Rating: 
Summary: Problems with political parties
Review: I identify myself as a liberal. I refuse to accept any politcal party affiliation and have the same disllisionment with the Democrats as Goldberg. Call it preaching to the converted, but Goldberg is right. The party that was once the party of the little guy is no longer. The political process of this democratic republic (that's right kids: the US is not a true democracy) has become one of choosing the lesser of two evils for many people. The political parties of which we were warned over 200 years ago are more alike than different.
Rating: 
Summary: Dispatched from the Culture Wars
Review: I originally grabbed this book because I am a politics junkie. I am in my mid-30s and have often been struck by the contrast between the Democrat and Republican parties of my youth and their current incarnations. As the son of Democrat union member, I have seen significant changes in the Democratic party of my youth and the one of today that I can no longer uncritically support. That being said, I was hopeful to gain some insight from Mr. Goldberg's book, but I am afraid I was disappointed. My biggest concern with this novel is that the vast majority of his arguments are anecdotal in nature. He offers extremely little background to back up some of his claims and no real research or footnotes. Now, as a collection of personal experience and stories, this is a fine book. Mr. Goldberg has an engaging writing style and did drawn me in, however I did find much of the book, and its arguments, to be superficial. The admitted lack of introspection on his political views made it difficult for me give much credibility to the author's analysis. Probably, the biggest problem I have is the ultimate contradiction in the book. While Mr. Goldberg spends considerable time lauding the effect of music and media on the political discourse in the 60s and 70s, he does a complete 180 degree turn when he later argues that gangster rap cannot have an impact on the the coarsening of our culture and inner city violence. It seems to me that it is difficult to have it both ways. Of course, perhaps the fact that he is making a considerable amount of money in the music industry contributes to his new enlightened attitude. Personally, I do not think that rap music makes the huge impact on people that the Leibermans and Gores of the world would have us believe, but Mr. Goldberg presents little in the way of a cohesive argument. Perhaps that brings me to my underlying problem with the book. For all his complaints about the Democratic Party, Mr. Goldberg does not seem to realize that he is part of the problem. He complains of the money that influences politics, but drops names of all the people he has gotten to contribute time and money to political causes. He take jibes at the special interest businesses that he alleges influence the Republican party, while completely missing the fact that he is part of several special interest groups. And for a person in a business which exploits struggling artists for massive profits to not realize he is in a special interest group is a particularly myopic view. Mr. Goldberg was in a position to make a truly impactful novel. I feel that he has missed his mark. More's the shame because the topic is one that really deserves serious attention.
Rating:
Summary: Dispatched from the Culture Wars
Review: I originally grabbed this book because I am a politics junkie. I am in my mid-30s and have often been struck by the contrast between the Democrat and Republican parties of my youth and their current incarnations. As the son of Democrat union member, I have seen significant changes in the Democratic party of my youth and the one of today that I can no longer uncritically support. That being said, I was hopeful to gain some insight from Mr. Goldberg's book, but I am afraid I was disappointed. My biggest concern with this novel is that the vast majority of his arguments are anecdotal in nature. He offers extremely little background to back up some of his claims and no real research or footnotes. Now, as a collection of personal experience and stories, this is a fine book. Mr. Goldberg has an engaging writing style and did drawn me in, however I did find much of the book, and its arguments, to be superficial. The admitted lack of introspection on his political views made it difficult for me give much credibility to the author's analysis. Probably, the biggest problem I have is the ultimate contradiction in the book. While Mr. Goldberg spends considerable time lauding the effect of music and media on the political discourse in the 60s and 70s, he does a complete 180 degree turn when he later argues that gangster rap cannot have an impact on the the coarsening of our culture and inner city violence. It seems to me that it is difficult to have it both ways. Of course, perhaps the fact that he is making a considerable amount of money in the music industry contributes to his new enlightened attitude. Personally, I do not think that rap music makes the huge impact on people that the Leibermans and Gores of the world would have us believe, but Mr. Goldberg presents little in the way of a cohesive argument. Perhaps that brings me to my underlying problem with the book. For all his complaints about the Democratic Party, Mr. Goldberg does not seem to realize that he is part of the problem. He complains of the money that influences politics, but drops names of all the people he has gotten to contribute time and money to political causes. He take jibes at the special interest businesses that he alleges influence the Republican party, while completely missing the fact that he is part of several special interest groups. And for a person in a business which exploits struggling artists for massive profits to not realize he is in a special interest group is a particularly myopic view. Mr. Goldberg was in a position to make a truly impactful novel. I feel that he has missed his mark. More's the shame because the topic is one that really deserves serious attention.
