Rating: 
Summary: Bravo, Mister Bork..
Review: This book turned out to be a pretty good read. While many books of this type are written in a kind of academic tone, which turns many readers off, the author here has written with a simple and straightforward style that lends itself well to fluid reading. While I agree whole-heartedly with almost all of the Mr. Bork's Conservative ideas, I did notice one or two mistakes that should have been found during editing, i.e. Nine Inch Nails are a rock band, not a Gangsta Rap group. But such mistakes brought a smile to my face, and endeared me even furthur to Mr. Bork.
Rating: 
Summary: "Radical politics as a substitute for religion"
Review: "The search for a 'politics of meaning' is a feature of modern liberalism, and reflects the human yearning for the transcendental by persons for whom religion no longer fills that void." Ponder those words by Mr. Bork with this fact: in 2004 approximately two-thirds of voters who regularly attend church voted for George Bush while approximately a like percentage of who don't lent their support to Mr. Kerry. Hillary Clinton expressed such when she claimed that what she wanted "a society that fills us up again and makes us feel that we are part of something bigger than ourselves." And the faith that provides such is provided by the chimera of radical egalitarianism. It is rather simple, actually. When folks had nothing they worked hard to survive; garnering added strenth to so persevere from religious faith. When many became increasingly affluent their faith was challenged in a way they couldn't make sense of---how is it that I increasingly live so well while others go without the basic necessities? Many who couldn't resolve this challenge to their faith simply jettisoned it whence an alternitive faith presented itself. Hence the turmoil created by Karl Marx and his Communist philosophy beginning in the second half of the 19th century. Ever wonder why a "Dictatorship of the Masses" movement was lead and peopled by industrialists (ala Frederich Engels, et al.), those born into privilege/wealth, intellectuals, & university students set to embark upon professional careers? (Read "Venona" by Haynes & Klehr for documentary proof from newly opened KGB files how over 300 such people within the American government in the 1930s/1940s had covert ties to Stalin's USSR; & "Witness"---Whitakker Chambers autobiography of his experience within this clique.) The 1960s, Mr. Bork consequently argues, didn't usher in previously absent turmoil; but rather just exacerbated it; and were but a new expression of contempt for society seemingly adift, by those who felt so alienated from it---again, not the downtrodden, but primarily children well-off and/or of a privileged/intellectual elite indulging their perceived moral superiority. In earlier days, such folks may have joined fascist, communist, and/or socialist movements (some actually in those days joining each, over time). The unique thing about New Left radicals in the 1960s, Bork offers, was how they "shattered into a multitude of single-issue groups"---multiculturalists, radical environmentalists, animal rights groups, gay activist organizations, et al. What we have now is thus "The Art of War" played out in differing manners---whence fascism was discredited, communism was the rage; then, thanks to Stalin's brutality, communism was succeeded by socialism's star & embraced until it was repudiated by Eastern European states the second they could. With capitalism riding high, without serious challengers thus how is one to express one's contempt for it & successfully discredit it? How about by challenging everything that capitalism relies upon to effectively operate---ie., bourgeois culture. Attacks against the family unit, morality, constitutional law, religious faith, and so on ought be expected from the New Left, consequently. It's all they got left (pardon the pun) to do battle on---Capitalism having just been too resourceful and dynamic for them---and all because the only substitute for spirituality that they have been able to latch onto is an ever increasing fanatical devotion to utopian equality amongst all peoples. So, yes, Judge Bork's book was an interesting one. I hope my words herein have been as well. Cheers!
Rating: 
Summary: a Limbaughesque rant against liberalism
Review: Slouching Towards Gomorrah is an important book. It is also a vile book. It teaches conservatives how to tailor religious rhetoric into political (and legal) objectives, implying links between liberals and the Sodomites long before homosexuality had risen to its present prominence in the national debate.
Bork hated Vietnam War protesters (much as modern Republicans hate Iraq war protesters). Unlike modern protesters, Bork sees the Vietnam protesters as being 'spoiled brats' serving their own personal interests. Worse, he sees them as quasi-Nazis, 'relativistic' adherents to a cult of the self, who are easily turned to vicious causes.
His tears at the book burning he witnessed at Yale--which he viewed as akin to the Nazis--coupled with his analysis presents the clearest instruction for other conservatives (such as David Horowitz) on how to demonize liberals: don't attack what they say, but rather, compare them to people that others hate.
Couple enough negative connotations to the liberals (who are in league with homosexuals, racial supremacists, neo-Nazis, and Satan himself) and a reader who misses the rational arguments will still grasp the emotive, pejorative connotations. Thus, 'liberal' becomes a vice.
