Politics: Observations and Arguments, 1966-2004

Rating:
Summary: Elegantly Incisive
Review: Hendrik Hertzberg has been one of the clearest and most articulate commentators on the American scene for nearly forty years. As editor and writer at The New Republic and The New Yorker, he has set a standard for spare, simple prose that is both elegant and profound.

The articles in Politics range far and wide, from commentary on presidential elections to reviews of concerts. I particularly enjoyed Hertzberg's evaluation of Jimmy Carter and his Presidency (he was a speechwriter in that Administration) and his rueful analysis of how differently (and more wisely) an Al Gore Administration might have handled September 11 and its aftermath than did Bush. It was also interesting to see how prescient Hertzberg was at times in predicting election outcomes and cultural trends, and how at other times he was completely off the mark.

This is a book to be read carefully over a long period of time. Keep it handy, especially during the next few months before November 2004, and dip into it when a dose of clearheadedness is required.

Rating:
Summary: Finally, a readable, entertaining book about politics!
Review: Hendrik Hertzberg is one of the very, very few smart, honest voices on the political observation deck these days - almost every essay in the book provides a fresh (and often hilarious) insight into modern American political history. There are too many gems in this book to list, but I learned something important on nearly every page. While my own politics are different from the author, I really loved this book anyway (it was a gift from a more liberal friend). It, unlike so much else I've read lately, not only entertained, but made me think about my own concept of what has gone on in this country for the past 40 or so years. Plus,whether you agree with him or not, it is really a fun read - this guy really knows how to write-and all of it seems vitally important, especially in these times.If you've suffered through endless prattle by political pundits, you'll find this book to be a breath of fresh air.

Rating:
Summary: Humane, articulate, wise
Review: Hendrik Hertzberg is the most humane and articulate voice I've heard in the mainstream media in this decade. I wanted to stand up and salute, or cheer, or cry, or something, after hearing an hour-long interview with him on NPR. His writing, like his speaking, radiates kindness, humanity, wisdom, thoughtfulness: unlike almost any other writer analyzing U.S. politics (an automatically divisive subject), Hertzberg is unfailingly courteous, even solicitous, immensely and sincerely respectful of the reader, and above all, kind; yet his critique is razor-sharp and perfectly articulated. This is a writer who knows what words mean, and always uses exactly the right words to express what he means to say.

In short, if you read only one non-fiction book this year, let it be this one; Hertzberg will lift you up, he will restore your faith in humanity, and he will remind you of what the English language can do when it's properly employed.

Rating:
Summary: Elegance & style -- hard-hitting critique of electoral rules
Review: Hendrik Hertzberg writes about any range of topics with style and insight, but I am particularly impressed with his nuanced and well-researched critique of our winner-take-all electoral rules in his set of essays in "Ghosts in the Machine." The lecture "The Case for Proportional Representation: Why Voting is Almost Never a Political Act in the U.S." should not be missed and has not appeared in any other publication.

Rating:
Summary: Decades of Insightful and Incisive Prose
Review: Hertzberg has to be the preeminent political writer of our time. His writing is always witty and urbane, but also packs a political punch. Thankfully, he doesn't delve into the depths like many political writers at the moment. Instead, he relies on the facts and his wit to make his points, and respects the intelligence of his readers. If you are not familiar with his work, I urge you to pick up a recent issue of "The New Yorker" and read his pieces in "The Talk of the Town" section.

This book is an impressive archive of Hertzberg's writing over the past 40 years. Most of the book consists of his writing in the 1980s for "The New Republic" and his more recent pieces for "The New Yorker." While his writing has always been impressive, I found that it become more cogent, direct and "punchy" as time went on. His articles are organized into a variety of sections, from "Enough About the Sixties" (the hippies and classic rock), "Great Men," (articles on Carter, Reagan, and RFK), to "Judeo-Christians," "Wingers," "Wedge Issues," and "The Wayward Media."

I found "The Ghost in the Machine" section on proportional representation especially interesting. Not only would such a system do away with pointless anachronisms like the electoral college, but it would obviously be more democratic and representative. Unfortunately, we will most likely never see such a system because it is too threatening to the Powers That Be-- namely, the two major political parties. Sadly, we are much more likely to see a constitutional amendment so that a specific Viennese weightlifter can be President.

This book is a treasure trove of wit and wisdom, and I learned a great deal about recent political history reading it. I urge you to add this invaluable resource to your library.

Rating:
Summary: Astute observations, fine writing.
Review: Hertzberg is one of my favorite writers - his articles are the first I read when I see them in The New Yorker. In this book he once again demonstrates his shrewd perspective, expressed in superb writing.

Rating:
Summary: A Liberal Time Capsule...A must read!
Review: I bought this after the NYT Book section gave it a very favorable review...I was unfamiliar with Hertzbergs work, but after reading it, the NYTs unqualified endorsement made more sense.

I particularly liked the earlier essays which helped me get a left wing perspective on a time periods in which I was not yet born, too young or too politically unaware to have grasped the happenings of the times.

I applaud the editorial cojones it took to place the gushing portrait of Jimmy Carter next to a brutal excoriation of Ronald Reagan. He sure does cite alot of "it's well known in the inner circles that..." and references to Reagan administration insiders who portray the man as an idiot. I'd like to see if these articles could stand up to today's blogosphere fact checking.

