Product Description
The 1850s saw in America the breakdown of the Jacksonian party system in the North and the emergence of a new sectional party--the Republicans--that succeeded the Whigs in the nation's two-party system.This monumental work uses demographic, voting, and other statistical analysis as well as the more traditional methods and sources of political history to trace the realignment of American politics in the 1850s and the birth of the Republican party.Gienapp powerfully demonstrates that the organization of the Republican party was a difficult, complex, and lengthy process and explains why, even after an inauspicious beginning, it ultimately became a potent political force. The study also reveals the crucial role of ethnocultural factors in the collapse of the second party system and thoroughly analyzes the struggle between nativism and antislavery for political dominance in the North.The volume concludes with the decisive triumph of the Republican party over the rival American party in the 1856 presidential election.Far-reaching in scope yet detailed in analysis, this is the definitive work on the formation of the Republican party in antebellum America. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (2)

Well Researched, but...
Gienapp's book, "The Origins of the Republican Party," is well researched but poorly written and hard to follow. In many instances, he fails to define many of the terms and names he uses, seemingly relying on the reader to bring to the table a foreknowledge of events. For example, the political party, the Silver Greys, is slipped in briefly but is never really defined in the whole scheme of things, as well as the "Softshells" and the "Hardshells," leaving the reader to ask: "Who are these people?" He also interchanges many political party names without first informing the reader that they are one and the same. Also, one aspect that is very evident, and unfortunate, is Gienapp's noticeable anti-Catholicism bend, especially in the first two chapters of the book. Lastly, be prepared to forgive many punctuation errors; whoever was the editor/proof reader must have been asleep (a red pen is a must while reading).

Looking beyond these minor things, however, Gienapp definitely put a lot of research into this book, maybe a little too much. If you're looking for a focused, state-by-state, election-by-election, exhaustive (and exhausting) examination of the Republican Party between 1852-1856, then this is your book, but I don't recommend it for light reading.

A Seriously Good Serious Book
Gienapp was my favorite professor as an undergrad at Harvard, but he never assigned this book for any of his classes.With a long flight ahead of me, I finally picked it up.It is so rare to find a weighty "academic" tome written so artfully.The voluminous citations do not detract from the book's readability.For someone interested in antebellum US political history, it is a MUST READ written by a man who, if there were any justice in the world, should be as familiar to the educated layman as such pop historians as Doris Kearns Goodwin and Ken Burns.It almost made me want to go back to grad school!! ... Read more

Product Description
For decades, Press argues, conservatives have defined religion so narrowly that Democrats and liberals have been pushed outside the fold. According to their narrow gospel, God put George W. Bush in the White House to deal with gays, guns, and abortion—and those who don’t agree are on the sure road to hell. How the Republicans Stole Religion is Press’s fervent call for the left to reclaim religion and return it to its basic principles of social justice, charity, and tolerance. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (21)

Which Political Party is Morally Correct?
Bill Press has written many books about politics and the theme of religion is a frequent occurrence in his writing. There is a good reason for this: Press spent many years in a seminary and he has a degree in theology. He knows a great deal about the Bible, its meaning, its contradictions, and its use/abuse by political leaders throughout the ages. And he wastes no time in this book going for the jugular; showing how Republicans- particularly those aligned with the Religious Right- have taken liberty with the Bible; seeking out passages and making narrow interpretations that fit their own ideology while completely ignoring the obvious messages about social issues that run contrary to the official party platform.

This book is a debunking type of book that clearly shows how Republicans often use Biblical quotes to support any number of their pet causes, like killing, hatred and/or phobia of people who enjoy certain lifestyles, and giving special breaks to rich people. Press doesn't just let his opinion suffice as a means of persuasion. He includes dozens of statistics along with specific passages from the Bible that show a different point of view, providing evidence that what the Bible says isn't as black and white as Republicans and Religious Right leaders would like you to believe.

One of the many things I like about this book is that the author fully admits that there are some Republican beliefs about Christianity that are more difficult to refute than others. With topics like abortion, the death penalty, and others it is very clear where Jesus stood on these issues (abortion is never mentioned in the Bible; killing is strictly forbidden except in self- defense). But with others, it takes more time and effort to show that the Bible isn't necessarily on the Republican side. One example is the issue of alternative lifestyles. Religious Right members like to point to certain, specific Bible verses that seem very condemning of homosexuality and Press admits that some of these do, indeed, seem very straightforward. But he then snaps back with other verses that, based on interpretation, seem to suggest that the Bible is indifferent toward homosexuality.

