Product Description
Chapters: Christian Democrats, National States' Rights Party, National Liberal Party, National Independence Party, Democratic and Agricultural Labour Party, National Progressive Democrats, Union of Democrats for the Republic, Independent Labour Group, Cameroonian Union, Party of the Independence Congress of Madagascar, Malagasy Communist Party, White Defence League, Revolutionary Workers Party, World Government Party, Guinean People's Union, Chadian National Union, Union of the Democratic Forces, Democratic Party of Nigeria and the Cameroons, African Regroupment Party-Senegal, Independent-Socialist Party, Zambian African National Congress, Committee for the Defence of National Interests. Source: Wikipedia. Pages: 63. Not illustrated. Free updates online. Purchase includes a free trial membership in the publisher's book club where you can select from more than a million books without charge. Excerpt: The Christian Democrats (Finnish: , KD; Swedish: ) is a political party in Finland. The party was founded in 1958, chiefly from the Christian faction of the National Coalition Party. The name was initially Finnish Christian League (in Finnish Suomen Kristillinen Liitto, SKL; in Swedish Finlands Kristliga Förbund) but it was changed in 2001. The Christian Democrats have a tendency of forming alliances with other parties during elections and their success in elections is mainly determined by their success in these alliances. Their own voter base is stable and loyal, totaling around 5% of the electorate. The party follows the tenets of Christian Democracy. It emphasizes "respect of human dignity, the importance of family and close communities, defending the weak, encouraging resourcefulness and individual and collective responsibility, not just for themselves but also for their neighbours and the rest of creation". Membership is open to everyone who agrees with these values and aims. The party cherishes the environment and is commit...More: http://booksllc.net/?id=224539 ... Read more

Product Description
This digital document is a journal article from Journal of Public Economics, published by Elsevier in 2006. The article is delivered in HTML format and is available in your Amazon.com Media Library immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.

Description:
I estimate the influence of political parties on state Tax Burdens over a 40-year period (1960-2000). Holding constant a large number of state and voter characteristic variables, I find that: (i) Tax Burdens are higher when Democrats control the state legislature compared to when Republicans are in control. (ii) The political party of the governor has little effect after controlling for partisan influences in the state legislature. I explain how both findings are consistent with median voter theory. My results suggest that after 5 years of Democratic control of the legislature, state government would be approximately 3-5% larger than if Republicans controlled the legislature during that same period, with the better specifications producing estimates in the higher end of this range. ... Read more

Product Description

Customer Reviews (1)

an insightful round-table discussion
The pamphlet consists of Perlstein's provocative, even gripping, essay on how to rebuild the Democratic Party's brand image (not to mention the nation) with a long-term populist program; short responses from various luminaries along the left-of-center spectrum; and a closing summary by the author.The format works and the net effect is inspiring.Buy this book, read it in an hour, and pass it on. ... Read more

Product Description
In 2008 Democrats accomplished the political trifecta that had eluded them for more than 40 years:  get a progressive president elected and win landslide victories in the House and Senate at the same time.  The question is, was that the high point for the party? Or was it just the beginning of a Democratic golden age? 

As author Dylan Loewe compellingly argues, Democrats now have a unique chance to make their majority permanent and to dominate politics for a generation to come—provided they recognize their opportunity and employ the right strategies to capitalize on it.  From the midterms and redistricting to Obama’s reelection, from the search for his successor in 2016 to the changing political landscape in 2020 and beyond, Loewe walks readers through what it will take for Democrats to stay in power and why the possibility of turning the nation “permanently blue” is suddenly so bright.  ... Read more

Customer Reviews (3)

Fantasy from a delusional fool
This book immediately fails in it's attempt to describe the future of America. Loewe states that the millenium generation is more liberal than any generation when it comes to politics, gay marriage,etc.This is indeed a fact.What the author FAILS to realize is that people change as the get older.I am living proof of this.In my 20's, I had very liberal views on every issue out there. Now at age 45after having been in theworkforce for many years and paying some taxes, my liberal views on the economy changed DRAMATICALLY!I still am quite liberal on the social issues but when it comes to fiscal issues......well, what else can I say.This November should prove to be very interesting(and exciting I might add!).

Loewe needs to face the music.People vote their pocket....it's that simple.The young fools that elected this dismal administration are now realizing the vast mistake they made.Yes, they are having buyers remorse and the November elections will prove this.Let's face it, people are emotional creatures, this is why religion comes in and out of favor as well as changes in the political winds.Loewe has a very simple view in assuming that young people never change.My advice to Mr. Loewe and anyone else would be to let history be your teacher.

I wont even get into the demographic reasons why Loewes arguments will fail.I'm assuming we all know what Japans curve looks like. Let me finish with the famous quote/paraphrase that has been attributed to many people(including Churchill, but is more likely originally from Francois Guizot).Yes, this statement is overused but for good reason!

"If a man is not a socialist in his youth, he has no heart. If he is
not a conservative by the time he is 30 he has no head" -- Georges
Clemenceau, Former French Prime Minister and one-time radical. (There
are many versions of this saying and many attributions of it but the
original utterance seems to have been by mid-nineteenth century French
historian and politician Francois Guizot, who said: "Not to be a
republican at 20 is proof of want of heart; to be one at 30 is proof
of want of head". He was referring to the controversy over whether
France should be a republic or a monarchy. ?
[...]

Unbelievably Simplistic
The author's opinions are based on so many simplistic assumptions it is comical.Many things are so "unclear" to the reader it feels like trying to read through a heavy fog.

buy this book
Loewe pulls off an impressive feat - a complex examination of our future political system that is a very enjoyable read. He presents well-reasoned arguments for why Democrats should be very confident about upcoming election cycles. Loewe's writing is clear and easy to understand, and is backed up with strong research and entertaining political nuggets. For instance, his explanation of how the seemingly innocuous national census has huge ramifications on our Congress was both fun and enlightening. I'd recommend this book to anyone who loves America, Sarah Palin or apple pie. ... Read more

Product Description
After more than two centuries of sometimes stormy, always intriguing history, the Democratic Party of the United States survives as the oldest political organization in the world. In Party of the People, veteran political chronicler Jules Witcover traces the Democratic Party’s evolution, from its roots in the agrarian, individualistic concepts of Thomas Jefferson to its emergence as today’s progressive party of social change and economic justice. Witcover describes the Democrats' dramatic struggle to deÞne themselves and shares with us half a century of personal observation of the party through its most turbulent times.

First called, oddly enough, the Republican Party but later known as the Democratic-Republican Party and eventually the Democratic Party, this creature of Jefferson and James Madison evolved from an early ideological and personal struggle with the commerce-minded Alexander Hamilton. Seasoned by the populism of Andrew Jackson, the party was nearly undone by the “peculiar institution” of slavery in the South, which led to the birth of the rival Republican Party and to the Civil War. Half a century later, America emerged from World War I under Democrat Woodrow Wilson as a reluctant international player, and from World War II under Franklin Roosevelt as a liberal bastion and global superpower.
In the civil rights revolution, the party shed much of its racist past, but subsequent white middle-class resentments and the divisive Vietnam War opened the door to a rival conservatism that effectively demon-ized Democratic liberalism. Defensively, the party under Bill Clinton sought safer centrist ground and seemed on the brink of establishing a “third way," until the disastrous 2000 electoral college defeat of Al Gore left the Democrats shaken and splintered. As the new century emerges, they are debating whether to return to their liberal roots, setting themselves clearly apart from the Republicans, or press on with the centrist pursuit of a broader, less liberal constituency.