Rating:
Summary: Well Written and Thought Provoking
Review: I wasn't sure if Goldberg's subject was worth a whole book, but I quickly found his precise language and flowing passages irresistible. His basic argument is that left-wing snobs in Washington and academia have ignored youth culture instead of reaching out to it. Goldberg feels that this error has caused the Democrats many elections including the Presidential election of 2000. He spends the largest part of the book disagreeing with Tipper Gore about her campaign to label rock music, and Joe Lieberman about his attacks on Hollywood and entertainment. He points out that Bill Clinton won the youth vote in 1996 by 19 points, because Bob Dole spent so much time attacking Hollywood, but with Lieberman and Gore on the ticket in 2000, the youth vote was evenly divided between them and Bush. Just a small percentage of that vote in the Democrats direction would have turned that election around. Goldberg makes some good points about how politicians have been veering close to censorship with their hand-wringing and committee hearings, and grandstanding. As a member of the ACLU and the music industry, Goldberg fears the infringement of the first amendment. He feels that the biggest problem for progressives is a dominant leftwing snobbery that is more interested in bland academic liberalism than the raw energetic rebellion of youth culture. Goldberg's defense of the first amendment is as articulate as I've heard in the discussion, but he seems like his own worst enemy. While arguing that politicians are spending too much time attacking first amendment freedoms, he encourages politicians to attack second amendment freedoms. When Congress says that explicit material should be policed, Goldberg suggests that it's really guns that are dangerous. This is a mistake for two reasons. First, Goldberg is saying that the artistic youth music and culture speaks to a great many people, but even the most explicit calls for sex and violence do nothing to influence youngsters. On the other hand, guns attached to no call for action cause people to do horrible things. History has always shown that ideas have greater consequences than armaments. Did the German arsenal cause World War II or was it the demagoguery of Hitler? Second, by arguing to halt second amendment freedoms, Goldberg yields politicians the moral authority to halt first amendment freedoms. This is a big mistake, because the only argument you can make against censorship is a constitutional one. If the constitution can be ignored because of a popularly perceived danger, then it can be ignored anytime a crafty politician sees a ready voting block. I think this is why Goldberg argues it's in the best interests of leftists to embrace popular culture. Since he has little faith in the original intent of the constitution he can only win the heart of worried liberals by demonstrating to them an untapped voting block, the young. This way they can still tinker with the constitution in ways that he approves of, but they won't mess with an industry that is close to his heart. But the idea that we can just convince politicians that rock music is bland but guns are dangerous isn't going to protect our rights in the long run. I don't think he can win over the politicians he is trying to reach, because most kids cannot vote and all parents can. The fact that liberals like the Gores and Liebermans were worried about their own kids is a sign that all children rebel in some form and even liberal parents are somewhat fearful of it. And since all parents can vote, politicians on the Right and Left are going to pander to the biggest voting block. Clinton may have won more of the youth vote in 1996, but he truly liked pop culture and he didn't have to worry about angering parents because Perot was there to chew up Reagan Democrats and other independents. The Gore campaign realized that traditional blue collar Democrats crossed the lines and voted Republican in 1980, 1984, 1988. Without the benefit of a rightwing challenger like Ross Perot in 2000, Gore would have to win a bigger percentage of white middle class voters to succeed. A few percentage points of parents vote was worth more than a few percentage points of youth vote. Despite some disagreements, I leaned that I have a lot more in common with fellow citizens like Goldberg than politicians that share my views. Both Goldberg and I want our leaders to be driven by ideas and idealism, but they are really driven by winning elections. Thus, we're both frustrated by politicians that will trade our rights to pander to a voting block. I only wish I could convince Goldberg to join me in the protection of all constitutional freedoms. That unity, I think, is the only way we can keep the opportunists from selling us out for their own empowerment. Anyway, I was happy to read a well argued book from a fellow citizen even if we don't agree on conclusions.