This book dedicates much of its space to the use of bible talking points to back its case but this isn't just a book about the Bible. It is also a book about religious freedom and the importance of church/state separation. With an issue like school prayer, for example, there is no direct biblical evidence to support or condemn. This is where the issue turns into a church/state argument and Press is firmly on the side in favor of church/state separation. Religious freedom and the anti- establishment clause have served both church and state very well and Press believes that this separation has actually helped churches grow and thrive.

When this book isn't taking on the Republicans over Biblical interpretation, it is taking on ministers and religious leaders who have made a pretty penny at the expense of their congregations. This is the focus in chapter seven and while the book doesn't spend as much time on this subject as the others, it is apparent how disgusted the author feels when ministers use religion to take money from poor people and fatten their own wallets. The book mentions a few specific individuals who are at the forefront of this swindle, and shows how many of them have sought to relieve themselves of guilt by looking for ways to Biblically and morally justify their selfish actions

Press takes time at the end of the book to recommend ways in which Democrats can regain the moral advantage they once held with the public and some of his suggestions will surprise die- hard liberals. He feels that Democrats are too uneasy talking about religion and this has been translated into indifference by Republicans, who have then exploited this as a means to gain support among the devout. Many Democrats feel that religion is a subject to avoid talking about because it is either too personal or they fear it is too divisive. Press feels this is a mistake, and he encourages Democrats everywhere to talk more openly about their faith in order to shake off this image that has been placed on them by Republicans; an image that many have equated with apathy, indifference, and even hostility toward all things holy.

"How Republicans Stole Christmas" is a very good analysis of certain issues often touted by Republicans as having a sound basis in the Bible and why their interpretations are often way off the mark. The book is written in an often humorous way and while it tends to get straight to the point, it keeps the tone on a respectable level. Press has strong opinions, but he refrains from name calling and he has no problem admitting that some Republican claims are stronger than others or that his own Democratic Party has made many mistakes in handling the subject of religion. It all makes for a solid piece of reading material and one that Democrats should take seriously if they hope to reverse the political damage inflicted by the Religious Right and restore themselves as the party for the moral and righteous.

The book I was asked to write
For almost twelve years now I have been publishing a web site that has been showing many people that Jesus was as far from the G.O.P. as Bethlehem, PA is from the original Bethlehem, and that Jesus would be the kind of "liberal" who in the past fought for equality and justice for all kinds of people, like women, people of color, laborers and the handicapped and who today embrace the unpopular causes of those who are imprisoned, immigrants, gays, and those whom our military likes to call "collateral damage" of wars which many agree are not even moral.

Bill Press has done an outstanding job of putting on paper many of the arguments that I make on the web. He's got name recognition that I will probably never have. But I urge any who appreciate his views to explore and to recommend my 200+ page web site, which you can find by Googling "Liberals Like Christ".

While you are at it, Google "Republican corruption" and you will find that,of the 1,700,000 sites that it will provide the very first one suggested is my page on that subject which I have been improving for years.Check it out and you will see why it has been in that first place for at least six months.

Biblical Evidence that the Religious Right is Wrong!
Press, who attended seminary and is well versed in Biblical scripture, hits the nail on the head with his detailed descriptions of how the religious right has used religion to manipulate Republican voters and to try to convince people that being a Democrat is a sin.Press points out in a calm, literate way how the Republicans have tried to corner religion and what we can do to take it back.

He cites biblical scripture that evangelists use to put their spin on topics and explains what the verses really mean.(Granted, you can put 50 ministers in a room with one verse of scripture and you will get 50 different interpretations.)Topics included here range from abortion to stem cell research to homosexuality to the war in Iraq.There are several more relevent topics covered.

This book is a good tool that Democrats can use to combat right wingers who cite scripture to promote an agenda of intolerance.It gives plenty of Bible verses, and will allow you the knowledge to stand up and say, "I think the Bible meant this when it says this..."I liked the hardcover title better, "How the Republicans Stole Christmas," but I think more people will take it seriously with the new paperback title.This is a very relevent book to read and it contains useful information to remember considering the times we live in.