Bork doesn't like the 'elite' judges, professors, and media figures influencing public morality. They are not accountable to the public will. Unstated is that other folks who are also unaccountable -- Rush Limbaugh, corporate executives, racist thugs -- are the alternative party that influences public morality absent these 'elitists.' Angry at 'rogue judges,' Bork was in fact a 'rogue judge' himself: the question is which group of rogues one wishes to dictate the meaning of the law.
The arguments he makes are specious; more powerful than arguments, however, is rhetoric, which, while pernicious, is nontheless powerful.
I can see why the Limbaugh partisans enjoy this book (see numerous positive reviews): just as it's perfectly legitimate for a former drug addict like Limbaugh to decry the evils of drug abuse and suggest drug peddlers be sentenced to death, it is legitimate for an 'ethical judge' to defend morality even if that judge attempted to deploy those same devices to protect Richard Nixon from impeachment.
Bork's take on liberalism is grist for the mill. Read it, along with other texts, and you'll hear the earlier echoes of Ann Coulter and numerous other strident conservatives, you'll better comprehend their 'intellectual' underpinnings, and appreciate the bankruptcy of their arguments. The 'values debate' requires demonizing 'liberals' because, once ugly realities like racism enter the picture, most fair-minded conservatives would concur with liberals that prejudices are real and can/should be corrected.
Are liberals 'guilt-ridden'? Indeed. They feel remorse about atrocities. As they should. As all people do. The difference between liberalism and conservativism, however, is a question of how far to go in remedying the wrongs.
Where Bork sees the liberals as anti-Christian, in fact, they far better reflect the Biblical instruction for 'repentance' than conservatives, who would stop at decrying the wrong but overlook the requirement of 'turning away' from it.
Where Bork sees the liberals as beholden to 'political correctness,' in fact, they far better reflect the Biblical statements that 'out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks.' Bush has his politically correct mantras (e.g., the war on terror justifies anything), as do the liberals. 'Political correctness' is about the underlying heart - all sides have their views on what a 'good hearted' person may be, and seek to impose their values.
Where Bork sees the liberals leading America into an anarchic, relativistic morass, in fact they led America OUT of the anarchic, relativistic morass in which bigots, racists, and a horde of fellow travelers had placed it, where corporate interests commanded "values" even as they exploited and abused their employees and dealt unjustly with one another.
To me, recognizing and renouncing hypocrisy far better reflects religious teachings. Because Bork challenges the hypocrisy of the Left, there is some virtue in his work. But because Bork would merely replace one hypocrisy with another, it is pernicious, misleading, and dangerous.
Luckily, unlike Bork, I would not censor such a work as this: it has its place. I may hate what it has to say, but would defend to the death his right to say it. But I fear what the passionate partisans of the Borkian universe are doing to this country and the world.
Rating: 
Summary: Intersting View of Modern Liberalism
Review: This is a very interesting book about the perspective of an American intellectual that did not follow the trend of modern intellectuals to jump on the liberal band wagon that captured most of the intellectual community over the past 50 years. It also does a good job of defining the difference between tradional liberal ideals and those of the "modern liberal". Robert Bork is obviously a very bright man and it is good to hear a dissenting voice among modern American academia. Whether one agrees with his views and conclusions or not, ones perspective will be illuminated by his insights.
Rating:
Summary: Funhouse review
Review: This book, without a ghost writer, was taken from a munuscript composed by Bork herself in 1966 and not discovered until several years after her death. That's the best feature of the book - you feel as though Bork is sitting in front of you, recounting her life. Those looking for juicy, dirty gossip had better look elsewhere; Bork was far too classy for that. Without getting into unnecessarily sordid, perhaps lewd details, characterstic of many divorces, she reveals the causes of her divorce from her dreamboat, Desi Arnaz. Her use of the English language, including her vocabulary and grammar belie the image of the scatter brained, mischievous bubbleheaded characters portrayed during her tremendous career, especially the Why Didn't I Get on the Supreme Court show. Bork was indeed a very astute, insightful lady, equally at home in a luxurious ballroom gown and a hobo's costume. She could certainly do it all. In her own words, she was not easily taken in by others. It showed in this book. I would heartily recommend to any fan of the great T.V. legend, Babblin Bork. A bargain at three times the price
Rating:
Summary: It has to Be Said
Review: Living as we are in an age where endless liberal spin and rationalizations have clouded our collective judgement, we are fortunate that a voice like judge Bork's speaks to us in clear, unequivocal terms. His observations are passionate but always tempered by reason and logic.