Rating:
Summary: Well Written and Thought Provoking
Review: I wasn't sure if Goldberg's subject was worth a whole book, but I quickly found his precise language and flowing passages irresistible. His basic argument is that left-wing snobs in Washington and academia have ignored youth culture instead of reaching out to it. Goldberg feels that this error has caused the Democrats many elections including the Presidential election of 2000. He spends the largest part of the book disagreeing with Tipper Gore about her campaign to label rock music, and Joe Lieberman about his attacks on Hollywood and entertainment. He points out that Bill Clinton won the youth vote in 1996 by 19 points, because Bob Dole spent so much time attacking Hollywood, but with Lieberman and Gore on the ticket in 2000, the youth vote was evenly divided between them and Bush. Just a small percentage of that vote in the Democrats direction would have turned that election around. Goldberg makes some good points about how politicians have been veering close to censorship with their hand-wringing and committee hearings, and grandstanding. As a member of the ACLU and the music industry, Goldberg fears the infringement of the first amendment. He feels that the biggest problem for progressives is a dominant leftwing snobbery that is more interested in bland academic liberalism than the raw energetic rebellion of youth culture. Goldberg's defense of the first amendment is as articulate as I've heard in the discussion, but he seems like his own worst enemy. While arguing that politicians are spending too much time attacking first amendment freedoms, he encourages politicians to attack second amendment freedoms. When Congress says that explicit material should be policed, Goldberg suggests that it's really guns that are dangerous. This is a mistake for two reasons. First, Goldberg is saying that the artistic youth music and culture speaks to a great many people, but even the most explicit calls for sex and violence do nothing to influence youngsters. On the other hand, guns attached to no call for action cause people to do horrible things. History has always shown that ideas have greater consequences than armaments. Did the German arsenal cause World War II or was it the demagoguery of Hitler? Second, by arguing to halt second amendment freedoms, Goldberg yields politicians the moral authority to halt first amendment freedoms. This is a big mistake, because the only argument you can make against censorship is a constitutional one. If the constitution can be ignored because of a popularly perceived danger, then it can be ignored anytime a crafty politician sees a ready voting block. I think this is why Goldberg argues it's in the best interests of leftists to embrace popular culture. Since he has little faith in the original intent of the constitution he can only win the heart of worried liberals by demonstrating to them an untapped voting block, the young. This way they can still tinker with the constitution in ways that he approves of, but they won't mess with an industry that is close to his heart. But the idea that we can just convince politicians that rock music is bland but guns are dangerous isn't going to protect our rights in the long run. I don't think he can win over the politicians he is trying to reach, because most kids cannot vote and all parents can. The fact that liberals like the Gores and Liebermans were worried about their own kids is a sign that all children rebel in some form and even liberal parents are somewhat fearful of it. And since all parents can vote, politicians on the Right and Left are going to pander to the biggest voting block. Clinton may have won more of the youth vote in 1996, but he truly liked pop culture and he didn't have to worry about angering parents because Perot was there to chew up Reagan Democrats and other independents. The Gore campaign realized that traditional blue collar Democrats crossed the lines and voted Republican in 1980, 1984, 1988. Without the benefit of a rightwing challenger like Ross Perot in 2000, Gore would have to win a bigger percentage of white middle class voters to succeed. A few percentage points of parents vote was worth more than a few percentage points of youth vote. Despite some disagreements, I leaned that I have a lot more in common with fellow citizens like Goldberg than politicians that share my views. Both Goldberg and I want our leaders to be driven by ideas and idealism, but they are really driven by winning elections. Thus, we're both frustrated by politicians that will trade our rights to pander to a voting block. I only wish I could convince Goldberg to join me in the protection of all constitutional freedoms. That unity, I think, is the only way we can keep the opportunists from selling us out for their own empowerment. Anyway, I was happy to read a well argued book from a fellow citizen even if we don't agree on conclusions.
