account of the rise of Islamic extremism and its culmination in 911. It provides detailed biographical accounts of some of the main figures in the Islamic movements, dissects the various terrorist attacks which served as precursors to the attack on the American mainland, and exposes the ideological tensions, infighting and some of the mythology which has grown up around the group. It is an absolutely fascinating read, in fact I would go as far to say an essential read for anyone with an interest in how terrorism has and will continue to shape modern western democracy.

The second book is a much shorter read at only 150 pages. It's written by a former senior CIA operative and includes analysis of Al Qaeda post 911 up to the present day. It is also a well written and interesting account of the terrorist group, with the last couple of chapters devoted to looking at the current state of the group and laying out policy recommendations for the future "war on terror".

[tanabear]

1) Politics by Aristotle. This book discusses reality, not fantasy like Plato's Republic. It is also a good antidote to all the modern day political correctness. A quote from the Politics reads,

"Another cause of revolution is difference of races that do not at once acquire a common spirit, for a state is not the growth of a day, anymore than it grows out of a multitude brought together by accident. Hence the reception of strangers in colonies, either at the time of their foundation or afterwards, has generally produced revolution."

2) Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville. This book explains why America is the way it is and what separates us from other countries both present and past.

3) The writings of John Adams (http://www.amazon.com/Portable-John-Adams-Penguin-Classics/dp/0142437786/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235613466&sr=1-1). John Adams was one of our greatest political thinkers, a moral man, and an honorable politician. The recent biography by David McCullough and the HBO mini-series has helped to bring him out of Thomas Jefferson's shadow.

[oggiesnr]

"Full Employment in a Free Society" W H Beveridge. 1944 Essentially a follow up to the "Beveridge Report" of 1942

A fascinating book, more mentioned than read I suspect. I inherited a copy from my mother (it had been her father's) a couple of years ago and decide I ought to read it. It is not an easy read but is clearly written with a wealth of information in the Appendices at the end, Appendix A on Trade Cycles is particularly aposite at the current time.

Given the passage time it's also interesting to look back on what he got right and what he got wrong and how the world has changed from the one he was planning for.

The title page also contains a quote that should be indelibly imprinted on the minds of all politicians -

"Misery generates hate" (Charlotte Bronte)

Steve

[gumboot]

It doesn't strictly fit under politics, but I just finished reading God's Terrorists: The Wahhabi Cult and the Hidden Roots of Modern Jihad by Charles Allen. From a political perspective it's a must for anyone interested in that particular subject.

It traces the history of the Wahhabi cult primarily in India and the frontier with Afghanistan during the British Raj, through the British-Afghan Wars, the Sepoy Mutiny, the creation of Saudi Arabia, to the modern day and both Al Qaeda and the Taliban. I found it truly fascinating. It's an excellent companion piece to works like The Looming Tower which cover the parallel evolution of Radical Islam in the Middle East via the Muslim Brotherhood and the teachings of Sayyed Qutb.

[Brainster]

The best book I ever read on politics was written by Eleanor Clift and (her late husband) Tom Brazaitis in 1996 called War Without Bloodshed. It concerns the Hillary Clinton health care initiative in the mid-1990s and examines the battle from the standpoint of various players in the political arena. It's a terrific primer on how American politics really works.

[JihadJane]

'A Brutal Friendship: The West and The Arab Elite

by Said K. Aburish

Describes how the West has helped perpetuate repressive and illegitimate governments in much of the Arab world in order to safeguard its putative geopolitical and economic interests.

[Francesca R]

Mix of politics (or rather, the democratic process) with business, but I liked "Supercapitalism" by Robert Reich (Labor Sec in the Clinton Admin)


This book's title would ordinarily have led this reviewer to believe she was about to read an anti-business tirade about the subjugation of government and democracy to the superior power of big business, replete with lists of how many corporations had market capitalisation as big as medium sized countries' GDP (which is to compare stock with flow anyway), yet were not answerable to the public, but had tentacles reaching deep into the pockets of executive branches of governments, and must be felled urgently.

In fact the book does indeed cover this subject matter, but in a most welcome rational manner, and with the correct perspective and the most appropriate remedies put forward.

First off, the golden age of the 1950s and 60s (sensibly prefixed with "Not Quite") has passed, and was hardly all good things to all people. Much more resembling loose-tie networks of planning than a nirvana of honesty and decency, it is described as a system destined for inevitable disruption by technology and the associated empowerment of individuals--thus it was wrecked largely by the public whose status quo it had preserved, just as soon as they had the ability to select something different.