Liberals dig their own grave without Republican help regarding religion
The Democrat Party has for years been considered by many average voters as less tolerant for people of faith.

It didn't used to be that way. During the Cold War, Kennedy and Johnson and the rest of the Democrats stood up to the atheists running the USSR and never apologized for doing so.

Things have changed, and to the Democrats' loss.

It is not George Bush going apoplectic when someone says "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays." How many Republicans are trying to root out school prayer and ban the Pledge of Allegiance? Who is it that looks down on people who go to church and support the Ten Commandments?

It sure isn't Bob Dole or Dick Cheney.

The reality that Bill Press needs to address is what can the Democrats do to make themselves credible in religious-based issues. Senator Joseph Lieberman should be his model of choice, for it was Lieberman who stood alone when he publicly denounced President Clinton over his affair and subsequent lying regarding Monica Lewinsky. Religious values and morality were written all over his speech. And no Democrat dared to condemn him for it.

Overall great read! Only a few problems...
In "How the Republicans Stole Christmas," Bill Press argues that the religious right hold a tyranny over "moral values" issues.The Republican Party is indeed commonly associated with such themes as anti-abortion and anti-homosexuality, themes that strike at the core of millions of conservative Christians across the U.S.It seems that in this day and age the Republican Party takes center stage when any issues that tie into religion are mentioned, issues that appear across such a vast number of topics that if someone isn't up to date on the topic he/she can quickly get lost.Luckily Mr. Press organizes his chapters in such a way that a reader can take a look at the table of contents and skip ahead to a chapter that is more interesting or in some cases more applicable to themselves.I, being both a future scientist and a non-Christian, particularly enjoyed the section on Stem Cell research and the chapter on God in the Classroom.I found them to be very effective in combating the various methods conservatives use to promote their "moral values" in these departments.Press is also helpful by utilizing quotes from evangelical leaders (or at least very loud evangelicals) to prove where absolutist thinking can lead to.It was shocking to know that some of the most "godly" men in America were so downright cutthroat and close-minded.
Although I enjoyed the overall concept of this book and even the chapter by chapter ideas, the phrasing and hyperbole did seem very much out of context.Press writes as if he is talking to a friend who does not completely agree with him.He has a tendency to go on a tangent here and there and lose sight of the cold, hard facts that could make him seem a little more professional.It should be made very clear that if one is to read this book that it is very biased.Mr. Press starts a Republican beating and does not stop, and while I may agree that some important Republicans in government need a swift kick, I did not like the tone in which Press makes his statements.
"How the Republicans Stole Christmas" is not simply a Republican bashing book though.After finishing it the reader sees that the true purpose was to inform democrats of ways to combat extremely right leaning Republicans and to, in a sense, "take back Christmas."Press seems to have great insight into a way to bring morality and religion back to the center line and that is for Democrats to not be afraid of talking.He uses Clinton and Kennedy as examples of how the Democrats have been mishandling the issue of religion by taking the safe route: not bringing it up.Unfortunately, the Republicans have brought it out onto the table and now is the time for the left to speak up on their religious values and prove that the right is not always so right, says Press.
The only problem that this reader sees with Press' argument to help Democrats is that he seems to point his book only toward Christians on either side.As a non-Christian, it seems at times that Press disregards the 15-20% of Americans who do not label themselves under the majority religion.Press argues that it is Christian Democrats who must fight Christian Republicans which leaves others not of the faith on the side-lines hoping that one or the other will win.I would like to have seen more talk on the views of minority religions as well, especially on the topic of God in the classroom, a concern that is more than just propriety to those not of the majority faith.
Overall, Bill Press did a wonderful job getting his point across and attempting to show Democrats a way out of the hole they seem to be sitting in.I would recommend "How the Republicans Stole Christmas" to anyone who would not take the hyperbole as literal and who find the issue of church and state interesting and relevant.If anything it is important for the public to understand the full breadth of what is going on so that come election time they can make a decision that is not self-centered but takes into account the views of others. ... Read more