Rating: 
Summary: From a Mormon conservative
Review: I'm an occasional listener to conservative talk radio. This radio community of dominant Republicans is galvanized each day by radio hosts in a belief that liberals live to hate family values, religion, George Bush (OK, many do), and flag-waving patriotism. I was raised a conservative Mormon and I continue to hold fast my upbringing. But I was also raised on the Beatles, Hendrix, Led Zeppelin and San Francisco Bay Area bands. Eight kids later, I still play those records and my kids embrace most of it too. Danny Goldberg was raised a liberal Democrat, attended Woodstock, met Hendrix, worked with Zeppelin, managed Kurt Cobain and worked with and signed many of the artists whose CDs I buy. Goldberg's account of his career through the 60's to 2003 is worth alone the price of the book. However, be prepared to bristle at his characterizations of our conservative heroes as well as his positive references to his liberal pals like Barbra Streisand, Michael Moore, Arianna Huffington, and other ACLU members. But engage your mind a little. Shut off the radio for a day or so and let him talk to you one-on-one about his confrontations with the liberal elite and their placating arrogance. Let him vent his frustrations about Tipper and Al Gore and their disingenuous sincerety, or his indictment on Joe Lieberman, forever closing the door on any future political support. What you'll find is an honest voice, a man raised with consistent, righteous, social values. Goldberg's life represents learning through first-hand experience rather than second-hand dogma, a condition most of us conservatives suffer. And if you don't like his politics, then be prepared to get off your keister like he has for 30 years and do something about it. No, I'm not liberal in disguise thumping a liberal's book. I just feel a little wiser after spending some time with Goldberg's life, his career in entertainment, and how they're inextricably connected with politics. As a result, I'm tending to believe that if we strip away the anger, the personal insults, and the holy cows of partisan ballot punching, we'll find a common bond in our humanity. And then we may realize that we've been really violently agreeing with each other. "[And that] castles made of sand, melts into the sea eventually."
Jimi Hendrix
Rating: 
Summary: Not what I expected--consider Barney Frank's book instead
Review: In my experience when a book's title has a colon in it, I find that what precedes the colon is usually a nonspecific (sometimes punny) metamessage, while what follows the title is usually what the book is actually about. With that in mind, I expected the book to be about "how the left lost teen spirit." While there were, to be sure, portions of the book devoted to that issue, that was always based solely on Goldberg's own experiences and nothing more. I found that the rest of the book was a kind of Cliff Notes (i.e. condensed) autobiography of Goldberg's own career in music combined with some of the most flagrant and copious name-dropping I have seen in a long time. I suppose that a more accurate subtitle would have been: "How the left lost teen spirit based primarily on my own anecdotal experience as a record executive interested in politics and specifically based on my run-ins with Joe Lieberman and Tipper Gore over the issue of attempted consorship of record content." In fact, while I wholeheartedly agreed with all of Goldberg's opinions and conclusions on this specific issue, I still felt that the discussion of this issue took up way too much of the book (which is perhaps not surprising given my complaint above). The subtitle was also troubling to me in that it begs the question: When did that spirit last exist? In other words, if the left "lost" teen spirit, what is the time frame Goldberg is using for when it last had it? It would appear that he may be referring way back to the Kennedy adminstration as the answer to that question. If so, that is troubling for 2 reasons. First, 40 years is way too long a time frame to assume that the left has had no "teen spirit". Is Goldberg suggesting that it existed in 1963 and prior, but not since? That is doubtful. Indeed, while not dispositive of whether the left has lost teen spirit, it should at least be noted that Democrats have won 4 of 10 elections since Kennedy's assasination (and 5 of 10 if one considers the 2000 election as a Democratic victory). If Goldberg instead had in mind a more recent date for when the left last had teen spirit, it should have been specified more clearly so that the reader can compare