In Party of the People (a perfect companion to Grand Old Party by Lewis L. Gould, a history of the Republicans published simultaneously by Random House), Jules Witcover offers a rich and comprehensive popular history of the ideas, struggles, and key Þgures that have deÞned the Democratic Party over the past two hundred years and are nowAmazon.com Review
Given the Democratic Party's fundamental role in shaping the United States, a history of the Democrats, "the world's oldest existing party," demands a virtual history of American government. In Jules Witcover's massive Party of the People: A History of the Democrats he attempts to capture the party's long evolution in a single volume. Though Witcover is sometimes burdened by the need to condense complex political events into textbook summaries, the book is authoritative and often useful as a first resource for political history.

From the start, Witcover draws from "the two disciplines of contemplative history and contemporary or ‘instant' history" to varying degrees of success. Party of the People is best when "instant" history holds sway, most notably in discussions of the Clinton and Gore presidential runs, where Witcover includes snippets of controversial speeches and press conferences. Earlier chapters, however, neglect primary source material under the pressure to summarize. Witcover's coverage of Andrew Jackson, for example, lacks direct citations that would bolster "Old Hickory's" reputation as a charismatic figure. While comprehensive at the federal executive level, the book is uneven in its treatment of the other levels and branches of government. Also, Witcover tends to underplay the role of slavery in the early history of the Democrats, especially in his explanations of Jefferson's "agrarian" virtue.

The book ends just as President George W. Bush has launched the war in Iraq and the Democratic candidates are lining up for the 2004 election. Looking ahead, Witcover sees the Democratic Party in a period of "identity crisis and dilemma." But, despite the contentious atmosphere between the liberal Campaign for America's Future and the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, he finds a common thread that connects modern Democrats to their founder, Thomas Jefferson: the "commitment to social and economic justice." While not perfect, Party of the People's treatment of the Democratic Party's quest for justice offers a valuable reference for students and educators. --Patrick O'Kelley ... Read more

Customer Reviews (12)

Initial Thoughts
I'm just one chapter into the book thusfar, but already I am irritated. If you want a surface level, what everyone thinks they know, knowledge of the Democratic Party, pick up this book.

As it has been mentioned, Witcover is not a historian, he is a political journalist. As such, his experience of putting his perspective in the best possible light is blindingly evident just from the treatment of Hamilton, Washington, Jefferson, and Madison. There is not one single instance of differing interpretations of the events, which are numerous.

Histories are allowed to contain bias, and personal opinion is inevitable, but to place opinions and skewed interpretations on level with fact is irresponsible, and frankly, not history.

If you are wanting to learn more about Americal political history, do yourself a favor and consult other sources (such as Origins of American Political Thought by John P. Roche; The Era of Good Feelings by George Dangerfield; The Jacksonian Era by Glyndon Van Deusen; The Impending Crisis by David M. Potter; etc.) If you want to learn what a biased 8th grade history book would tell you, get Part of the People.

I will post my full rating when I have completed this book.

A Long and Comprehensive Read
Jules Witcover's _Party of the People_ traces the Democratic Party from its Jeffersonian roots, through the tumultuous Civil War period and into the modern party dominated by the four terms of Franklin Roosevelt. Witcover's well-researched tome, the companion to _Grand Old Party_, the Republican history volume, sheds light on the previously forgotten likes of Benjamin Harrison, James K. Polk, John Tyler and the notorious James Buchanan in short, 20-page chapters that take history one term at a time.

The 730+ page length of this book makes it forbidding for some casual readers, and in some parts the text is dry and overly academic, but the vasty majority of Witcover's work in _Party of the People_ is a commendable history of America's oldest political party.

I Enjoyed It - But A Disclaimer Or Two...
I enjoy Jules Witcover's books. In fact, I recommend "Marathon" to anybody who enjoys reading about campaigns. But Witcover is promulgating a mainline Democratic lie - that Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson qualify as "Democratic Presidents." This is historical revisionism of the worst sort. Jefferson was a libertarian who believed in small government and would roll over in his grave at the notion of federally funded Social Security and Medicare or income taxes through the roof. Jackson changed the party name, but the change in emphasis came under Woodrow Wilson and Grover Cleveland.

And it's difficult for me to believe some things Witcover says because he flat out changes what happened during my lifetime. Jules charges that the reason Clinton didn't pass his 'middle class tax cut' he promised in 1992 was because 'the Republicans wouldn't support him.' But Clinton made it clear that he didn't want Republican support - and scrapped his tax cut promise less than a week after being elected in favor of higher taxes that passed by one Democratic vote in each house. Yet Witcover blames the minority party for this. How am I to take anything prior to my own interest in politics seriously with such a blatant error in logic?

Witcover redeems himself, however, by talking about the split that developed in the party over Civil Rights in 1948. The party has never really recovered from the aftermath of that period of time, losing nine of the last 14 elections - and nearly losing two more (JFK and Carter) in the electoral college.

A good read - but do some other research if you're preparing a thesis.

Good Book
To begin with, Witcover is not a professional historian, but rather a veteran journalist who has covered Democratic politics for many decades. His insights are valuable in terms of the more recent history of the party. He still provides a pretty good overall history of the early Democratic Party as well, though I would have liked a little more information on the Jacksonian Era and other periods in the party's history. Most of his sources for this book are secondary ones, which are valuable, but others including some primary ones would have been useful too.

I'm always a little skeptical of including Jefferson among the early founders of the Democratic Party. Our earliest presidents, while certainly grouped into different factions, did not resemble our modern concept of political parties. Nevertheless it was an important period in the early formation of the inevitable party system that would develop over time.

While Witcover probably is a Democrat, though I don't think he stated it, he does a fairly good job of detailing the party's successes and failures. He is quite skilled in describing the differences and controversies within the party itself, especially over the issue of segregation which Southern Democrats were adament about. He certainly demonstrated his criticisms of party leaders as well, including Bill Clinton's personal failings.

In the writing of history, objectivity should be the goal of every historian, but we must also acknowledge that everybody brings a certain amount of bias into their work. Objectivity is especially hard in politics since most of us declare a preference, as I do and I'm a Democrat.

This book is mainly a study of Democratic presidents, and that can be subject to fair criticism since the party permeates all branches and levels of government. But the president is the symbolic head of the party and discussing the history of the party in all branches of government at great detail and at the state and local level would require more than a one volume book. Bottom line there are many other great books on the party if this one doesn't satisfy you.

I think Witcover is to be commended for providing a solid one volume book on the history of a party that is not always known for its cohesiveness. Witcover appropriately uses that famous quote by Will Rogers in the beginning of the book. He ends by saying that while the party has had to confront intraparty squabbling, and it looks like that will continue for quite some time, they at least share a common belief in economic and social justice and still are the party of the common man, though I think they have a lot of work to do to get back to that image.

A comment about the cover
I have not read this book, so please don't base your purchase on my review of this book. My comments are merely about the cover of this book and what that may say about the content therein.

To put Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson on a book entitled "Party of the People: A History of the Democrats" is somewhat puzzling. Thomas Jefferson wasn't a Democrat, he was a Democratic-Republican, which was a party built mainly around himself and James Madison. The Democratic party as such was built around the personality of Andrew Jackson. My main point in that this should be a two volume work, Democrats from Jackson to Cleveland and then from Wilson to the present. This is because there was a major ideological shift in what the party has stood for. Jackson's major political issue was eliminating the Bank of the United States, what modern Democrat or Republican is advocating getting rid of the Federal Reserve? Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe (the three Democratic Republican presidents) would veto road bills because that wasn't a power of the congress as expressed by the constitution. What politician would veto something as "trivial" as a highway bill?