Product Description
From Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War through the disputed election of George W. Bush and beyond, the Republican Party has been at the dramatic center of American politics for 150 years. In this exciting new book, the Þrst comprehensive history of the Republicans in 40 years, Lewis L. Gould traces the evolution of the Grand Old Party from its emergence as an antislavery coalition in the 1850s to its current role as the champion of political and social conservatism. Gould brings to life the major Þgures of Republican history--Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Ronald Rea-gan, and George W. Bush--and uncovers a wealth of fascinating anecdotes about Republicans, from “the Plumed Knight,” James G. Blaine, in the 1880s, to Barry Goldwater in the 1960s, to Newt Gingrich in the 1990s. Gould also uncovers the historical forces and issues that have made the Republicans what they are: the crusade against slavery, the rise of big business, the Cold War, and opposition to the power of the federal government.

Written with balance and keen insight, Grand Old Party is required reading for anyone interested in American politics. Republicans, Democrats, and independents alike will Þnd their understanding of national politics deepened and enriched. Based on Gould’s research in the papers of leading Republi-cans and his wide reading in the party’s history, Grand Old Party is a book that will outlast the noisy tumult of today’s partisan debates and endure as a deÞnitive treatment of how the Republicans have shaped the way Americans live together in a democracy. For the next presidential election and for other electoral contests to come, this book (a perfect companion to Party of the People by Jules Witcover, a history of the Democratic Party published simultaneously by Random House) will be an invaluable guide to the unfolding saga of American politics. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (11)

Horribly Biased With Some Decent Historical Information
The author is CLEARLY a Democrat. Now the funny part is this: it was written as part of a series with Jules Witcover writing 'Party of the People,' and Witcover is also a Democrat. So a Democrat is writing the story of BOTH parties? This sounds eerily similar to having a recount in four counties with a heavy concentration of supporters of one party.....

There is a lot of good historical information in the book. The problem is that Gould views anything that does not fit into his worldview with jaundiced eyes. He insinuates there is a moral equivalent between Reagan conservatism and the racism of the Democratic Party in the South in the Jim Crow era.

When Gould can show me which Republican governor denied blacks access to college by standing in the door way a la George Wallace, his analogy will have some evidence. Until then it is nothing more than a slanderous lie.

I do not expect the book to be an ode the 'greatness' of the Republican Party. Both political parties have made contributions to America, some good on both sides and some bad on both sides. Neither side has a monopoly on virtue despite what Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken would tell you. And neither side has a monopoly on corruption, either. Republicans had their Teapot Dome and Watergate scandals while FDR showed contempt for the Constitution by trying to stack the Supreme Court - a move that was opposed by his own party, btw.

The problem is that Gould imposes his own morality and worldview on the conservatives - and comes out with the usual caricature of racist, homophobic, sexists. Although is language is far more restrained as becomes a history professor, his bias is all too clear. Although Witcover showed bias as well, he was a better writer and fare more restrained in his judgments for the most part.

There is no further proof necessary to demonstrate Gould's bias than the early portion of the chapter entitled, "Bush to Gingrich to Bush, 1988 to 2000." For we read this incredibly biased statement on page 442:

"A moderate, centrist Democrat, Dukakis seemed a fresh face who might be able to tap into a public desire for gradual change after eight years of Ronald Reagan and the Republicans."

Dukakis was a MODERATE?

If Dukakis was a moderate in this author's worldview, I think that pretty much settles where he's coming from. Dukakis was so far to the Left of the spectrum that Teddy Kennedy would have been George Wallace by comparison. And a few pages later on pp. 444-445 we read this:

"The furlough program began during the term of the Republican predecessor to Dukakis, but it was continued by Dukakis. Under the policy, and African-American convict named William J. Horton, Jr., who was serving a life sentence for murder, was released on a weekend furlough. Horton fled to Maryland where he assaulted a couple, raping the woman. A Massachusetts newspaper brought the case to light. One of Dukakis's Democratic rivals, Senator Albert Gore, Jr., attacked the furlough policy (but did not mention Horton) in a Democratic debate in December 1987."

Later on page 445 - after a soliloquy about the alleged racism the Horton issue incited - we read this:

"The Republicans had a legitimate issue in the furlough policy. They rarely mentioned that Ronald Reagan had purused a similar arrangement as governor of California. While denying racial motivation in the Horton controversy, the GOP strategists in the Bush campaign made only pro forma gestures to stlil the furor over the advertisement and its implications."