and contrast what life was like when they had it and when they didn't. However Goldberg never really goes there. He points out how it is lacking in the past few years but never really tells us how the given issues might have been addresed (and by whom) at that (never identified) time when the spirit still exised. A footnote: Having read "Shakedown" by Kenneth Timmerman, I was nauseated by Goldberg's constant paeans to Jessie Jackson, notwithstanding the fact that Jackson may not have tried a shakedown in the specific Eric Kronfeld/Polygram incident to which Goldberg refers. In sum, while one might think that it is a benefit to have a book on this topic written by an "insider" (or at least a semi-insider), I feel that a book on a similar topic written by an outsider might have been more valuable since its focus would not have been so strongly tied solely to the experiences of one individual. In my mind, an example of a book on almost the exact same topic which did a better job of it is "Speaking Frankly" by Barney Frank. (In keeping with my rule for titles with colons in them, the portion of the title which precedes the colon is a pun--i.e. a play on Frank's name--while what follows--"What's Wrong With the Democrats and How to Fix It"--is what the book is actually about.) Even though the book [has been out for years] (Clinton was not even President!), it is still surprisingly applicable to the state of the Democratic party today. Moreover, because it is not confined, in tunnel vision fashion, to the author's own experiences, I felt that it was able to describe the problem more effectively than does Goldberg.
Rating: 
Summary: Name-dropping 101
Review: This book is hyped as a history lesson/collection of social observations from the prespective of a record label exec. It is anything but. This book is a collection of chapters with all the same overtone, "Hi, look at me I'm an ex-hippy, that knows every recording artist!"
Goldberg's never-ending rant about "culture" is strictly confined to the record industry, and how he has single-handedly changed the country for the better. It is a blazing disappointment that social thought icons lend their recommendation to this book. People like Michael Moore, Chris Matthews, and Cornell West.
This book reflects the record industry in more way than one. We've all thoroughly researched a CD, yet when we buy it and it fails to meet our expectations the disc sits on the shelf forever, i.e. Goldberg's book. Keep an eye out for my copy of "Dispatches..." on e-bay!
Rating:
Summary: Music Industry Activist
Review: When I heard the 60's era liberal Danny Goldberg state on Imus's radio show that the leading democratic presidential candidate Joe Lieberman was in his mind the worst possible person to lead the party for 2004, it perked my interest in this book. I found it interesting to hear a liberal bashing his party's top candidate and I had to find out why. Goldberg, a successful music executive and social activist and member of the ACLU, writes a detailed opinion on why he thinks the democratic party lost the pragmatism of the 60's and early 70's turning into a somewhat mirror image of the conservative republican party. The Democratic Party once had the primary attention of youth that was reflected in the civil rights movement and in folk/rock music. The author writes of the battle of free speech and freedom of censorship that was challenged by Tipper Gore in congress who became his nemesis politically but oddly a friend as Tipper sticks to her guns but is social to Goldberg. He has some amusing antidotes such as Dee Snyder's (Twisted Sister) rather direct testimony to congress on what the acronyms for his fan club stand for. Interesting to hear that John Denver un-expectantly testifies against censorship because even his songs were questioned about their true lyrical intent. He offers a concise appraisal of why Bush won the election. Essentially, to create space from Clinton, Gore picked a strict conservative moralist who alienated young people and true liberals. Plus the democrats rode old issues to death such as social security. The moral of the story seems to be that as anyone becomes successful, they become more conservative which may explain the leadership of the democratic party spacing themselves apart from their more liberal supporters. It's also amusing that the author seems to like Tipper more than he admits. After reading this book, I think I need to pick up a Rolling Stone magazine occasionally to see what music attracts youth today and maybe catch what politically interests them if anything does.
| 