The cover of this book associates, illegitimately, Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson with FDR, JFK, and Bill Clinton, which in terms of intellectual history is utterly absurd. If the latter three consciously analyzed the philosophies of the two former they would reject those philosophies out of hand. The other two, as far as I know, never commented on the actions of the latter three, but from the writings they left behind I seriously doubt they would approve of anything those modern Democrats (or Republicans) have done.

For a serious discussion of American political philosophy I would look for a book that doesn't just lump all presidents together because they may have been called Democrats at a particular point in time. Remember, Liberal used to mean someone who advocated economic and political liberty, free speech and free trade. These definitions are subject to change over the years and from the cover and editorial review it doesn't sound like this book takes this into account in any serious way. ... Read more

Product Description
A true story .The election of1964 in Texas for President, U.S. Senator and Governor as seen through the eyesof the Republican Candidate for Governor. The traumatic effect on theoutcome of that election by the assassination of President Kennedy and thewounding of Governor Connally in Dallas on November22,1963, and the involvement of the Republican Candidate in helping the policein the interrogation of Marina Oswald-the widow of the accused assassin, LeeHarvey Oswald. The recruitmentof the Republican Candidate for Governor-a successful engineer and oil and gasexecutive, and how he organized his backers for the campaign. His study ofthe issues and the formation of a platform. The campaigntrail through the primaries, the State Convention and the Republican Conventionin San Francisco. The split in the Republican partyin San Francisco between the backers of Barry Goldwater and the backers ofNelson Rockefeller and the attempt by Governor Scranton of Pennsylvania to healthat split by hosting a meeting at his mansion attended by Eisenhower, Nixonand the Republican Candidates for Governor. The facts discovered by thecandidate which showed how Lyndon Johnson used bogus votes to become a u. S. Senator in theelection of 1948. The emergence and charisma of George H.W.Bush that that was the start of a political career that led to the Presidency.The electionitself with comments on the campaigns of George H.W. Bush for the Senate andBarry Goldwater for President. Thesatisfaction of having been a part of making Texas a twoparty state. ... Read more

Product Description

Customer Reviews (11)

An Important Book for Understanding How and Why the Democratic Party Changed - 4 1/2 stars
When I first heard about "Why the Democrats are Blue", I wondered if the topic would have an expiration date of November 2008.Boy, was I wrong.This is a thorough and insightful examination of how the Democratic Party changed from a party run by the boss system (centered around blue collar, urban, and Catholic voters) to a party dominated by special interest groups.

The transition from the Old Dems to the New Dems is itself not a new concept.Many historians have pegged the year of the transition at 1972.Stricherz tells us how the party got to '72, who the players were behind the scenes, and what effects the changes made on the delegate selection process, future policy, electibility of Democratic candidates, and the redistribution of the party's power geographically, racially, and gender-wise.

The fact that Barack Obama won the general election in 2008 pokes a small hole in the secondary meaning of the word "Blue" in the book's title, but it did not diminish Stricherz' thesis.In many ways, it strengthens it.

I see this book having value to political enthusiasts, Democrats who want to know why their party is the way it is, and historians.This is not a polemic (the author is a Dem), so have an open mind and give it a try.

Real Accurate, Real Current
Is this a book, or a really, really long right-wing bumper sticker, designed for people who obediently listen to Rush Limbaugh?

I think this book has been discredited---you know, just a tiny little bit---by recent events. Don't you? A black man, with an African name, and the most liberal voting record in the United States Senate, has just been elected President of the United States. (Just in case the author and his readers haven't been keeping up with the news.)

Most people who take this book seriously are probably still putting cream on their buttocks after the severe kicking they took on Election Day.

Happy Inauguration Day! Ha ha!

de Tocqueville Confirmed?--No He Missed This One
In Democracy in America, at one point in his observations of 1830's, almost-exclusively rural America, de Tocqueville turns to nascent industrialization and remarks that if America becomes industrialized, then its democracy will degenerate into political affiliations based on purely economic interests.American Democracy will fail since America's political discourse will be devoid of any principled discussion of the common good and how to lead her citizens to virtue and human flourishing.One of the most vexing political questions of recent decades has been why do the political parties no longer seem to align themselves with economic interests or even moral views?

Mr. Strickerz goes far in providing a great piece of this puzzle, a piece of the puzzle that all men of good will must heed.The devil is in the details and Strickerz provides us with a long overdue look at the details of the party's presidential nominating system.It is a system without any pretense of representing a constituency or of engaging in discourse on how best to pursue the common good or even of discourse on what is a proper understanding of the common good.Rather the 1968 McGovern Commission, to the great consternation of its more principled members, implemented a system with one goal--to nominate secular elites and to keep them in power. Although the immediate goal was to nominate an anti-Vietnam War candidate, the change in rules established a syste designed to ignore the views of the party's traditional constituency and to advance an ideology, an ideology foreign to most Americans.

Stricherz account of how this was done--soft quotas, primary nominating system, etc.--should be essential knowledge for anyone concerned with our political process, anyone concerned with fosterning our democracy.With such knowledge, such men of good will will be in a better position to toppel the alien elites--Clintons, Obama, Dean and company--at the controls of the party.

Although de Tocqueville's observations seemed largely true in the 1930's and 40's, they are not true now (nor could such a development have been predicted).However, his larger pessimism about maintaining a principled political discourse has proven well-founded.

Why the Democrats are Blue: Secular Liberalism and the Decline of the People's Party
I would recommend this book to anyone who is interested in political history and who wants to know how the Democratic Party became secular and liberal when at one time it was the party of the working class, and Catholics.Mark Stricherz did an excellent job researching the information and writing it.His book answered my questions.

According to Mark Stricherz, the Democratic Party, who championed for the working class and Catholics began to change in 1968, during the time of the Vietnam War and the anti-war protesters. Fred Dutton, a member of the Democratic Party who was responsible for reforming the party structure, wanted to add new members and change the issues that the party represented. The new members consisted of college educated people, young people, women, and African-Americans.The college educated and the young voters were secular opposed to the Catholic voters and other Christian denominations who voted Democratic.The new issues of concern to these new members were social, economic, cultural, and foreign policy (anti-war).

The Democratic Party also changed the way that their presidential candidate was elected for the purpose of electing an anti-war candidate.Gone was the old boss system, which was a group of a small few men that met privately to handpick the presidential candidate of their choice.Instead a newer Democratic system, where voters elected their candidate, was put in place. In order to have fair representation among women and minorities, the party established a soft quota system for them.The Democratic Party got their wish and elected an anti-war candidate, George McGovern, but he did not win the Presidential election in 1972.Sounds like the Democratic Party created an activist system to elect a particular candidate of their choice who could not win in the end.

Then the Feminists started to make demands on the Democratic Party in the early 1970's.Their first demand was that each of the state's delegates has a quota of 50% women.Surprisingly, the Democratic Party gave in to their demands, which allowed the feminists easy access to the party.The second item was to create a platform recognizing abortion as a woman's fundamental right.At first the feminists did not succeed, but they kept persevering and at the 1980 Democratic National Convention they adopted an abortion plank. From that point on it became evident that the Democratic Party became the party of abortion rights, and the pro-lifers could no longer influence abortion policies.Any politician who is a member of the Democratic Party and aspires to a higher position in the party such as the Presidency or Chairman of the Democratic National Committee will be not elected to either position if they are not pro-choice.

As a result of these changes that occurred from 1968-1972, and 1980, the Democratic Party is no longer the party of the working class, Catholics, and Pro-Lifers.The liberal elites who took control of the party, whether it be college educated people, the young people, or the feminists do not care for religious people and/or do not share their values.That is why the Catholics and the working class feel excluded and vote Republican not because they are the better party, but they are more inclusive to their values.The secular liberals, who are Democrats, will argue that the Republican Party panders to the Religious Right, which is true, but they will not admit that the Democratic Party is intolerant of religious people and their beliefs, especially those who oppose abortion.

