Who are the best liberal authors in America?

[AuntiePinko]

Dear Auntie Pinko,

I like political debate, and I love reading political books and watching shows on the same topic. However we don't have nearly as much of it in Australia as you guys do in the U.S. I follow U.S. politics quite closely, like a lot of people from around the world, and this site is one of my favorites. I have read books by Jon Stewart and Al Franken and really enjoyed both of them, but as a result of geographic distance from the U.S., I really don't know which authors I should be looking out for! I know to steer clear of nutters like Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter, but beyond that I'm really in the dark.

Could you perhaps let me know who the best liberal authors (or podcast casters) are so that I can try and track them down?

Warren
Canberra, Australia


Dear Warren,

Good on you! I wish more Americans would take the initiative to read and examine the political life of Australia (and other countries, of course!). We tend to be pretty self-absorbed, unfortunately. It's easily interpreted as arrogance, and there is doubtless plenty of that here, but I think it's mostly laziness.

Now, Auntie can't help you with podcasts, since I've been limited by dialup modem speeds and have never really broached the resources of podcast culture. I suggest you post that question in Democratic Underground's "General Discussion: Politics" forum, and you'll probably get more references than you can manage! But at least it will give you a starting place.

As far as books, though, you've come to the right place, sort of. I'm an avid reader and my bookshelves are stuffed full of books that relate to politics in one fashion or another. I'd like to make it clear up front, especially to the fans of any author I omit to mention, that I can't possibly offer a comprehensive list, and I'm positive that I'll leave at least half-a-dozen really great writers/books unmentioned and regret it later. But I'm not as young as I used to be, and my mental "hard disk" data retrieval system isn't as fast or thorough as I'd like it to be.

First, I should clarify a bit about my reading habits so you have some context for my recommendations. My "political" reading falls into three rough (and overlapping) categories: Commentary, advocacy, and analysis/history/biography. Here's how I think of each category:

Commentary ranges from pure partisan diatribes through humor to semi- (and sometimes pseudo-) scholarly or journalistic explication of current and recent past political events, trends, and sometimes individuals. The bias of the author is usually pretty clear, and I tend to judge this kind of book or article on how entertainingly and well it is written, how honest the author is about her/his bias, and how well s/he has done the homework that lends substance and context to the author's views.

In this category, anything by Molly Ivins wins hands-down, since I think she's outstanding on all of those criteria. I've also enjoyed books by Mark Crispin Miller, Bill Moyers, Joe Conason, Jim Hightower, and others. A quick search of a major online book retailer's database will give you titles, and following the "other recommended" links will lead you to similar books and authors, too.

Special mention must also go to two U.S. Senators who have published enormously thoughtful and moving commentaries: Senator Paul Wellstone's The Conscience of a Liberal, and Senator Robert Byrd's Losing America: Confronting a Reckless and Arrogant Presidency. Both are well worth reading and will give you insight into some of the U.S. Senate's most profound moral leadership in the late 20th Century.

Advocacy is a related genre of books that presents the author's views, experiences, scholarship, and/or recommendations on contemporary issues (rather than people, leaders, government entities, etc.) in the political sphere. Again, the authors are generally willing to acknowledge their own viewpoints and/or biases, and the books often focus on how those views were changed or enhanced through their exploration of the issues. Some of the outstanding authors here include Jonathan Kozol, Barbara Ehrenreich, Lisbeth Schorr, and William Julius Wilson.

Analysis/history/biography includes books that relate to current geopolitical issues through the context of historical developments, the biographies (and autobiographies) of pivotal individuals, or the detailed analysis of a specific event. Authors of these works do not always feel it necessary to state particular biases, although some do. But a good writer generally makes his or her perspective clear through how they analyze and comment. You can also tell a lot by looking at bibliographies and lists of citations. Sometimes authors of these books attempt to present as many perspectives as possible and establish a "balanced" viewpoint, sometimes they are writing clearly from the basis of their own ideological stand.