The emergence of competition and explosions of innovation (not just technological but in finance, education and information too) steadily increased the power people have as consumers and investors--that is, economic agents--relative to their power as citizens. (It is not clear whether citizen power also increased or reduced or stayed the same). This balance shift causes the present dichotomy: people want high returns and cheap products as economic agents, but they want social responsibility and public service as citizens too. And they just got massively increased relative power in the realm of the first two, so what happens is really quite predictable. We can be of two minds about relative importance of the foregoing, but it is hardly a revelation that the pendulum has--and should have--swung given the alteration in our relative power.

To deal with this requires a proper recognition of what corporations can do and what governments can do, and there is much confusion about the former which is accurately dispelled, for those who will only apprehend it (this reviewer's experience is such that she thinks most people don't). In short corporations can only pursue financial results for their owners. (The interests of consumers and owners are, implicitly, well enough aligned that it is not necessary for companies to have any fiduciary duty to the former group.) But corporations can never act in the interest of citizens who are neither, except by happy conincidence, OR by changing the rules to increase co-indicence. Movements towards voluntary corporate social responsibility are worse than a PR sham; they are a worrying distraction from the correct way to elicit citizen-friendly corporate behavior--which is to rig the incentive structure to render it in companies' financial interest (the only interest they have) to do good. The author deserves congratulation for meticulously outlining this highly misunderstood truth.

There is useful discussion of the merit of aboloshing corporation tax (it lends weight to the illusion that companies might be citizens and have participatory rights), of disallowing corporate funding of lobbying (a lot of anti-business ctitique focuses on the wrong target of public money allocated to this), and of donations to political parties by companies. Through all this it is apparent that politicians and lawmakers are indeed in the pockets of big business, but that is because we have allowed them to be, and because our consumer/investor intetests are better served by this being the case. Neither hand-wringing nor isolated influences of people-power will change this. Only changes to the rules will do so. Lack of realisation of this retards its likelihood.

The claim that companies are "legal fiction" jarred as slightly unhelpful though--and has been seen by this reviewer as frequently used to assert that the only reason corporations act contrary to public interest is due to the bad, bad ethics of the senior executives. That, alas, is also a delusion that offers folorn solutions that really don't fly (see Ben & Jerry's, Body Shop)
Francesca Rizzi

[andyandy]

I'm currently reading the memoirs of British MP Chris Mullins, "A View From The Foothills (http://www.amazon.co.uk/View-Foothills-Diaries-Chris-Mullin/dp/1846682231/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1237493699&sr=1-1)".

This is the review I wrote for Amazon.

I have to admit that my heart sank a little when this book arrived from Amazon, it's got a rather dull front cover and at 600 pages is something of a brick. Nevertheless, I had read a couple of good reviews in the papers so I thought I would give it a go...and three hours later I was still reading it. It's a truly engrossing account of ministerial life on the lowest rung of the ladder, Mullins upon being promoted to junior minister for transport and environment sets himself just three goals for the duration of his tenure: an end to night flights, greater regulation of leylandi hedges and cancelling his ministerial car. Two years later on leaving his post he reflects that he has failed on the first two counts, and merely reduced the ministerial bill (from £700 to £400 per week) for the third. In the intervening months he catalogues with almost daily despair his lack of any policy influence and how he is slowly ground down by the civil service machine.

There is a real gearchange in the diary after he returns to the back benches after tendering his resignation. It is clear that he finds a new enthusiasm once he escapes from the stifling Whitehall centralised control structures designed to ensure that everyone remains "on message", where every interview and TV appearance has to be approved and prepped to mirror exactly the party line. Now just a humble MP he finds himself with much greater influence through his select committee work.

The second part of the diary therefore progresses much more like a conventional political memoir. We get to hear at first hand government reaction to 911, the political infighting between Gordon and Tony, the divisions over first Afghanistan and then Iraq, the inside reactions to the scandals, the media hysteria, the sackings, the election triumphs. I found it an absolutely fascinating read. The greatest compliment you can pay a autobiography is that it makes you feel like you yourself are living that life. And this book achieved that feat. Want to be a government minister? Want to be an MP? Then read this book and live it through someone else's eyes.

A must read!

[Malkuth]

Allan Bloom - The Closing of The American Mind
Carroll Quigley - Tragedy And Hope
Murray Edelman - The Politics of Misinformation
The Constitution of The United States of America - The whole world needs to read this one and realise just how fragile freedom from tyranny is, and how hard the whole population must work to keep it.