Finally, the Democratic Party will very likely end up winning the Presidential Election this year, but not because the religious people and the pro-lifers are welcomed back, but because of the bad job that the Bush Administration has done with the war in Iraq, the bad economy, and high gas prices.In the future, it remains to be seen how the religious people and the pro-lifers will vote?

How'd we get here?
How did the Democratic Party turn from being the natural home of socially conservative working class Catholic ethnics to a party largely dominated by the cultural revolution of the 1960's? Mark Stricherz's book is, in addition to being a great read, an important contribution to today's political debates, and a great history lesson on the evolving nature of our political parties. The book does a great job of explaining the importance of the McGovern Commisson's changes in party rules, and how that resulted in a sea change in the national Democratic Party's outlook and electoral fortunes from the '70s through the present day. Stricherz also highlights important, yet forgotten figures like Fred Dutton and David Bruce and gives them the attention they deserve. All in all a terrific book for serious political junkies (like me) and casual students of politics and history as well.Fairminded and well-written. ... Read more

Product Description
This book focuses on southern Democratic behavior in the U.S. House of Representatives since 1973. During this period, southern Democratic Representatives have contributed substantially to the rise of partisanship in congressional policy making. Basing his analysis primarily on data from surveys and congressional roll-call votes, Stanley P. Berard compares the voting behaviors of southern Democratic House members to those of their constituents across many issues.

Customer Reviews (75)

Debunking the Lies of the Culture of Death
Widely recognized as one of the leading conservative minds in the country, Ramesh Ponnuru, the senior editor of National Review, felt compelled to write a book on the cause for life after finding his own opinion shifted dramatically upon examining the issue closely.

At first glance many might think the title of his book, The Party of Death, refers solely to the Democratic Party. Not true.The Party of Death refers simply to the group of people, whether on the right or left, who support legalized abortion and other related measures (e.g. euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, cloning, etc.).

The Party of Death is not your typical pro-life apologetics book. Rather than carefully constructing a pro-life worldview using sound reason and logical arguments, the book labors to debunk the myths, lies and faulty logic that have propped up legalized abortion since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. Along the way, Ponnuru reviews the fascinating political history of legalized abortion and offers a hypothetical glimpse into the future of a post-Roe world.

Ponnuru begins by dispelling some of the common myths surrounding Roe v. Wade. Since many such myths have persisted for years, despite being demonstrably false, this seems a good place to begin.Since many myths surrounding the infamous Supreme Court decision purposefully cloud exactly what types of abortions were legalized, his primary point is that Roe v. Wade, along with its sister decision, Doe v. Bolton (handed down by the Supreme Court on the same day), effectively allowed legalized abortion on demand in the U.S. Ponnuru writes:

"So: Roe required that any ban on late-term abortion include an exception allowing abortion to protect a woman's health; Doe defined that exception so broadly that it swallowed up any possibility of a ban.How could anyone ever be prosecuted for violating a ban on late-term abortions under this rule?The 'attending physician' - in real life, very often an abortionist with a financial stake in the decision - can always say that in his medical judgment, the abortion was necessary to preserve the woman's emotional "health," especially considered in light of her 'familial' situation. Any prosecution would have to be abandoned as unconstitutional."

Other myths surrounding Roe v. Wade that Ponnuru addresses here deal with the existing state laws (in all fifty states) that prohibited abortion, the prevailing public opinion at the time Roe was decided (overwhelmingly pro-life) and whether or not the Constitution recognizes unborn persons (it makes no such distinction between the born and unborn within any relevant context).

As radical as these Supreme Court decisions are, Ponnuru points out (in subsequent chapters) that they are not radical enough for most Democrats.While the Supreme Court allowed abortion on demand, the Democrats have consistently fought for abortion to also be government and taxpayer subsidized. In fact, the Democratic Party even supports the subsidization of abortions overseas.Ponnuru writes:

"Pro-life administrations have stipulated that no international family-planning funds will go to organizations that perform abortions or advocate the legalization of abortion overseas. Pro-choice groups have protested bitterly.In December 2005, Democrats even held up a bill to combat the sexual trafficking of women and children in order to get funds flowing to pro-abortion groups."

Days after taking office, President Obama overturned these commonsensical laws.Thus, in a time of record national debt and deficit-spending, American taxpayers subsidize the international abortion industry.

In another chapter, Ponnuru tackles the commonly spread liberal myth that legalized abortion dramatically reduces the crime rate.Summarizing the argument made famous in Levitt and Dubner's bestseller, Freakonomics, "Legalized abortion led to less unwantedness; unwantedness leads to high crime; legalized abortion, therefore, led to less crime."This argument, however, does not stand up to close inspection.Ponnuru writes:

"If Levitt's theory were correct, one would expect murder rates to have dropped among younger teens before it dropped among older teens...

...this is the reverse of what happened.Between 1983 and 1993, murder rates went down among people older than twenty-five and went up among those younger."The first cohort to survive legalized abortion went on the worst youth murder spree in American history." The murder rate among the over-twenty-five set started falling in 1981.It started to go back up only when the set started including people born after Roe."

Other chapters on abortion deal with the brutal practice of partial birth abortion and the Democrats' attempts to keep the practice legal at all costs, debating when a human being becomes a "person," and abortion advocates attempts to rewrite American history, portraying abortion as a common practice in colonial America.

In the second section of the book, Ponnuru deals with the other major practice the "Party of Death" is pushing on America: euthanasia.Published just a year after the travails of Terri Schiavo and the highly explosive political debate over her fate, The Party of Death uses her case to illustrate euthanasia's dangers and to craft an intelligent pro-life response to it. First, Ponnuru acknowledges that pro-lifers lost a lot of ground during this high-profile case. Specifically, he believes pro-lifers "barely made the principled argument against euthanasia."He writes:

"For understandable political and legal reasons, those who wanted to keep feeding Terri emphasized that it was not clear that she was in a "persistent vegetative state."But in so doing, they let the notion that it is acceptable for people who are in that state to be starved to death slide right by.It made tactical sense to question whether Mrs. Schiavo really would have wanted to die this way.But in asking it, pro-lifers failed to challenge the notion that it is acceptable to kill those who wish to be killed."

After acknowledging the pro-life movement's shortcomings during this debate, Ponnuru proceeds to correct the errors. He makes it clear that there is a "perfectly rational case against euthanasia" starting with "the idea that human beings have inherent worth and dignity, and therefore are equal in fundamental rights, simply by virtue of being human."He continues:

"The right to life has to be among these rights, which means that it cannot depend on race, or age, or health, or sex. It cannot depend even on whether the person who has it wants it: He doesn't cease to be a human being with the full complement of rights simply because he wants to die.(It is because the right is intrinsic to human beings that it is also inalienable, as our Founders, who were not theocrats, put it.)"

The case for euthanasia, however, "almost inescapably rests on what might be described as a kind of irrational spirituality."This brings us to dualism, the philosophy abortion and euthanasia are forced to employ. Dualism is the concept that the "person" is separate from the physical body. This philosophy holds that the person is "the ghost in the machine" or the "tune in the music box."Ponnuru believes this dualism is "untenable," however, when examined through the lens of "everyday experience."Earlier in the book, Ponnuru addresses this philosophic fallacy:

"We sense and perceive, which are clearly bodily actions, but also engage in conceptual thinking, which cannot be reduced to bodily actions; and it is clearly the same subject who does both types of things.The dualist who utters his idea refutes it in the act of voicing it.We are (among other things) our bodies."