There is plenty wrong with what Gould writes here, and he sounds more like an apologist for the Dukakis campaign than a historian. First, Gould tries to implicate (though he fails to name) Dukakis' Republican predecessor, Francis Sargent, as the person to blame. He doesn't bother to mention that not only did Dukakis support the furlough program - he supported it AFTER Horton escaped and assaulted the Barnes family (whom Gould also doesn't name) in Maryland. He further fails to mention that Dukakis refused to meet with the Barneses after the assault and CONTINUED to support furloughs for first-degree murderers like Horton until just prior to the 1988 New York primary - when he reluctantly went along with the Massachusetts state house that had been trying to end the furlough program.

Gould also has Horton's middle initial wrong, but it is difficult to get on his case since that may be a proof-reading or editor's error. Horton's name was William R. Horton.

Gould further tries an apples and oranges comparison when he implies that Ronald Reagan's governorship of California and a support of furloughs constituted the same type leadership. Gould fails to point out that Reagan OPPOSED furloughs of first-degree murderers (such as Horton) or the fact that while 45 other states had furloughs on the books, NONE of them with the exception of Dukakis' released first-degree murderers.

And as is the usual custom in looking at the media-generated Willie Horton controversy, Gould never mentions Dukakis' own furlough ad. In the fall of 1988, Dukakis did Bush one better by running a furlough ad about a convicted Hispanic named Angel Medrano, a drug dealer who murdered a woman named Patsy Pedrin. There are quite a few differences here with Bush:

1) Bush never made a commercial, his supporters (one he sued, in fact, in 1991 over the Clarence Thomas hearings) did; Dukakis DID make a commercial portraying a Hispanic as a killer.

2) Bush had never supported the federal furlough progam that housed Medrano; Dukakis not only supported it, he fought its extinction AFTER Horton raped Angie Barnes in Maryland.

3) Bush's campaign found out about it from another Democrat named Al Gore. This led them to the 'Reader's Digest' article written before Dukakis was the nominee.


I realize some would say that Gould did not have time to fully develop each point. I concede that to be true. But if you're writing a history as opposed to a polemic, you need to tell the truth about BOTH sides. I'm not arguing that Willie Horton was OK - but it is nothing more than sour grapes to say that Bush only won because of a racist campaign. After all, it was Dukakis who refused to pick a black man as his Veep even though that guy finished second in the race. Could we not infer something siniser from that?

It is good to have the book as part of the series. However, I would advise readers to delve deeper into the subject by reading other works. I would name some here but I've not personally found them as yet. Hopefully that will soon be rectified.

History of the Republican party
Last year was the 150th anniversity of the founding of the Republican Party, and this book gives a concise but fairly thorough history from then until the present day. The author admits at the outset that he is not philosophically in tune with the GOP, but that he will endeavor to be fair and accurate. For the most part, he remians true to that pledge, although at times it is quite possible to feel the animus attempting to break through the veneer of historical accuracy. For all of that, it is a well-written book, and does reveal some other interpretations of history, different from what we were taught to believe was true in school. This book is worth reading to see how a political party is founded, grows, matures, and changes its beliefs in step with the way the world around it changes.

an elephant history
Grand Old Party: A History of the Republicans by Lewis Gould details its rise from an anti-segregationist party to the party perceived today, rightly or wrongly, as anti-african american.
Lewis Gould, emeritus professor of hisory at University of Texas at Austin, effectively tackles this monumental task and delivers a work that is both interesting and informative.
Writing in a fluid, lucid style, the reader is swept from the Reconstruction to the Depression, from protective tariffs to supply-side economics, partaking as observer of events that made and nearly marred the party in its 150 years of existence.
His excellent scholarship and his attention to fact and detail make it worth its weight in 'greenbacks'.
The only drawback is that given its contemporary nature, Gould is unable to give a historical perspective on the GOP from '76 onward.
Yet notwithstanding this inescapable flaw, for a detailed description of the party of Lincoln and Reagan, Blaine and Gingrich, this book is a must read.