[qwints]

I just picked up Zinn's A People's History of the United States. It's certainly intriguing so far.

[Polaris]

Robert Kaplan's Warrior Politics. Better than The Coming Anarchy and a very enlightening way to look at current events (his thesis is that there isn't an event today that could happen - possibly short of a nuclear exchange, limited or not - that did not happen in Antiquity, and that we can learn to deal with or avoid bad things based on a knowledge of those histories.

[Roswell-Perseis]

Due to the health care debate, I would recommend Powerful Medicines, by Dr. Jerry Avorn, 2004. It explores the risks, benefits, and costs of medications, as well as the involvement of the FDA, media, and ignorance. It drags a little, and my fellow atheists should be forewarned of a few overtly xian comments, but those can be skipped without losing the authors argument.

Happy Reading,

R-P

[D'rok]

The Constitution of The United States of America - The whole world needs to read this one and realise just how fragile freedom from tyranny is, and how hard the whole population must work to keep it.

Ugh. The USA needs to take a non-myopic look at the rest of the world and notice that there are plenty of sources of political freedom that are not the US Constitution.

[Francesca R]

Ah, might as well stick in a few reviews I wrote a few months back. (I haven't done a lot of reading of politics books lately; hope to get back to it)

The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries are Failing and What Can Be Done About It… (http://www.librarything.com/work/3250065) by Paul Collier (http://www.librarything.com/author/collierpaul)
This reviewer had to read Bottom Billion through a couple of times because she found it unusually packed with knowledge. Not to mention cool-headed, analytical in high measure, and usefully lacking in political polemic which made it all the more readable.

Amid the evidence of falling poverty levels and the spread of prosperity that is happily affecting large parts of the world's population, the text focuses on the poorest sixth for whom living standards have always been wretched and have unquestionably failed to improve in the last four decades, if not worsen. Collier calls this group "Africa +" and counts 58 nations, whose combined GDP tallies up somewhere short of Belgium's, but omits to provide a list (to avoid self-fulfilling stigmatisation, apparently). The analysis of this group consists of some first-hand research and an impressive sounding effort to source and work with diverse data, for which the papers are cited at the end of the relatively short volume. (This reviewer should note that she has not chased down any of the research papers listed, and she wonders if the book would carry more authority if it brought some of the dry data analysis on board, even if it would be longer and less popular. She would still have read it anyway)

For various reasons, the bottom billion countries become ensnared in one or more of four traps: conflict, the resource-curse, odds-against geography and neighbours, and useless government. Unfortunately escaping from each of these is difficult or impossible, and reprieves are always shaky and prone to relapse. Some countries should, according to the author, never have been created as viable in the first place (though no time is wasted on wishful re-drawing of borders)--particularly landlocked ones and (counterintuitively perhaps) those which also have dominant natural resource endowments. Never mind debates about "sustainable" or "the wrong kind of" growth--for most of these countries there is none of it whatsoever to argue about. And it is not a simple case of failure to be integrated with the global capital or skills markets--many bottom billion nations are integrated, but the wrong way; scarce domestic capital leaks abroad, as do the sparse scattering of educated individuals with productive potential. The picture becomes depressingly akin to a "somewhere has to be bottom" scenario, in which mobility of capital and skills will just exacerbate the differences. In another cruel twist, Collier points to the likelihood that the bottom billion have missed the boat: with India, China and much of Asia having managed to escape stagnation since 1970 or thereabouts, the door is nowhere near as wide open for anyone else, and won't be until Asia has perhaps fully caught up with the rich world. (One of the surprising policy recommendations following from this is for relatively protectionist trade against Asia--though brought about by lowering mutual barriers with bottom billion partners without doing the same with Asia)

As far as solutions are concerned, some of the limits and the negative effects of foreign aid were familiar to this reviewer; but other policy misfirings were new to her. Aid can easily be spent as badly as oil revenues and can crowd out other earners of foreign exchange just the same, and conditionality--not being a simultaneous exchange--frequently doesn't get traction. Sudden market liberalisation isn't great either since patronage often dominates and occludes the price system. And instant democracy--in the form of competitive elections--can easily be a public bad too, lacking the checks and balances of governance which take time, or certainly more care, to install. Military intervention in conflict and post conflict situations is recommended rather sparingly and more for the latter circumstance, since one civil war tends to be a predictor of the next. The author laments the extreme unlikelihood of another intervention any time soon post Iraq, anyway, also pointing to how badly past cycles of public support/hostility to such campaigns have actually served the afflicted, not least because of overly hubristic approaches from the rich west (America basically) at the wrong times (Somalia, Iraq) leading to a collapse in political will the next time (Rwanda, now).