So it is, in a strange twist, that we find the pro-life argument rests on physical and scientific truths, while abortion and euthanasia advocates are forced to depend on a quasi-spiritual philosophy to defend their practices.Ultimately, Ponnuru takes a nuanced but principled stance, stating that there is a difference between taking actions that purposefully end life and not doing everything one can to prolong life.

Ponnuru dedicates other chapters in the book to related topics, including embryonic stem cell research, the anti-life bias found in the media, and even that strangest of breeds, the pro-life Democrat.Ponnuru concludes with a brief, but riveting, political history of abortion, showing why pro-choice approval peaked in public opinion in the early 90's and why it has been in decline ever since.In the final chapter, Ponnuru briefly describes the challenges that await the pro-life movement once Roe v. Wade is overturned, a very real possibility in his estimation.

Ultimately, The Party of Death does not build an airtight case for the sanctity of life, but that does not seem to have been its purpose.Rather, Ponnuru's goal was to debunk and demystify the many misleading and deceptive arguments of abortion and euthanasia advocates.On this level, the book largely succeeds. By carefully discrediting and exposing these myths, lies, and disingenuous arguments, Ponnuru makes an important contribution to pro-life literature; a book that many conservatives would find enlightening and helpful in this most important of crusades.

Excellent
In this book, Ponnuru shows how the unqualified acceptance of abortion, human embryonic stem cell research, and assisted suicide are at the heart of what Ponnuru calls the "party of death."As he makes clear early in the book, this isn't necessarily just the democratic party (or all democrats for that matter, as the chapter of pro-life democrats makes clear), but is largely comprised of members of the three groups mentioned on the cover of the book.He exposes many of the main players for the culture of death, including Kevorkian, Hillary Clinton, and Barbara Boxer.I was shocked to learn how far Boxer goes to defend abortion.Ponnuru relates a transcript of a hearing concerning the D & X abortion procedure involving Boxer, and her answers are downright sick and perverted.She seems to be worse than Clinton, which is saying a lot.

The book does not stick with just political ideas and people.It actually gives solid philosophical arguments scattered throughout the book defending much of the pro-life view.For example, Ponnuru rebuts personhood theories, which admit that the fetus is a human being but does not have the rights of a person, by showing the absurd duality that this implies.One's body can exist and be alive, but "you" are not there.Your body is alive but you are not.This is also the case for those in a "vegetative" state.Your body is not dead, but you are.You are gone.This is the so-called problem of the ghost in a machine.Ponnuru then argues that we are our bodies; one and the same.

Another aspect of this book that is interesting is the fact that it was written just before it was obvious (and became reality) that Obama would become president.It provides an interesting look at the mindset of the pro-life movement going into the 2008 election before many of us lost hope.The book is optimistic that Roe will be overturned, though at the current point in time it looks very doubtful.Speaking of Roe, Ponnuru has a chapter in the book devoted to studying Roe and showing that it was bad law from any perspective, pointing out major flaws and incoherent thinking in document.Blackmun's majority opinion is thoughtfully investigated.He also exposes the fact that the majority of Americans are clueless as to what Roe (and the accompanying Doe vs. Bolton) actually says, with quotes from the pertinent documents to back it up.

This is a great book for a pro-lifer to have on the shelf.It provides a good overview of the law, politics, philosophy, major issues, and public thinking when it comes to abortion.

Shines a light on the Eugenic Movement
This book was sectioned well and covered most of the ideas that have sprung from the Eugenics Movement. It warns of the slippery slope of the disregard of human life. The most jaw-dropping part of the book is where Ponnuru shows the transcript between Senators Santorum and Boxer over when a child is legally defined as being alive. The argument is over where the child's foot must be in the birth canal for that child to be human and deserving of life.

As Shrill As Ever
Abortion is a serious matter, and deserves serious dialogue and debate. Unfortunately -- as with Ponnuru's other writings at, e.g., The Corner -- the book is a long-winded, shrill screed.

Like many reviewers, I am troubled by the jurisprudence of Roe, and have serious qualms about on-demand abortion. That said, Ponnuru's methods and scholarship leave a great deal to be desired.

The Hidden Agenda
It was not many years ago that both major political parties tiptoed around abortion as a party platform, with both fearing to take a stand either way.However, beginning with the takeover of the Democratic Party by the Far Left, the full panoply of death on demand became the calling card of that party.In THE PARTY OF DEATH, Ramesh Ponnuru describes the current state of the Democrats as the ones who support the right of women to choose the death of their unborn child through abortion.As if abortion were not stringent enough, he details how a lack of concern for the fetus is but the stepping stone on the not so slippery slope that leads to areas allied with abortion: euthanasia and stem cell cloning.

Ponnuru traces the transformation of the Democratic Party as one that used to boast of such stalwarts as John Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey, and Scoop Jackson to Ponnuru's aptly named Party of Death.Beginning with the nomination of George McGovern for President in 1972, the increasing secularization of the Left removed it from viewing society as one based on ethics shaped by law to one as law untouched by ethics.Ponnuru notes that this switch to death on demand was a gradual one with many democrats not even aware of what their leaders were planning.He further adds that none of this could have happened in a political isolation.What was needed was the willing connivance of the Supreme Court to incrementally alter the Constitution via creative interpretation so that Roe vs. Wade would become the inevitable result.

Ponnuru savages those who advocate late term abortion as the nearest thing to state sanctioned killing on a massive scale. No one has ever come close to defining exactly what a person is or when the fetus is sufficiently close enough to qualify as a sentient being with full Constitutional rights, but he makes it pretty clear that the current leaders of the Democratic Party do not concern themselves with such troubling thoughts.It is no surprise that allied issues like euthanasia are seen by democrats as yet another example of the de-valuing of human life for political gain.Ponnuru suggests that abortion probably will be a part of human life--however ugly or unwanted--for the foreseeable future, but if there is truly a moral line that distinguishes human beings who have some moral qualms about sucking out the brains of a fetus in a late term abortion from those who see absolutely nothing wrong with that, then his appellation of democrats as the Party of Death will be a most deserved one.
... Read more

Product Description
As late as the 1960s, religion was a decidedly nonpartisan affair in the United States. In the past forty years, however, despite abundant evidence that Americans care about their candidates' personal faith, Democrats have beat a retreat in the competition for religious voters and the discussion of morality, effectively ceding religion to the Republicans. Elections show that voters have gotten the message: Democrats are on the wrong side of the God gap.

With unprecedented access to politicians, campaign advisers, and religious leaders, Amy Sullivan skillfully traces the Democratic Party's fall from grace among religious voters, showing how the party lost its primacy -- and maybe its soul -- in the process. It's a story that begins with the party's ineffectual response to the rise of the religious right and culminates with John Kerry's defeat in the 2004 presidential election. Sullivan documents key turning points along the way, such as the party's alienation of Catholics on the abortion issue and its failure to emulate Bill Clinton's success at reaching religious voters. She demonstrates that there was nothing inevitable about the defection of values voters to the GOP and the emergence of the God gap: it was not just a Republican achievement but the Democrats' failure to embrace their own faith and engage religious Americans on social issues.

Sullivan's story has a hopeful ending. She takes readers behind the scenes of the Democrats' recent religious turnaround. She offers insight into the ways Democrats have reoriented their campaigns to appeal to religious voters -- including their successes at framing the abortion issue in less-divisive terms and at finding common ground with evangelical leaders and communities.