Good readable history
The Republicans started as a nationalistic party focused on ending slavery--dare we say liberal. Gould deftly examines the party's shift from these origins to the ultra-conservatism of modern Republicans. Two pivotal moments he stresses are Teddy Roosevelt's division of the party in 1912 and the rejection of Robert Bork for Supreme Court. Gould admits at the beginning that he is a Democrat; this account remains relatively unbiased until he begins relating the history of the last twenty years or so.

Great book about the GOP, its leaders and historical context
Lewis Gould has delivered a great standard on the GOP. Although his own views are undeniably liberal, he portrays the presidents and political events of today and the past in a very gripping way.

Not only is "Grand Old Party" a must-read for political junkies, it also places the actions and decisions of the republican leaders in its historical context, making the book not just a political volume, but also a great work on American history (from the Civil War). ... Read more

Product Description

Customer Reviews (1)

An absolute must-have for any library or private collection strong in American political history.
Lincoln's Lost Legacy: The Republican Party and the African American Vote, 1928-1952 is a scholarly study of an astounding shift in American politics - how the Republican party, once the party of President Lincoln, the Great Emancipator, lost the support and the votes of the descendants of the black slaves it once freed. Why did so many African-Americans leave the Grand Old Party and join the ranks of the Democratic Party in the 1930s and 40s? Author Simon Topping (lecturer of American Studies at the University of Plymouth, England) reveals how, during 1928-1952, the Republican party shifted toward an institution favoring big business and small government - and how it utterly neglected the concerns of African-Americans, in particularly dragging its feet on such issues as anti-lynching laws and the abolishment of the poll tax. "To make matters worse, the GOP repeatedly fashioned ad hoc alliances with the Dixiecrats, the worst elements of American politics, throughout the period. The Dixiecrats were antidemocratic and unashamedly racist, lacked any real mandate, were utterly contemptuous of northern (and, indeed, world) public opinion, and were answerable only to themselves... these racist reactionaries, due to their entrenched positions within Congress, were much more important politically to both the Democrats and the Republicans than African Americans, regardless of the strategic importance of the black vote in the north. African Americans were extremely badly let down by both parties." An absolute must-have for any library or private collection strong in American political history. ... Read more

Product Description
Peter Robinson the inveterate political insider, has come forward with a no-holds-barred, honest appraisal of the party that owns his heart. In a political book with attitude, Robinson shares his sometimes angry, sometimes befuddled, sometimes downright amused perspective on the most pressing questions facing the party and the voting public. Its My Party promises to be one of the years most entertaining and perceptive looks at Americas political battlefield. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (7)

funny thought....
Don't you love it when people leave negative feedback when in fact they never read the darn thing!

HIGHLY ENTERTAINING AND INFORMING!!!!!
"It's My Party" is one of the most enjoyable books I have ever read in my life. In this book the author takes us on a tour of the Republican Party (circa 2000) and highlights the highs and lows of the party as well as pointing out things like the regional distribution of the party, why people tend to be either Republican or Democrat, and his own personal journey in life as a Republican.

You will meet various personalities in the party such as George W. Bush, Brett Schundler, Rudy Gulliani, Henry Hyde, Haley Barbour, and many others. The chapter called "A Tale of Two Cities" shows that the voters of New Jersey made a huge mistake in not electing Brett Schundler as their governor while also showing that the country as a whole made a huge mistake in not supporting the House Republicans on the matter of Clinton's Impeachment. Robinson shows this not by criticizing groups, but by revealing what a great man Schundler is and also while telling the story of the House Republicans and Impeachment honestly (which the news media did not).

Another great strength in the book is the discussion on how the Republicans can reach out to non-traditional Republican groups such as African-Americans, Roman Catholics, and others.

In short, "It's My Party" is highly recommended.

Dumbed down not as funny as P J O'Rourke
Author has good credentials but a silly irritating style.Finds it necessary to shove a smarmy apology for about a paragraph for throwing in some history (Anti-Federalists, Whigs, etc.) which is essential to understanding Republican roots and the daytime TV level apology ends up running almost longer than the very brief historical background.Part personal memoire, part daily journalism on a USA Today level, part sophmore poli-sci term paper...and none of these parts fit or work together.Buy Republican Party Reptile by PJ instead.