In this area you can look at Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States, Madeline Albright's recent autobiography, Intelligence Wars: American Secret History from Hitler to Al-Qaeda by Thomas Powers, and almost anything by David Halberstam. Very special mention must go to Barbara Tuchman's The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam, a book that does more to expose the dark side of American policymaking than just about anything I've ever read. Although it was published in the wake of Vietnam, it's disappointingly clear that little has changed at the highest levels of American policymaking since it was published.

At the moment, I'm reading and enjoying Seymour Hersh's Chain of Command: The Road from 9/11 to Abu Ghraib, a book that occupies the middle ground between all three of these categories, and American Fascism: The Rise of the Christian Right by Chris Hedges, a commentary laced with plenty of historical and philosophical analysis by an excellent writer.

I hope this gives you something to go on, Warren, and thanks for asking Auntie Pinko!

Testing - this is EarlG - please ignore.

[AuntiePinko]

1. I'm a conservative, but I'm fed up with Bush! What can I do?

Dear Auntie Pinko,

I am a proud Conservative, and I have supported George W. Bush for a long time, in spite of doubts about the Iraq War. After all, most leaders make some decisions that seem crazy at the time, but they have information that others don't have, and the view from the top can be different.

I have supported him in spite of doubts about his huge expansion of government size, expense and power, because I really believe that terrorism in the 21st century is a serious threat that needs serious responses.

I have supported him in spite of doubts about the giant deficit and the ballooning national debt, because I think our tax system is so out of control that only drastic, out-of-the-box solutions might restore sanity.

Then he "didn't know" that his own government was turning the management of our ports over to a company owned by the government of the UAE, a nation that recognized the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and laundered money for Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. When he "found out," he announced that he'd veto attempts to curtail the deal!

I'm not a liberal and I'll never be one. I'll oppose big government financed by out-of-control taxes, nanny state welfare programs, and the silly idea that we can make the world a better place by wringing our hands and preaching earnest homilies at the UN, until I die. But I'm fed up with Bush! Is there anything I can do, short of joining the Democratic Party, to stop this madness?

Mike N,
Golden, CO


Dear Mike,

It's very disillusioning to see the leaders you elected to uphold certain principles systematically trashing those principles. I'm not surprised that you and many other conservatives are feeling bitter and betrayed.

Not to add insult to injury, Mike, but just to warn you - please bear with me, because I will get to some constructive ideas about "stopping this madness," I promise. But first, I want to discuss the painful subject of Mr. Bush's government approving the transfer of port management contracts to DPW. I've been hearing quite a lot of unhappiness about this from liberals and conservatives, and it's a good news/bad news situation.

I don't like it either, for a whole array of reasons. Dubai Ports World is, first and foremost, a business, and they know perfectly well that they cannot stay in business if there is even the slightest suspicion that their management would pose a security threat to the nations whose ports they manage. I doubt that they'll do anything to jeopardize their business viability, or permit anyone else, even on the basis of religion, to do so. Nor is logistical management of a port's business operations equivalent to security, which (as I understand it) will still be provided by the United States Coast Guard, Customs, etc.

But as you've pointed out, Mike, while the UAE may technically be allied with the United States in a variety of commercial and economic ways, and may be very cooperative with us in foreign policy goals for their region, they are no shining example of the kind of "partners" we should be trusting with something that cuts as close to our sense of national security as port management. In addition to operating an "anything goes" banking system that makes them money launderers of choice to the scum of the earth, their record on democracy in their own nation is appalling, they enable human trafficking and human rights violations of the most disgusting variety, and the people they hang out with (other repressive, sleazy, authoritarian world 'leaders') are hardly the kind of company we want to keep.