Timely, informative, and immensely thought-provoking, The Party Faithful is a tough and revealing analysis of the Democratic Party's relationship to religion and an essential primer for evaluating the outcome of the 2008 presidential election. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (7)

Misunderstands religion, misunderstands the problems!
Here's Sullivan's take on religion: religion is all about social justice. It should never bother you about your private sexual life. Here's what Sullivan has missed, which is to misunderstand religion completely: that some people actually believe in God and want to follow his rules.

This is one astonishing book.

How, how could anybody be so tone deaf to the meaning and purpose of religion? Sullivan goes on for page after page and NEVER ONCE discusses the way traditional believers feel about social issues.

Gay marriage? Only mentioned positively.An illegitimacy rate over 30%? Never discussed. Euthanasia and the Democratic support for it? Never explained. The removal of religion from the public square, not to mention the persecution of religious symbolism in Christmas. Never discussed. A corrosive culture from Hollywood that is harming children and marriages? Never mentioned.

Oh, she does mention abortion...sort of.

She reminds us of the incident when pro-life Democrat Casey wanted to speak in New York, and a crowd of one more than one hundred, apparently Democratic, protesters "greeted Casey with the chant, 'Racist, sexist, antigay, Governor Casey, go away!'" (p 79).

She tells us that "Many Catholic politicians tried to avoid becoming targets by maintaining a low profile on abortion" (p 75). Apparently it never occurred to them that they could actually vote against abortion.

The Democratic party, finally alert to the fact that they are bleeding religious voters, has sluggishly decided to try and woo some of them back. They just refuse to change any of their major planks to do so.

For example, there is now talk of allowing a pro-life Democrat to speak a the convention. How tolerant of them. But at the same time the anti-Catholic leader of "Catholics for Choice" just praised the Democratic party for having the most hardened pro-choice planks ever.
Not exactly the way I would choose to woo religious voters. And Obama himself voted against allowing babies who survived abortions to be cuddled or given medical aid.

In fact, Sullivan can't actually point to any positions she thinks the Democratic party should, or will, change. She just seems to hope that toning down the rhetoric and pointing to the environment will help.

Here is the looming problem for the Democrats, the one that nobody every mentions: immigrants. Yes, those millions and millions of Hispanics who are flooding our country in vast numbers. Right now, they lean left, because of immigration issues. But what about the future?

What about when they are middle class, and a good number of them are still practicing Catholics? What then, for the Democratic party, when those vast new numbers of Catholics start voting, and they realize that the Democratic stands directly opposed to every moral issue on the floor.

Because that's what the Democrats have decided to be. The party of death. The party that is pro death to the elderly in euthanasia, pro death to babies in abortion.

An Excellent Book
Amy Sullivan obviously did a lot of homework, and she presents a wealth of facts and details in a very readable book that holds one's attention and whizzes by. And if you remember the pivotal presidential elections of 1972, 1976, and 1992, for example--pivotal because they involved religious issues that disrupted the composition of the traditional base of the Democratic Party--then you'll enjoy Sullivan's book even more. A very enjoyable read, and I can't recommend it highly enough.

Truly insightful!A meaningful read!
Though a separation of church and state is implied in the Bill of Rights, Sullivan suggests that our country was built on fundamentally religious principles that permeate the lives of all American citizens.Amy Sullivan's poignant book examines the issue of how one political party lost its right to religion.With keen wit and clever insight, Sullivan explores the series of decisions made within the Democratic Party which led to its inability to maintain religious voters.

The author points to key moments throughout history that contributed to the shift of religion in politics.Sullivan notes the importance of the Scopes Trial in disenfranchising evangelical voters from the left and acknowledges the huge role Roe v. Wade played in the democratic loss of catholic voters.She asserts that Bill Clinton's overt religiosity was not enough to inspire people of faith and that John Kerry's seemingly false Catholicism was even more off-putting for religious voters.

Though critical, her book is not without hope.Amy Sullivan suggests that the way for the left to reclaim religion is through compromise.The evangelical movement is not one against liberal ideals and the agenda has actually expanded to include such liberal issues as protection of the environment.

This book is an important one--for anyone of any political affiliation.Though a liberal reader may identify more closely with Sullivan's progressive bias, she expresses ideas on both sides of the political spectrum while providing an important message about modern politics.

Kudos to Amy Sullivan
For years, as a Democrat and progressive, I have watched the meteoric rise of the religious right.I have been struck by one question "what is it in the psyche of the American public that the Republicans are tapping into and the Democrats have missed?"I couldn't understand the exodus of fellow Catholic voters to support Republicans when so many of that party's policies were hostile to major tenants of Catholic teachings on economic and social justice.I raised this question with my Dad, a semi-retired college professor and political pollster.He too was perplexed.In an attempt to answer this question, a couple of years ago, we began a journey reading about the history of religion in America and its influence on politics and culture.It was not until we read Amy Sullivan's The Party Faithful that we finally got an answer.

One of late Democratic speaker Tip O'Neill's most famous quotes was that if you want someone's vote, "you need to ask for it."Politics 101!It appears that the Democratic Party forgot this very simple rule.They ceded a large group of voters, including historic supporters, because they incorrectly assumed all people of faith are conservatives.The party and its candidates stopped asking for their votes - or worse - pushed these voters away.

Ms. Sullivan's very timely book, describes the events and contemporary rise of the religious right as the Republican's seized a vacuum created by the Democrats. The Party Faithful is exceptionally well written, insightful and an astute social and political commentary.It is an easy read and full of entertaining and tragically true stories of how the Democratic party has bumbled its relationship with constituencies of faith voters.In the wake of the outcome of the 2004 Presidential elections, the book also highlights the actions of a growing group of progressive faith and political leaders to rediscover, build bridges, and redefine the "values voter." This book is a "must read" for all Democrats and anyone interested in the rise of religious right regardless of their religious (or non-religious) beliefs.

The actions of the Democratic party certainly were not unprovoked.The divisive rhetoric of a handful of neo-conservative evangelist leaders and outspoken Catholic bishops certainly exacerbated the situation.By narrowing the scope of issues that defined "good" faithful voters to include only abortion and anti-gay rights, they alienated members of their own faith, widened the cultural and political gaps in our nation, and pushed progressive religious voters of most faiths underground.Issues speaking to the faith values of economic and social justice - which are core to many faith traditions across the theological spectrum --were pushed off the agenda.Tragically and shamefully, over several decades, the actions of these faith leaders created a political environment that led to the de-funding of programs and weakening of laws and regulations that help the poor, safeguard the environment, and protect human rights.

The chapters on Catholics were of great personal interest.It was heartening to learn of the struggles of numerous prominent Catholic elected leaders to balance the internal dilemma of how to be a "good" Catholic and a political progressive at the same time.The chapters on white Evangelicals were also illuminating.Despite my own dislike for the too oft characterization of all Catholics as conservatives, I too had incorrectly assumed all Evangelicals were conservative.It was heartening to learn that, like Catholics, evangelicals run the political spectrum from progressive to conservative.

The impact of religion and political activism has run in cycles over the history of our nation.Ms. Sullivan's book artfully traces the beginning, middle and (hopefully) end of the most recent cycle.In a time when the American people are weary of four decades of political and cultural divisiveness that have torn at the fabric and cohesiveness of our nation, this book is a call for action.

A Fascinating Look Inside the World Where Religion and Politics Meet
Our parents may have warned us to avoid talking about religion or politics.Fortunately, Amy Sullivan never got--or never listened to--that warning. Regardless of your political persuasion, The Party Faithful is a fascinating look deep inside a world which the mainstream media for the most part seems afraid to touch or simply does not seem to understand well.