This reviewer has yet to find a mainstream economics writer who fails to point out that protectionist trade policy is the rich world's biggest wrongdoing (often born of a "headless heart") and she is not disappointed this time either. She is also happy to re-encounter sensiblilities regarding the overwhelming positives of policies that end up being pro-growth. Collier's more unique addition to the standard solutions--which is what she finds most interesting and explains the high rating she gives this book--is the case for the formation of international charters for handling resource FX, implementing democracy, peacekeeping post-conflicts, and encouraging and stewarding foreign capital. These would be good not because of legally-binding force (which they wouldn't really have--"world government" is sensibly recognised as the stuff of pipe-dreams), but through the establishment of global societal norms which could demonstrate benefits and shape improvements and thus show up incentives for compliance more visibly than anything tried so far. Such global public goods would even be relatively cheap to set up (compared to--say--a military intervention or a "doubling of aid"). Alas, their undersupply is nonetheless still a public goods problem, which requires more tools than the ideas themselves to solve. The author calls out to the G8 as the best hope for international charters, though this reviewer noted some mention of the 2007 get-together in Germany as a hopeful event in this regard, and she doesn't think the idea has caught on yet. What a pity.



Who Runs Britain?: How the Super-Rich are Changing our Lives: How the Super-rich Are Changing Our Lives… (http://www.librarything.com/work/5107270) by Robert Peston (http://www.librarything.com/author/pestonrobert)
This book's title suggested that it would be a fairly harsh anti-rich critique, although some knowledge of its author would suggest otherwise. In fact it likely falls short of heaping enough blame for "the economic mess we're in" on the super-rich to satisfy many, with the failures mostly laid at the door of the UK (Labour) government. And at the same time it is a decent narrative about the antics of several wealthy players in the British economy and politics over the decade or so since Labour was elected, mostly gleaned from Peston's journalistic work for the BBC.

Private equity firms feature large in the first half. The reader is given an accurate explanation of their operations--securing vast borrowings to acquire businesses with relatively small equity investment of their own, a reasonably quick turnaround which generally works successfully in a bull market (and not very much at all since that ended, actually), culminating in a re-float of the business and massive enrichment to the partners. This practice has garnered such hostility in public opinion of late that Peston comes across as somewhat restrained in his criticism, which does not amount to a full scale attack, The government is wrong, apparently (self-interested) in taxing carried interest as capital gains (the hike in CGT from a tapering 10% to a flat 18% was a botched job which let PE firms off lightly but skewered "genuine entrepreneurs"), when it "looks like income". Plus it is shoddy policy to still allow sufficient non-domicile loopholes for firms to skirt some way under this tax rate. There is commentary that PE is out for its own enrichment and does not genuinely improve the businesses it takes on, which sounds odd to this reviewer since she is not really sure how else such a mechanism could work, or does work even for those genuine venturers.

But the weakest argument, which is related to it, is that by capturing the gains from increasing enterprise value of other companies, PE firms deprive pension funds ("you and me") from participating in that. This is nothing more than a general statement that the fund management business is apparently non activist enough in appointing, removing and driving managers. And that's true, which is where the PE opportunity comes from in the first place. But this veers somewhat towards a view that companies should all be held by a small concentrated group of investors if governance is to improve, or that alternatively, full-scale buyouts should be prohibited and the returns they aim for should remain in the ether. Neither sounds palatable.

Peston also conveys the impression that private equity and hedge fund management is ridiculously easy, lending weight to the notion that the huge gains enjoyed by those profiled are ill deserved. Such a presentation will stoke popular views, but shallows the treatment in the eyes of a reviewer who is herself in the funds business and is keenly aware of the survivorship bias permeating all popular and cursory analysis of it.

The author later moves on to party funding, donations, loans on not-really commercial terms, and cash for honours. This is illuminating to those less close to the inside track, and here the self-interest of politicians in sacrificing the public interest in the pursuit of ongoing power is more readily apparent, though Peston falls short of reaching any conclusions about flawed incentives created by the rules of the game in this sphere. And it is likely that it can only be changed with changes to the rules. Policy proposals could have been more forthcoming,

In summary this is a fairly measured account for those minded to wade though it, though the title may interest an audience looking for bigger smoking guns than this reviewer was. Also, she suspects that the book is probably better for having been completed and published before the full onslaught of the financial crisis truly erupted in the second half of 2008 and 2009, else considerably more vitriol may have been inevitable.