At a time when "image" carries such weight in international affairs, the "image" of the United States, worldwide, is already profoundly damaged. While I'm not suggesting that we trim our policy decisions to suit world opinion, I would like to see us making policy decisions that reflect our values, and standing by those decisions. The "Arab Street" (a ridiculous concept, to start with, since there are numerous and contradictory cross-currents of opinion among Middle Eastern Muslims) will not "respect" us just because we choose to do business with the Emirs. When we stand clearly for the principles embodied in our Declaration of Independence and in the Preamble to our Constitution, and when our actions clearly reflect that stance, we will earn respect, even among those who differ with us.

If there is an "upside" to the flap over the DPW affair, it may be in drawing the attention of Americans to the real issues of port security, issues that are much larger and more complex than logistical management. Americans seem to be waking up to the vulnerability of ports, and to how far they are lagging behind airports in having the resources and support to implement reliable security practices. Maybe we'll also start to pay attention to the vulnerability of other installations, too, and make a big enough fuss to get Congress to require adequate oversight of facilities that create, manipulate, and store hazardous materials. Water supply, communications, and key land transport resources, too, are far behind airports in security.

Which brings me by a rather roundabout course back to your question, Mike. What can you do, short of (heaven forbid!) joining the Democratic Party? There's actually a lot you can do. It's not easy stuff, but it shouldn't be outright painful, either. I wouldn't (for example) encourage you to secretly vote for Democrats or even third-party candidates in the upcoming elections. In fact, I wouldn't want you to do anything dissonant with your principles, because they are your real strength in bringing sanity back to your Party.

First, and perhaps most important and effective, you can SPEAK UP. Don't be silent among your fellow Republicans when the discussion gets political. Exactly what you wrote to Auntie Pinko should be an adequate and powerful expression of your frustration and dissatisfaction, and I'm guessing it will excite fellow-feeling in many of your conservative friends. Silence is complicity, and you don't have to be complicit in what Mr. Bush is doing to your Party.

Tell your Republican elected representatives how you feel, too. It means much more coming from you than from Auntie Pinko and her liberal buddies, that's for sure! Demand that they be accountable to you and other conservatives for abandoning the principles you care about and embracing massive government expansion, hyperinflating debt, foreign policy nightmares and the waste of military and security resources in the pointless Iraq War. Tell them that they can keep your support only by demonstrating that they understand and value the things you value.

Finally, get involved with your Party organization. Don't leave it to the corporate lobbyists and the fanatics who believe that staying in power is all that matters. You and other conservatives like you can turn your Party around - it's been done before. It will be hard, because they have the money and the power and the bully pulpit, but you have the voice in the streets and the votes. Take back your Party!

Having given all this advice, I'm having second thoughts now, Mike, because if you and other conservatives like you succeed in reclaiming the Republican Party, it will be a formidable opponent. Restoring Republican credibility and respect will make it that much harder for us liberals to grab back as much power as the Republicans have held for the last six years! But I'll stand by it anyway, because I believe that America is better off with two strong Parties with integrity and the intelligence to take a larger view, even if I disagree strongly with one of them. Best of luck to you and your fellow conservatives, and thanks for asking Auntie Pinko!

[AuntiePinko]

2. How do I counter the "tax-and-spend liberal" argument?

Dear Auntie Pinko,

I live in the very red state of Virginia, who as you probably know just elected a Democratic governor (thank goodness). Of course, Republicans are now out in force writing letters to the editor whining about taxes, especially since Governor Kaine is talking about raising taxes for transportation initiatives. I would really appreciate it if you could provide a succinct, talking points type rebuttal to the Republicans' constant anti-tax rhetoric, which they use to beat Democrats over the head. I frequently write letters to the editor, many of which have been published. I would very much like to address this issue in one of my letters and could use some help with an effective concise argument. After all, it's one of the big reasons people give for voting Republican - you know "those tax and spend liberals."