The GOP for the Rest of US
You don't have to be a Republican to enjoy Peter Robinson's "It's My Party."At the start, Robinson tells us that we're about to follow him on a tour of the GOP, circa 2000.We do, but somehow along the way we learn almost as much about the Democrats and about political America generally, how it got this way and where it is going.Robinson writes like a humorist, and so he's an easy read -- lots of fun.But don't let his wit fool you.Even as you're chuckling, he's sketching for you an extraordinarily sophisticated and penetrating portrait of our nation and the great institutions, issues and trends that are shaping it as it enters the new millenium.I enjoyed every chapter and, when I finished, felt tremendously glad that I'd read it.

More fun than a Republican should have
Finally, an answer to the question - why the heck AM I a Republican??Aside from being very well written and a lot of fun, there's a lot of truthhere. I found myself nodding in agreement in almost every chapter.Definitely a must read for the curious Republican - and any Democrat whoknows one! ... Read more

Product Description
The Los Angeles Times bestseller

"Intelligent....Their book represents a burgeoning literary genre--studies of Roveology, which is the art of using what Republicans embrace, marketing information and what they theoretically are wary of, federal power, to elect more Republicans."
--George Will, Newsweek

"Persuasive....Hamburger and Wallsten discuss in great detail the misuse of executive branch power for raw political purposes."
--Mark Schmitt, Washington Monthly

The single greatest priority for the Bush administration has been the consolidation of executive power. That power has been wielded like never before for partisan gain: to win current and future elections for Republicans across America. The Democrats had everything going for them in the 2006 election, but all the obstacles Republicans have been constructing paid off by denying them an even bigger win. Democrats are confident going into 2008, but the Republican advantages endure. Through a rigorous examination of the GOP machine, this book reveals how a true Democratic resurgence faces steep barriers--barriers erected by conservatives who have worked to build their dominant position since the days of Barry Goldwater.

"Incisive journalistic digging...One Party Country does a good job of spelling out the GOP electoral strategy objectively and in detail."
--The Christian Science Monitor ... Read more

Customer Reviews (9)

Bitter Republicans
This book is obviously written by one of the most bitter Republican one can ever encounter in the literary garbage world.

What a Difference Three Years Makes
This book must stand as a masterpiece of bad timing.It came out right before the 2006 elections - where the Republicans received their first drubbing.Prior to the election, Hamburger and Wallsten had been on the Book Puff circuit, including an interview for Harper's Magazine where they expressed the view that Republican losses would be limited and the GOP had a shot at maintaining control of both the Senate and the House.On CNN, they stated that their analysis would remain sound even if the Republicans suffered a temporary setback in '06.Then along came '08 - and an even bigger whipping than the last one.Suddenly the buzz is about Obama's hyper-sophisticated used of the Internet.Presumably it is time for Hamburger and Wallsten to write a sequel entitled:How Did We Get It So Wrong?

Clues to understanding the news
Two reporters for the LA Times have written an analysis of strategies adopted by Karl Rove and others to assure long-term dominance for the Republican Party in the US.Strategies include drawing Congressional districts in favor of Republicans, tipping the government regulatory bureaucracy in favor of business, and appealing to minority voters via the No Child Left Behind Act. It was published before the election of 20006, but is still current.

So this is what they want!
Interesting premise, not presented in a very comprehensive manner by a mediocre writer, so all I can say I can take from this is that the Republicans don't like the two party system and no longer have a need to pretend they do. So the republicans desire to end American democracy - the Bush administration has already started for them, 1984ish - and willing admit that a plutocracy is their intention, you know, "government for, of and by the wealthy." Big surprise!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All sarcasm aside this is truly a disturbing book, but it doesn't add a single new piece of relevant information, just a dull rehash - don't bother reading it if you have another book to read instead.

Good buy but, a little outdated.
This book has an interesting spin on the future of the Republican party, however it was written before the last midterm elections so their are part that are a little outdated. I do recomend it. ... 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 (4)

Have a heart, share a book.
This was a very good read, we enjoyed the many good ideas. A little private note : my husband and I read together every evening before sleep. We are both very politically interested, and this way we can share the book, discuss it as we go along, and it actually have created a new bond between us without ruining other enjoyments. I highly recommend it.
This seller gets credit also for fast and good service. Thanks a lot, Birthe

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

Customer Reviews (1)

Timely Reminder of Presidential Leadership
Hard Line is a persuasive and timely analysis of conservative policy in the 20th century.Reviewing Hard Line for the National Review, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton wrote that Dueck's "central conclusion is powerful: `The triumph of one foreign-policy type over another is crucially shaped by the president's own choices.' This insight alone is significant, emphasizing the key role of individual presidents in shaping and articulating `Republican' foreign policy...