Dead Aid: Destroying the Biggest Global Myth of Our Time… (http://www.librarything.com/work/7933668) by Dambisa Moyo (http://www.librarything.com/author/moyodambisa)
The sensational part about this book is that its author hails from Africa (Zambia) and is calling for the curtailment of foreign aid to the continent. So if she's doing that, then it must be right, right? And Messrs Sachs, Collier, Geldof and [Bono's last name] have all got things wrong and/or they are probably merely scalping a bit of moral high ground?

Of course, accepting such a silly premise at face value would be folly and in no part of the book (except the preface from Niall Ferguson) does Moyo really try to push such grounds for her credibility. But it's not exactly kept secret from the reader either. Moyo's degree from Harvard and eight years at Goldman Sachs are probably to be politely excused (as in not detracting from her African-ness) as prerequisites for equipping her to tackle the subject.

So much for that. Actually this reviewer feels that she has already digressed too far on reviewing the author not the book--just like the reviews she read before buying it did. As for the treatment of the subject it is mostly sound. Trade not aid and loans rather than transfers are talked around in a similar way as other writers have done, and the rationale seems plausible. The basic premise is that while a transfer payment might "help"--which in the eyes of many givers is all that should be asked of it--it does nothing to install incentives to do without the help the next time. In fact Moyo's fiercest criticism (and that of others) is that the incentives are rather distorted the other way. The receipt of aid, she argues, encourages more of the plight that motivated it in the first place. Or at the very least, it brings it out into the open in increasing amounts. This much was clear (to this reviewer) the first and last time that she gave coins to a begging child in a poor foreign city in the folorn hope that the gesture might actually reduce the extent to which she was being hassled, rather than multiply it by a factor of ten.

Worse, according to aid critics, most of it gets wasted anyway. Or it props up corrupt regimes (who are the receivers) that care not for the welfare of their people, and are in large measure the cause of their plight in the first place. On this point, the author has plenty of corroboration. Depressingly there are precious few examples of countries where aid "worked"--and apparently it works only when it is brief, and where the single motivation of the recipient is to eliminate their need for it as fast as possible, which (no surprise) means market augmentation coming from property and contract rights and unbribable judges. And unfortunately, this is no small feat (the examples are Botswana and non-African states like Taiwan and South Korea).

Microcredit is lauded towards the end of the book, though given the rather cursory treatment that is actually now quite usual in texts about development economics. The same mechanism of incentives is deployed here as on the macro scale (if you have to pay money back you are careful with it; if someone gave it to you then you're maybe more likely to pass some of it on as favours and produce more waste / destroy value with the rest). However this reviewer would really like to read something a little more involved than what's presented here, and she's slightly disappointed that Moyo's indigenous connection has barely penetrated deeper than papers written at Harvard and Yale. If her birth origins are going to be made quite apparent, then the inquiring reader expects something at least a bit special to come from that.



Not on the Label (http://www.librarything.com/work/85726) by Felicity Lawrence (http://www.librarything.com/author/lawrencefelicity)
The author confines herself to the title message of the book: You don't know what goes into much of the food you consume (if you're a rich country resident, that is). This is, of course, because those supplying it would prefer not to deal with the likely outrage and rejection that would follow if you did.

Well, this reviewer did know some of it already--though she is grateful for the education to find out more. She's a bit doubtful that a mass taking up of arms will result from wider discovery though. Not least, this is because she is aware of a growing number of titles exposing the shock-worthy "hidden truths" of food production flying off the popular shelves, accompanied by little evidence of much change in collective consumption behaviour.

Make no mistake, books like "Not on the Label" fill a valuable knowledge gap, and Felicity Lawrence's extensive effort to gather evidence of practices contrary to consumer interests (and those of just about everybody bar shareholders) is impressive. Food manufacturers have little incentive to do more than they are required to do in disclosing their methods to maximise profits (which include adulteration, nutritional compromise, full exercise of superior bargaining power to drive down wages). Nor do they have an incentive to stay within legal standards if they can get away with transgressing them. Worse, perhaps, what looks like an effort to improve food standards (perhaps in response to popular activism) is quite likely to be a ruse to pacify the activists while changing little underneath the surface (beware of the organic, fair trade and farmers market crazes in this regard).