Sincerely,
Virginia from Virginia


Dear Virginia,

Gee, it's nice for Auntie to have an easy one to answer from time to time! So many of my readers' questions involve highly complex, ideologically and philosophically ambiguous issues that can't be addressed in a quick, catchy, and cogent answer. It gets a little discouraging, hoping that all the carefully-laid out, many-paragraph answers are understood and effective. But this one - easy! Here's your answer, Virginia:

"Tax-and-spend Democrats are more responsible and better for the state's budget and citizens than borrow-and-spend Republicans who leave our children and grandchildren with crushing debt burdens."

Gosh, wasn't that easy? Catchy, too. "Borrow-and-spend Republicans." Just keep reminding people. What's the smarter option, when you can't reduce your expenses (rarely an option at the state level)?

a) Paying as you go so that people have to have an honest discussion of priorities about transportation, correctional services, education, etc., or...

b) letting people think they can have their cake and eat it, too - build prisons, repair highways, keep universities open and have lower taxes, all the while piling up debt and/or trashing the state's bond rating, with an ugly day of reckoning in the offing?

Nevertheless, appealing as this argument may be, Auntie is going to ask you to consider something else altogether, Virginia.

Reasoning by analogy is always chancy, but think of the state as a family who live in an older, poorly-insulated house with an inefficient heating system, have two elderly, fuel-inefficient cars, and no health insurance. Let's say they have one child in college, one child in high school, one in primary school, and Mom is pregnant again and has had to cut her work hours. Dad makes good money, and they have a savings account they've earmarked to help the kids with college and, hopefully, to retire someday. They sometimes spend money foolishly - overpriced designer clothes, vacations, and dining out, but as their heat bills have gone up and the car repair and college bills have been coming in, they've already cut down a lot on those expenses, though not eliminated them altogether.

Mom calls a family meeting one day to lay out the bad news: they have more bills than they can pay, the furnace is making funny noises, one of the cars broke down again and repairs will be expensive, and the primary schooler needs braces. The family starts arguing:

"Well, if Andrea weren't in college, we'd be able to pay for Jim's braces!"

"Jim will just have to wait for his braces, Andrea will be out of college in a couple of years!"

"We should just take all the money out of our savings account and pay the bills, and hope we can replenish the savings account when Mom goes back to work full-time!"

"We need to stop eating out altogether, never take another vacation, and shop at the thrift store for our clothes!"

"Let's just take out another credit card and put the repairs and the braces on that!"

Each family member making their particular argument also trashes everyone else's argument and refuses to consider any other alternatives, and the family meeting breaks up with everyone mad at everyone else, and no decisions about how to deal with the immediate financial crisis, much less the long-term issues hanging over them.

Does that help illuminate the flaws in how the discussion of state financial management is being conducted? People who reduce the discussion to platitudes like "tax and spend" or even "borrow and spend" (mea culpa!) are actually doing the people of Virginia a great disservice. The state's budget is part of a complex financial structure that has to address both short- and long-term needs of Virginia's citizens, and cover a huge array of needs, all of which are important and valid to some Virginian(s). Focusing on immediate, short-term, "hot button" issues only digs the state deeper into a dangerous hole that threatens the future of Virginia's children.

Rather than perpetuating the pointless "tastes great/less filling" argument, Virginia, why not raise your voice and challenge all your elected representatives, Democratic and Republican, to forego the partisan posturing and be realistic with voters?

Democrats and Republicans both need to accept that some spending they cherish will need to be cut. Republicans and Democrats both need to make unpopular concessions that some spending not only can't be cut, but will have to be increased if the state isn't to end up in a worse hole tomorrow. Democrats and Republicans both will have to stop promising voters lollipops in the form of tax cuts and/or popular new initiatives, and talk honestly about unglamorous necessities. Republicans and Democrats both will need to give up the opportunity to score political points off each other and work cooperatively for the benefit of all Virginians.

But it will never happen unless voters like you tell them that's what you really want, Virginia. Thanks for asking Auntie Pinko!