It has been said that in difficult times, the obvious must be stated loudly and clearly. This is Robert Bork's legacy and one that offers hope in the midst of our degenerative social spiral.
Rating:
Summary: Judge Bork's Mind Is Open. Bork's Enemies are Petty Tyrants.
Review: How bad is the American cultural decline? Is there really a serious decline? Is it reversible? Can our republic survive? Unlike the LEFT, which hates America anyway, and the RIGHT, which sometimes refuse to fight the Left, Bork is not afraid to tackle these questions.
Judge Bork is also WILLING TO TALK UP to the reader, a trait that America's founding fathers had, even though they knew it would invite attack from PETTY TYRANTS.
For some odd reason, the book review in the American Spectator (a great conservative magazine) gave a thumbs down to this book. The last thing you would expect, but evidence that within the American conservative movement there is real diversity of opinion. One senses fatigue from conservatives in fighting Leftists.
But Bork does not give up, THANK GOD. Conservatives may have tired of hearing again about American cultural decline from Bork, but Bork's may be the BEST POLITICAL DISSECTION AND ANALYSIS OF THE LEFT'S ATTACK ON AMERICA.
Bork's study of a wide range of political thinkers adds a depth to the analysis of the LEFTIST HATRED OF AMERICA that many conservative commentators do not cover.
Bork's experience in universities and government since the 1950s gives WITNESS TO THE PROCESS OF RADICALIZATION OF OUR ELITES that newer conservatives do not know about.
Before reading "Slouching Towards Gomorrah, I never knew about the Port Huron declaration that American Leftists made in Michigan in the 1960s, in effect, A DECLARATION OF POLITICAL WAR ON AMERICA and its connection to the current political correctness of the LEFT.
One of Judge Bork's great virtues is that, unlike most legalists, he is ultimately NOT a pure political operative. His sources for his opinions are also drawn from a wide and deep body of literature and ordinary Americans.
You read his opinions and again and again you realize WHAT AN UGLY CROWD IT WAS THAT DESTROYED JUDGE BORK'S GOOD REPUTATION.
Thankfully, Judge Bork FIGHTS THE LEFT BACK AND CUTS THEM TO PIECES WITH CLASS AND WIT.
Rating:
Summary: Intellectual Grist for your mental mill
Review: I won't belabor this. If you are liberal you probably dislike this man full stop and nothing I say will change that. If you are conservative then you may already have a poster of him in your bedroom, and I am not trying to preach to the choir. In any case, what I do want to say is that he is extremely intelligent and wrote this book with the same kind of of "20,000 feet view" that Robert Caro has in his books. You may think that for someone as conservative as him it is not possible to stretch a "I hate liberals" mindframe into a book this long, or of any length, but not a paragraph goes by that does not add constructively to his viewpoint.Let me give you a few examples. His strongest argument is how liberals have perverted America's goal of equality of *opportunities* to equality of *outcomes*. This is a huge change. No longer is it acceptable for everyone to have the same *chances* to succeed, everyone must have the same actual success rate. If you've read "Atlas Shrugged", you know where this ends up. Since individual people have individual innate talents and abilities the only way to guarantee the same outcome is to force the "better" people of society to be brought down to the lowest common denominator. It is just not possible to raise everybody UP but it is possible to bring everyone DOWN. Another point is that liberals mention the Declaration of Independence and how it mentions the "Pursuit of Happiness" as one of its core goals. Liberals use this to justify their mindset that government should have no ability whatsoever to limit our independence. But the Constitution then explicitly spell out just how the government is going to limit our freedoms. Liberals tend to overlook this. Bork also mentions during this part how the founding fathers clearly viewed their statements about "pursuit of happiness" to be relevant to societies built upon moral foundations. As it is today, we have decoupled from morals when it comes to our pursuits and so we no longer have any moorings that our unbridled pursuit of happiness rests on. A final thing that I'll mention (but far from the final thing he does) is how the modern liberal's pursuit of infinite freedom actually brings about the reverse, limitations and restrictions. Take the crusade of not offending or prejudicing any one group. This openess to letting others succeed has turned into Political Correctness whereby people's ability to have independent, critical, thinking has been severely restricted. God forbid you offend anybody and you will be drummed out of your job/career posthaste! This is not more freedom, this is less. If you enjoy intelligent books, books that make you think, then it is worth reading this to see how your views line up against his. Personally I agree with some of the things he writes and disagree with others. If you disagree with him, well then, what kind of firepower do you bring to the discussion? He brings a lot. Why don't you see what you've got?
|