Yet the same is true for all corporate behaviour, which is a truth well publicised but not nearly so well understood. It is hard to go too far with accusations of lack of transparency, since even though the food production industry is hardly a paragon of perfect information disclosure itself, we nonetheless have Lawrence and her ilk (she is a journalist with The Guardian) filling in the blanks, and we have done for a long time. Jamie Oliver enjoys even higher profile ways and means of doing it too. And while informed public opinion can notch up several gains in respect of extracting a better deal than otherwise, the outers of the food business would probably all agree that changes are scarce relative to the siren alarms that they have been loudly sounding.

So why's that? This reviewer's conclusion tends towards acceptance that Jill Public's desires as an economic agent (a consumer and an investor) still win out over her wishes as a concerned citizen, even as she avails herself of more complete information. She might like it if workers employed in harvesting salad crops, baking bread and processing meat products were well compensated and motivated to produce wholesome output, and if Sainsbury's didn't screw over its clementine suppliers in Africa. But she apparently appreciates the permanent-summer choices and low prices even more, and she may be as ruthless as a stock market investor in fleeing from a retailer that tried to pass on the cost of these ethically higher alternatives to her, just as long as someone across the street was still going about it the old way. And she can compensate for the guilt trip with another book on food outrage, and an occasional trip to the local farmers' market (which, in London, can still earn this designation if the sellers have arrived in articulated lorries through the channel tunnel, apparently).

In summary, the scare simply does not seem to be scary enough for the general public, notwithstanding a diligent effort to make it so. So while 'eye opening' will probably continue to be a repeated commentary on texts like this, this reviewer is not really convinced that many people have their blinkers on. Or at least, she suspects that under the bright lights of full illumination is not a place where a whole lot of readers wish to stand.

[Cain]

Just read James Flynn's (from "Flynn Effect" fame) WHERE HAVE ALL THE LIBERALS GONE? Inspired by Jefferson, Debs, Sumner and others, he addresses THE BELL CURVE controversy, claiming racial differences in IQs are probably due to environmental factors, though he almost nothing but high praise for Charles Murray and Arthur Jensen (and Thomas Sowell).

He self-identifies as a social democrat, but claims we need (real) liberals to pull the debate leftward. He discusses the United States as a world power, reprinting a prescient essay on our little misadventure in Iraq. He says some standard lefty things about egalitarianism as meritocracy, reducing the military budget by a couple hundred million dollars, and pledging support to Israel "right to exist" (or whatever), while coming down against settlements and unchecked aide.

He has some interesting thoughts on Strauss and Rawls, but then goes into arguments for moral skepticism, why we should basically ignore the "fact" there is no such thing as morality and embrace "humanitarian-egalitarianism" nonetheless, and then he discusses free will (a chapter I mostly skipped).

It's OK, but uneven. You can read just the chapters you want, as they are for the most part self-contained.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I'm reading Gaming the Vote right now, and it is awesome. It covers the typical dirt of political campaigns, but it is largely focused on the system of voting, and all those fun mathematical proofs like Arrow's.

[Brainster]

Not a political book per se, but a book which explores the fanatics for any cause, including political causes, is The True Believer by Eric Hoffer. It's very short and easily read, but powerful.

[Skeptic]

'A Brutal Friendship: The West and The Arab Elite

by Said K. Aburish

Describes how the West has helped perpetuate repressive and illegitimate governments in much of the Arab world in order to safeguard its putative geopolitical and economic interests.

Yes, the middle east was such a garden of democracy, human rights, and progress until the evil USA came and screwed it all up.

[GreNME]

Not a political book per se, but a book which explores the fanatics for any cause, including political causes, is The True Believer by Eric Hoffer. It's very short and easily read, but powerful.

Great pick. Another one with a more general tone (though it seems to have some partisanship) would be Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson. The paperback (http://www.amazon.com/Mistakes-Were-Made-But-Not/dp/0156033909/) is pretty cheap and the read isn't extremely long. It is, however, a very good examination of how people can justify practically anything and consider themselves innocent or benevolent.

[Clare Swinney]

Thanks GreNME.
I recommend 'The True Story of the Bilderberg Group' by Daniel Estulin, as it helps to expose who some of the people are who pull politicians' strings.
It reveals that those who are willing to go along with the New World Order agenda seem to be more likely to be chosen to be politicians, than those who will not.
It is at Amazon for US $13.25 for a used copy.

