Rating: 
Summary: More Great Material from Lapham
Review: This is a tight little book with a lot of new material. Lapham sometimes tends to recycle pieces from his "Notebook" column in Harpers (which is certainly not bad, because they are so good), but that doesn't seem to be the case here. He once again skewers the absurdity of our show-business politics, laying blame at all deserving doorsteps. In a time of rabidly partisan Bush and liberal bashing books, Lapham shines through with his historical and cultural approach, covering the deep waters of American dysfunction. Read everything that Lapham and Gore Vidal write, to get a sense of the Republic we have lost.
Rating:
Summary: A Gem Among the Bush Bashers
Review: This is a well crafted and short book that points out the illegal action of the present administration and what they are doing illegally on a variety of cases mainly centered around the war on terror but not limited to just that.
For example he reviews the procedure used to select Bush for President and the role of oligarchies in changing our political directions and actions.
As a person that reads a lot, one must ask the question. Is this new? Has it changed? It seems that corruption and using the power of the presidency is almost as old as the democracy, and since Wilson there have been imperialist tendancies in violation of international laws and democratic actions. We still have not learned that we should obey all treaties and international laws, even if it is inconvenient and some terorist group does not.
A short but calm and well reasoned book among the Bush bashers.
Rating: 
Summary: Stifling democracy?
Review: This short piece is well-written with historical commentary and apt observations. It is also flawed: The blurb states democracy is in trouble because the press is controlled by "moneyed interests" who do not question the status quo. But the pages reveal an angry diatribe alternating between beautiful prose and agitprop.
Lapham, a member of the academic/journalist corp, insists that the democratic underpinnings of our society are being undermined. Yet he whines when decisions not to his liking occur in a democratic fashion either by election or Congressional action. It's a classic Red (heartland) vs Blue (coasts) debate expressed in numerous forums (the list on pp 141-142 sums the differences). Throughout, things that one normally associates with popular Americana are derided - use of the flag, reciting the Pledge, love of sports, public religious utterances, journalistic support of the military in time of war, credit cards, profits, suburbs - you get the idea.
The criticism heard and seen daily would astound a WWII populace. An avalance of books critical of the Prez abound; demonstrations are massive and well-financed, political bashing by opponents continues unabated. The NYT, Wash Post, CBS, ANC and CNN - all "moneyed" interests - relentlessly criticize the Administration. Indeed, most mainstream media overwhelmingly resonate with the litmus-test list (pp 141-142).
His "heroes" are united by an anti-war and anti-Israeli fervor - Rep Barbara Lee, Chomsky, Rep Franks, Vidal, ACLU, Michael Moore. The bad guys are predictable: Members of Congress who sing "God Bless America" after 9/11, Billy Graham, the "Religious Right", Israel, FOX, "big" corporations, Republicans...
The historical allusions were interesting but the attempt to bind them to current problems and Administration was a stretch. At the end one is unsure what the author thinks the US role should be. Do we withdraw from the world and hope for the best, should liberty be promoted as an antidote to Islamic fascism, should Israel be forced to compromise with the "nation" of Palestine, should the US respond when attacked, if asked, should we help?
Who knows?
| 