It is no secret that Democratic party presidential candidates have been hurt by shaky support among Catholic voters and abysmal support among white evangelical Christian voters for most of the period from 1972 on.Catholics, once a solidly Democratic constituency, have preferred the Democratic presidential candidate only in 1996 and 2000 in the seven elections since 1980.And not since Jimmy Carter carried 58% of the white evangelical vote has that group favored Democrats, with no other Democratic nominee since then garnering more than 33% support among this very large demographic.

Sullivan, an evangelical Baptist and a liberal Democrat, maintains it did not and does not need to be so.National editor for Time and formerly editor of the Washington Monthly and a Capitol Hill staffer, she explains how Democrats have missed opportunities to do far better with both groups without compromising their principles--and of how the party is lately showing signs of rapid progress in working its way up that learning curve.

John Kerry, who lost the white evangelical vote 78-22, did not learn that there were evangelical Democrats until after the election.His campaign's approach: "We don't do white churches", even though 40% of evangelicals are politically moderate.Sullivan describes the recent broadening of priorities beyond abortion and gay marriage within the younger generation of politically active evengelicals to include attention to issues such as Iraq, poverty and AIDS in Africa.Many among this new generation of evangelical activists feel used and taken for granted by the Republican party and have put their support up for grabs based on which party can deliver on this expanded range of concerns.

Sullivan likewise believes that Democrats can, and need to, engage Catholic voters on a much broader range of issues and not assume, incorrectly, that Catholic voters are only concerned with abortion and gay marriage.She explains that many Catholic voters are influenced by Church teachings in support of the concept of the Common Good and that this outlook may align better with Democratic party approaches on many economic/social justice and foreign policy issues.But, fearful (not without reason) of being disrupted by anti-abortion rights protesters and a vocal, visible minority of communion-denying far right-wing Catholic officials, many Democratic politicians have declined to engage Catholic audiences.In this regard, I was moved by the account of Rep. Rosa DeLauro's refusal to disengage from her Church, no matter how much her Church has given the back of its hand to her and other pro-choice Catholic Democratic elected officials.DeLauro has been among the leaders seeking to put in place policies which would reduce the number of abortions without overturning Roe v. Wade.

Sullivan describes some of the strategies that, so far applied on a small scale, have already borne impressive results with both groups.

At 220 pages the book is a brisk read.While the author devoted considerable, and quite fruitful, attention, to the abortion issue, I would like to have gotten a similar level of detail and insight on the inside politics of the gay marriage/civil union issue.

Sullivan's sources are impressive.She left me feeling like a fly on the wall as she recounted one vivid anecdote after another involving major players ordinary citizens like me have no, or limited, access to. Marked by a lively reportorial style, a passion for illumination in lieu of condemnation, and sensible positive suggestions for how Democrats and liberals can pick up support among religious voters without losing their souls, The Party Faithful is a winning and hopeful window into that world where politics and religion intersect.As someone who has been trying to educate myself about this subject in recent years, I learned a great deal from this book. ... Read more

Product Description
Chapters: Members of the Alliance of Independent Social Democrats, Members of the Croatian Democratic Union of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Members of the Croatian Peasant Party - New Croatian Initiative, Members of the Democratic Party of Federalists, Members of the Party for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Members of the Party of Democratic Action, Members of the Party of Democratic Progress, Members of the Serbian Democratic Party, Members of the Serbian People's Alliance of the Republika Srpska, Members of the Serbian Radical Party of Republika Srpska, Members of the Social Democratic Party of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Biljana Plavšić, Dragan Čović, Radovan Karadžić, Alija Izetbegović, Haris Silajdžić, Zlatko Lagumdžija, Tomislav Dretar, Mate Boban, Dragan Đokanović, Željko Komšić, Ejup Ganić, Milorad Dodik, Dario Kordić, Adil Zulfikarpašić, Jadranko Prlić, Nebojša Radmanović, Milan Jelić, Nikola Špirić, Ante Jelavić, Safet Isović, Semiha Borovac, Mustafa Mujezinović, Ivo Miro Jović, Sven Alkalaj, Sulejman Tihić, Adnan Terzić, Mladen Ivanić, Igor Radojičić, Irfan Ljubijankić, Bogić Bogićević, Ahmet Hadžipašić, Rajko Kuzmanović, Ivo Andrić-Lužanski, Nikola Poplašen, Nedžad Branković, Borjana Krišto, Krešimir Zubak, Mirko Šarović, Jasmin Imamović, Alija Behmen, Dragan Čavić, Niko Lozančić, Bakir Izetbegović. Source: Wikipedia. Pages: 135. Not illustrated. Free updates online. Purchase includes a free trial membership in the publisher's book club where you can select from more than a million books without charge. Excerpt: Radovan Karadi (Serbian: , pronounced ; born June 19, 1945)) is a former Bosnian Serb politician. He is currently on trial in the United Nations Detention Unit of Scheveningen, accused of war crimes committed against Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats during the Siege of Sarajevo. He is also accused of the Srebrenica genocide. Educated as a psychiatrist, he co-founded the Serbian Democratic Party in Bosnia and Herzegov...More: http://booksllc.net/?id=18603629 ... Read more

Product Description
Following the presidential election of 2004, many believed the Democratic Party had reached the lowest point in its history. Rebuilding the Democratic Party from the Grassroots offers a definitive blueprint for reversing that course and returning the Democratic Party to its roots and its core values. Authors Drucilla Badurina and Shawn O’Donnell seek to restore the Democratic Party to the party for the average American and the traditional party for a new century.

With its candid, flowing style, Rebuilding the Democratic Party from the Grassroots explains how John Kerry, the last Democratic presidential candidate, lost the national election. It also illustrates campaign realities with in-depth examples of what actually happened, proposes solutions for bottom-up election reform, and offers a specific plan to reinvent and reinvigorate the Democratic Party.

Rebuilding the Democratic Party from the Grassroots is the ultimate guidebook for taking the Democratic Party back to its future, back to its values, and back to the people.

“The Democratic Party needs a vibrant, forward-thinking, long-term presence in every single state and we must be willing to contest every race at every level. We will only win when we show up and fight for the issues important to all of us.”
—Governor Howard Dean, M.D., Announcement for Democratic National Committee Chair

Customer Reviews (7)

Poorly written and weakly thought out
I am a recent convert to the Democtratic Party and am becoming active in the party. I hoped this book would be a thoughtful, professional and timely view of what the party can do to retain ascendancy. I was wrong.
First, there is little or no research in this slender tome. Virtually all of the material is based on isolated personal observations. A very superficial and parochial "analysis", indeed. Second, the nasty affirmations of a Republican conspiracy to control election results because Diebold and other companies are owned by Republicans is shrill and superficial nonsense. Only Democrats may be trusted? Can anyone say Tammany Hall, Chicago politics (remember 1960?) and the ages-long disenfranchisement of African Americans in the Democrat-dominated South? Third, the assertion of voting fraud in Ohio because of the Republican secretary of state overlooks one very inconvenient fact: local boards of election in hotly contested areas like Cleveland include Democrats. The authors' assert that long waiting lines for some precincts were the result of Republican mischief. This supposes that the Democrats on the board were complicit and cheerfully went along, consciously sacrificing Democrat votes. Does that make sense? And the silly anecdote about a postal worker sporting a Bush-Cheney bumper sticker and the thinly veiled affirmation that he disposed of absentee ballots is probably the stupidest thing I read in the book. Fourth, what about ACORN? Not a word about their well-publicized voter-registration antics. Fifth, this book is one of the worst I've read in terms of editing. Someone buy these people a book on grammar and punctuation. Highly unprofessional. I say this with the knowledge that I've probably committed several errors in this review. But I am not publishing and selling a book and I don't have proofreaders.
I understand that politics and polemics go hand in hand, but this reads like a book written by eigth graders. Don't waste your time. And please don't dismiss me as someone criticized in the book - I live in Georgia - or an evil-mongering crypto Republican -I am a dues-paying member of the Cobb County Democratic association.