[Darth Rotor]

Isn’t that a John Birch Society book? I’m surprise you would recommend it.
The book is a good illustration of a political rant style book.

Before the internet and blogs, people often wrote and read books.

I find some of the ranting screeds being published today very similar to None Dare.

DR

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Thanks GreNME.
I recommend 'The True Story of the Bilderberg Group' by Daniel Estulin, as it helps to expose who some of the people are who pull politicians' strings.
It reveals that those who are willing to go along with the New World Order agenda seem to be more likely to be chosen to be politicians, than those who will not.
It is at Amazon for US $13.25 for a used copy.

I reccomend "DSM-IV", by the American Psychiatric Association.

[JihadJane]

I reccomend "DSM-IV", by the American Psychiatric Association.


Whatever floats your boat.

[Comsat Angel]

If you care, the novelisations of "Yes Minister" and "Yes Prime Minister" provide an illumination into British politics that have yet to be bettered. Whilst the television series that the books are based upon is satirical fiction, it is fiction separated from fact by the very narrowest of boundaries.

[Galileo]

I just picked up Zinn's A People's History of the United States. It's certainly intriguing so far.

not a good book. I've read it. The author is under the discredited spell of Charles Beard.

[Galileo]

Ugh. The USA needs to take a non-myopic look at the rest of the world and notice that there are plenty of sources of political freedom that are not the US Constitution.

Name one.

[Galileo]

I recommend highly the Landmark annotated edition. It is more expensive them most, but the added material is so massive and extensive it is well worth it. The maps alone are worth the extra money.

A new annotated version of this book has just been released, complete with dozens of maps and margin notes.

A volume on Herodotus from the same series is also available.

[Galileo]

Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes is a must read. It pretty much sets up the core assumptions in Western political philosophy.

In 1635, Hobbes sailed to Italy to visit his idol, me, Galileo, who was under house arrest.

Hobbes was heavily influenced by Galileo.

[Galileo]

Of course, I will get slammed for this, but I think the most important, current book you can read involving politics is Ron Paul's The Revolution/A Manifesto. Also, Hans-Hermann Hoppe A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, Ludwig von Mises Human Action, Murray N. Rothbard The Ethics of Liberty and Bastiat's The Law. I don't care if people detest Ron Paul and all he stands for as long as they take the time to actually read and understand what they are detesting rather than relying on what they have been told

Excellent book selections. I agree you will likely get slammed, most of the readers here are of an anti-Liberty bent.

[Marcuse]

I have'nt finished reading it yet but i think that Joel Bakan's book "The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power" is essential to understanding how and why our modern idustrialized capitalist societies works the way they do, politically and economically. I would even call it a vital book!

Webpage
http://thecorporation.com/
But it?
http://amazon.com/Corporation-Pathological-Pursuit-Profit-Power/dp/0743247442
A documentary was made along with the book. Here:
http://imdb.com/title/tt0379225/
--------
For something radically politically incorrect i would recommend:
Judith Levine's "Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex"
http://www.amazon.com/Harmful-Minors-Perils-Protecting-Children/dp/1560255161/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262892772&sr=1-1

I have'nt read that one but i have read enough about it to know that it is an important book so i think it is justified for me to recommend it anyway. ;)
----
And one from my favourite (if a have a such) philosopher Herbert Marcuse. One of the most important books in the history of mankind (i'm not exaggerating!), and it's free!

http://marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/64onedim/odmcontents.html

Peace!

/Lars

[headscratcher4]

A novel I just finished, Wolf Hall, is an excellent study of politics and political men and women.

[Manopolus]

"The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine. Particularly recommended for those searching for America's "Judeau Christian roots." (the second sentence with pure, unhomeopathicized sarcasm in my voice).:cool:

[Allen773]

"The Wrecking Crew" by Thomas Frank.

What happens when people who hate government with a passion gain control of government?

The question answers itself.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Ugh. The USA needs to take a non-myopic look at the rest of the world and notice that there are plenty of sources of political freedom that are not the US Constitution.
Name one.

The Magna Carta.

Which, coincidentally, is a valuable read for understanding the roots of the aforementioned US Constitution.

[Noztradamus]

Originally Posted by D'rok
Ugh. The USA needs to take a non-myopic look at the rest of the world and notice that there are plenty of sources of political freedom that are not the US Constitution.

Name one.