Hertzberg makes frequent reference to the many left leaning books he's read, and one can see how they shaped his thinking over time. In fact the Reagan essay in particular shows that as the years went by, Hertzberg's way of thinking has hardened into an impenetrable fortress where the actual historical results are left banging at the gates.

Even if Hertzberg is locked in his own time capsule...that doesn't mean it's not worth a read.



Rating:
Summary: This book convinced me I am a Conservative!
Review: I read many of these essays when they first appeared in New Republic. Re-reading them now along with the more recent material, I am surprised at how consistently wrong Mr. Hertzberg's positions have been and continued to be. Time has not diminished Mr. Hertberg's smugness and disdain for the ignorant masses who keep electing those crazy, hatful, racist, astrology loving Republicans to office.

Two positions taken by Mr. Hertzberg particularly stand out. In his essay on Jimmy Carter's presidency he describes the disastrous attempt to rescue the Hostages in Iran. Basically the military attempeted to free the hostages with an inadequate force that was hampered by interservice rivaliries and tensions, and was in addition micromanaged by the White House. In Hertzberg's eyes the attempt showed Carter's strength of character because the use of force was proportional to the objective. Now, if he means that Desert One was the proper response to the Hostage situation as opposed to bombing Iran's major ports and industrial centers (as Hertzberg and his colleagues believed would be the case), that is a fair judgment. However, Hertzberg goes on to state that no, Desert One was exactly the right size force, and it failed due to chance. To which anyone with knowledge of the events can only say "Huh?!"

The fact is a larger force would have enabled the mission to move forward, the preponderance of politics in what should have been strictly a military mission, much of it stemming from Carter, much of it condoned by Cater, guaranteed the mission would fail. In Hertzberg's eyes success or failure are irrelevant in this case; what matters is that Carter acted in an ethical manner. In a much more recent essay Hertzberg castigates George W Bush for not moving enough troops quickly enough into Afghanistan, thus allowing Osama Bin Liden to escape. No word about the difficult logistics of moving an army by air across the world to invade an entire country. Hertzberg clearly has a double standard here.

In another essay Hertzberg states that, even if George Bush wins re-election by a landslide, He (Hertzberg) will still consider the election illegitimate because Bush can only win because of 911. Again, the proper response is "Huh?! So, a popular majority in 2000 proves that Al Gore should be President, but a popular majority in 2004 means nothing if Bush wins? Ah, but you see, if Bush wins, it means the Right Wing Conspiracy's coup de stat will be complete!

Conversatives get no love from Hertzberg. Reagan is simply inexplicable to him. Nothing good that happened in the 1980's was due to the Reagan Adminsitration (though nothing bad that happened in the 1970's can be blamed on Carter!). The Conservative movement is exclusively defined by Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh etc (here is one area where I share Hertzberg's disdain). Oh, and we must tax tax tax the rich because they are trying to enslave the Proloteriat er, poor!

Reading these essays was a useful exercise. It made me realize that I am more conservative than I thought. I don't think the Weathermen were merely tactically wrong, (yes, Hertzberg deplores them for just that reason!). I don't think Dukakis was a good or even viable candidate (it's hilarious reading Hertzberg report Dukakis's upcoming victory right until the 1988 election. And it turns out Al Gore was not the best qualified to be President, as proved by his "Concession" speech. Having voted for Gore, I was appalled when he came out after the Supreme Court's decision to basically say "I was robbed, but screw it, I'm not gonna raise a fuss". In 1960 Richard Nixon knew the election was stolen by JFK, and had grounds to contest and perhaps overturn the election. He chose (for political reasons ) to very explicitly concede the election to Kennedy. Sad when the "most qualified candidate" for President in 2004 is upstaged by Richard Nixon!

I do recommend this book for anyone willing to think about their political positions. Hertzberg is a decent writer, and reading the positions of someone you disagree with can help clarify one's own beliefs.

Rating:
Summary: Beware!
Review: I ventured into this book knowing full well that Hertzberg is what we Conservatives call a bleeding-heart Liberal. But, as a former executive secretary of the Conservative Party, I enjoy a good political debate, and I was aware of Hertzberg's strong reputation as a writer. The book began with some innocuous comments on music and Woodstock. Then came a long essay on the strengths and weaknesses of Jimmy Carter. Surprise! I found I agreed with much of what Hertzberg had to say. But then came a strongly biased diatribe on my main man Ronald Reagan. This mean spirited attack on one of the greatest Presidents who ever served was more than I could stomach. I oppose book burning, but this tome is a strong counter-argument. No matter how bad I find a book, I usually manage to finish it. This is one of only a handful of exceptions.

Rating:
Summary: HH Is God
Review: If there is a God--in the sense of a benevolent, omniscient consciousness, which comprehends both the nature of the universe and human nature--then Hendrik Hertzberg is God. If there is no God--as Hertzberg himself would no doubt contend, and with which this reviewer would no doubt concur--then He is still the most eloquent, insightful, and enlightened commentator on American culture currently writing in American; and, by extension, the best writer about the condition of being human on Planet Earth we currently have. No one should be allowed to enter a voting booth this November without having read His book. Indeed, if POLITICS were as widely read and subscribed to as, say, the Bible or the Koran, Planet Earth would be a lot less violent and chaotic and a lot more harmonious and liveable.Thank God for Hendrik Hertzberg.