Not A Helpful Book
I cannot agree with the glowing recommendations given this book.I found this book to be very disappointing, especially given the apparent 'how-to' nature of the title. Most of the book contains a rather withering critique of the party structure & operations in the authors' community during the 2004 election. While the complaints may be valid, it crosses the line between constructive criticism and finger-pointing. The prescription for rebuilding is very general, without the detailed point-by-point guidance that an inexperienced activist might need to pull off the desired result. Also, some of the proposals are beyond the scope of a local activist to accomplish in his or her own community, as they require changes in state or Federal law. In conclusion, there are many other references I would recommend over this book.

Grassroots Activists - Here's the New Testament
If you are a Democratic activist looking for a blueprint for building (or rebuilding)the Party from the bottom up - here's your resource. The front half of this concise book takes a practical look at why 2004 didn't work, and paints a picture of a moribund local party structure that will be agonizingly familiar to many Democrats frustrated by do-nothing local leaders intent more on preserving their own positions than actually mobilizing to win. I was reminded of why Chicago's Democratic structure worked for so long. Those days are gone, but the future can still be built on understanding local building blocks. How will the Democratic Party regain its power and effectiveness? Precinct by precinct citizens!

Sharp, Smart and Insightful Look at the Democratic Party in Virginia
Shawn O'Donnell and Drucilla Badurina obviously know their Congressional District and their subject well, and provide a justified critique of the Democratic Party in northern Virginia.If the Party were to take the suggestions offered, it would go a long way toward electing Democratic candidates in Virginia.The authors exhibit the intelligence, experience and compassion necessary to energize the party and bring about meaningful change for the better.Their account of the confounding passivity (or ineptness?) of the Democratic Party leadership in the Fredericksburg area tracks with my own experience in the Piedmont area of Virginia.Kudos to O'Donnell and Badurina for their bravery in challenging the Party to return to its fighting spirit and its roots.

Terrific handbook for activist
This is an excellent guidebook for the new grassroots activist.It shows where a national campaign went terribly wrong on a local level.And then shows how to work within the system and get results. It offers insightful tips for local groups so the same pitfalls can be avoided in the future.Build on lessons learned for future success.Get this book! ... Read more

Product Description
What Democrats Talk About When They Talk About God is a collection of essays on the religious communication of past and present leaders of the Democratic Party while in office, on the campaign trail, and in their public and private writing. While many books address issues at the intersection of church and state, this is the only volume currently available that focuses exclusively on Democrats as important contributors to the dialogue about religion and politics in the United States. ... Read more

Product Description

Product Description
From the election of Jimmy Carter to the wide defection of Democrats in the South to the Republican ticket in the Reagan/Bush years, Southern Democrats have played a crucial role in recent American national politics. With the 1992 election of President Clinton, they once again occupy a place at the center of the American political stage.A timely examination of this important phenomenon in American politics, Southern Democrats traces the history of this influential regional faction and guages the extent and nature of Southern Democratic influence in congressional and presidential politics today.

Nicol Rae argues that the Southern Democrats remain a distinctive faction despite the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which initiated the end of the social and economic system that had previously bound them together. The only surviving political faction based on regional--rather than ideological--concerns, they have nevertheless evolved from being a deviant element within the party to coming closer to the national Democratic norm which is most apparent in civil rights issues.

Drawing on interviews with many southern politicians and memoirs and accounts of past campaigns, Rae deals with the success of Southern Democrat and Democratic Leadership Council leader Bill Clinton in winning the 1992 Democratic presidential nomination, and reveals the changing role of Southern Democrats in internal party politics and national elections.He concludes with an overall assessment of the present and future state of this important southern wing of the Democratic party. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (2)

wonderful and informative book about regional politics
Nicol C. Rae has a remarkable ability to pinpoint key political movements and factions, and to write about them in an accessible and perceptive way. This was true of "The Decline and Fall of Liberal Republicans," and it is also the case with "Southern Democrats." Rae provides a fantastic thumbnail sketch of the modern Democratic Party, and the role of Southerners in it from the days of Harry S. Truman through the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and Jimmy Carter up to the dawn of the Clinton era. Like "The Decline and Fall of Liberal Republicans," Rae's book could benefit from an update that would fully cover not only the Clinton era, but also the rise and current prominence of politicians like North Carolina Senator John Edwards and Louisiana Senator John Breaux. Rae's book must be highly recommended for anyone interested in modern American politics, and particularly for those interested in regional and geographic factions.

A Welcomed Addition to any Democrat's Library
As a Southerner, I find it interesting that the Oxford University Press considered us an 'influential political faction' in the Democratic Party.Because of course we are, but we like to be quiet about these matters.The author's interviews with southern politicians are particularly fascinating.He has opened a conversation with the general public with this book.The book is a bit dated, but it records what is good and right and true about Southern Democrats.And I feel that every Southerner needs to learn this, or refresh their memory. ... Read more

Product Description
With the growl of the Marine sergeant he was, Senator Zell Miller leaves no doubt that he believes his own Democratic Party is badly out of step with most of the country and needs to shape up or ship out.

As part of a stinging critique of the Democratic Party, Miller outlines key positions on important issues that can again make the party relevant for the entire nation. From tax cuts to welfare, gun control to the environment, the arts to education, immigration to terrorism, Miller identifies values that make sense to a growing majority of Americans.

Miller’s candid analysis of the campaigns of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton further underscores his conclusion that the Democratic Party can no longer field a serious presidential challenge.

Many party loyalists will not like what Senator Miller writes; yet his credentials are beyond question, for few Democrats have worked longer or stronger for the party and its candidates.Zell Miller has served in an elective office in each of the last six decades. When he left office as governor after two terms, he had an 85 percent approval rating, prompting the Washington Post to call him the most popular governor in the country. After getting to Washington, he became President Bush’s biggest Democratic supporter, but steadfastly refused to switch parties.

A National Party No More is a firsthand account from the enigmatic senator who has confounded his Democratic colleagues. Driven by conscience and common sense, Senator Miller names the self-destructive direction of his party and stubbornly pulls the Democratic family toward reform. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (228)

Let the book stay in print -- it shows what many didn't see exactly the opposite coming...
In the 2008 election, the Republican performance increased (in a statistically significant way) only in the Appalachian region.Perhaps the author, who is pleased to call himself a hillbilly, should write another book, explaining why his region seems to be increasingly out of step with the rest of the country.

This is still in print????
The whole book was discredited in 2006; November 4, 2008 was the final nail in its coffin.It should be sold only for purposes of ridicule, in a 4-pack with "Dow 36,000," "Hilary vs. Condi: The Next Great Presidential Race," and "88 Reasons the Rapture Will Be in 1988."

ha
"Miller's candid analysis of the campaigns of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton further underscores his conclusion that the Democratic Party can no longer field a serious presidential challenge."

Ha, ha, ha! Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. *wipes eyes* Ha...

book
Very well written and informative.Good insight into the way our country is going.Too bad we don't have more people like Zell Miller.

A whine as a swan song
I couldn't be happier that Zell Miller is out of the US Senate.

And this was quite a vanity whine as a final word, or what I hope is his final word.

Like many swan songs by overbearing political types, and media gasbags, Miller tells a series of shaded or half-truths to convince the reader that everything has gone sideways, and that GOP = Good, Democrats = Bad.

I think a more accurate portrayal of the truth inside the Beltway is politicians (including Miller) = bad. ... Read more