Two Treatises of Government: In the Former, The False Principles and Foundation of Sir Robert Filmer, And His Followers, are Detected and Overthrown. The Latter is an Essay concerning The True Original, Extent, and End of Civil-Government by John Locke.

[Almo]

Denying the Holocaust by Deborah Lipstadt. It's a very good survey of the holocaust denial movement, and can help as a reference in any discussion with the deniers themselves.

[NWO Sentryman]

The Mitrokhin Archive: Volume 2, which dealt with KGB operations in the Middle East, Latin America, Asia and Africa throughout the Cold War.

I am also making my way through Spymaster, by Oleg Kalugin, which deals with a former KGB General's perspective on the Cold war.:cool:

[The True Scotsman]

"The Prince" by Niccolo Machiavelli -It gives perspective on some of the games politicians play in attempts to secure the people's favor and discusses the essence of power and how one may obtain it.

"The Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith -Lands down the foundation of economics as an organized field of study and gives historical perspective on the economics situation of Europe from around the 1400's to around the 1780's (note: it was originally published in 1776, but most edition you'll find will be the 5th edition, so the history will go a bit beyond its original publication date).

"Leviathan" by Thomas Hobbes -In addition to the points discussed above, I believe it is important to hear both sides of an argument (Hobbes' is strongly opposed to Democracy and delivers his arguments against it and for Monarchy throughout the book).

[headscratcher4]

The Paranoid Style of American Politics by Richard Hofstadter.

[Grizzly Bear]

BUMP
I'd like a couple of recommendations if someone doesn't mind offering a suggestion since I've never discussed politics at any real length, and as a result wind up hovering around on making any consistent points. I recently got the 5,000 year Leap, but I'd like one or two other books that run through politics from another perspective. I don't mind if they're from title's already posted here.

I'm really interested in having regular talks in the subsection can't really do it with my current standing.

[Criswell]

Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong by James W. Loewen is pretty much what it says on the cover. There are a few errors, but it's overall amazing and, excuse the cliche, pretty damn hard to put down. Recommended for those who would like a left-leaning critique of history textbooks without the communist apologetics of Howard "I stand to the left of Mao Zedong" Zinn.

Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women by Susan Faludi. A bit out of date, but by God I wish every nonfiction writer in the world wrote like this. A perfect example of how the zeitgeist can be so, so wrong (in this case, in regards to the beliefs that a) almost all problems women had were solved and b) any problems that weren't were feminism's fault.)

The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap by Stephanie Coontz. If anyone ever utters the phrase "back in the old days" or anything similar in any discussion on the American family, immediately throw - do not toss, throw - this book at them.

From the Gulag to the Killing Fields: Personal Accounts of Political Violence and Repression in Communist States; edited by Paul Hollander. Anyone with a criticism of American Cold War policies, even a well-founded criticism, should read this book first. While primarily personal, not scholarly, it's still sticks with you.

The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression; edited by Stephane Courtois. A more scholarly version of the above. I found the translation from French to be a bit rough, but I don't read many books not originally in English, so I'm not sure.

The Case for Israel by Alan Dershowitz. Essential reading. I'll change what I wrote above by saying I wish all nonfiction writers wrote like Faludi or Dershowitz. This book changed my mind on the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy by Vincent Bugliosi is a skeptic's guide to the killings of JFK, Tippit, and Oswald. Can you marry a book?

Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali may not qualify because it's about religion and it's a bio. But I mainly put it in here because I have a crush on Ms. Ali. At least I think it's a crush. Whatever the gay male equivalent of a man-crush is, that's what I have.

Denying the Holocaust by Deborah Lipstadt. It's a very good survey of the holocaust denial movement, and can help as a reference in any discussion with the deniers themselves.

While the book is amazing as an analysis of the denier movement, Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It? by Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman is a better reference for discussions. Lipstadt does address some specific factual inaccuracies, but since the book is a history of the movement these debunkings are scattered around the book. Shermer and Grobman lightly hit upon the history and sociology of deniers for a few chapters, but then fully delve into the specific arguments in different chapters.

Both books are essential reading.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I am absolutely in love with A Unified Theory of Party Competition (http://www.amazon.com/Unified-Theory-Party-Competition-Cross-National/dp/B005Q6XX5W/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1335377981&sr=8-1) right now. Like, head over heels and I haven't even finished it yet.

[MaGZ]

Here is an interested list of nationalist reading material.
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/List_of_nationalist_books_and_journals_online