"[A]s we enter another presidential season, it is worth remembering Dueck's central insight about the importance of presidential discretion in shaping foreign policy. Once a Republican president takes office, the various factions within the party defer to their elected leader in a fashion very different from their conduct on important domestic issues. We need, therefore, a more robust vetting on foreign-policy issues during the candidate-selection process. While far from foolproof, this vetting process is the only thing that stands between the Republican electorate and potentially disastrous foreign-policy and political consequences."

That observation seems even more apt on the heels of the 2010 midterm elections which leave many within the GOP -- and outside of it -- wondering how the outcome will shape foreign as well as domestic policy.Hard Line is a useful history of how the party has approached these questions in the past, and provides valuable insights into where Republicans are likely to lead the party now. ... Read more

Product Description
In this innovative study of French political culture, Sudhir Hazareesingh re-examines the origins of modern republicanism through the writings and political practices of five key nineteenth century intellectuals: Jules Barni, Charles Dupont-White, Emile Littre, Eugene Pelletan, and Etienne Vacherot. ... Read more

Product Description
Over the last year, award-winning journalist and videographer Max Blumenthal has been behind some of the most sensational (and funniest) exposes of Republican machinations. Whether it was his revelation that Sarah Palin was "anointed" by a Kenyan priest famous for casting out witches, or his confronting Republican congressional leaders and John McCain's family at the GOP convention about the party's opposition to sex education (and hence, the rise in teen pregnancies like that of Palin's daughter), or his expose of the eccentric multimillionaire theocrat behind California's Prop 8 anti-gay marriage initaive, Blumenthal has become one of the most important and most constantly cited journalists on how fringe movements are becoming the Republican Party mainstream.

Republican Gomorrah is a bestiary of dysfunction, scandal and sordidmess from the dark heart of the forces that now have a leash on the party. It shows how those forces are the ones that establishment Republicans-like John McCain-have to bow to if they have any hope of running for President. It shows that Sarah Palin was the logical choice of a party in the control of theocrats. But more that just an expose, Republican Gomorrah shows that many of the movement's leading figures have more in common than just the power they command within conservative ranks. Their personal lives have been stained by crisis and scandal: depression, mental illness, extra-marital affairs, struggles with homosexual urges, heavy medication, addiction to pornography, serial domestic abuse, and even murder. Inspired by the work of psychologists Erich Fromm, who asserted that the fear of freedom propels anxiety-ridden people into authoritarian settings, Blumenthal explains in a compelling narrative how a culture of personal crisis has defined the radical right, transforming the nature of the Republican Party for the next generation and setting the stage for the future of American politics. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (80)

Hypocritical Theocrats Exposed (so to speak!)
Ever want to see what the origin of the "End Times" of democracy looks like? Would you like to experience an intolerant, enslaving, human rights-less theocracy? How would you like all this at the hands of self-annoited moralists who, through astounding examples of hypocrisy, work ardently to hide their own ethical failures then resort to moral relativism when they can no longer control the story? Kind of sounds far-fetched, doesn't it?

But it's the U.S.A. today, and Mr. Blumenthal painstakingly ties together the linkages between the philosphical, psychological, and monetary sources of any such theocracy and the elected and non-elected power-brokers occupying our legislatures, government agencies, and halls of justice lo these past 3 or so decades. To be clear, Mr. Blumenthal does not so directly describe the demise of American democracy as above. However, he provides an ample number of relevant data points that a reasonably objective reader might be forgiven for interpreting as an eye-opening, if not outrightly dangerous, trend in American governance.

One thing Mr. Blumenthal does conclude, early and often, is that the Republican Party is deep within the sway of these theocratic forces. Right there at the end of the Introduction, penned as the 2008 election results were being tallied, he writes "The characters I have profiled may not represent a majority in terms of sheer numbers, but through their combined power, they reflect the dominant character of the movement -- and by extension, of the Republican Party they have subsumed." Well, here we are a mere 2 years later, and looking at the political candidates offered by the right during the 2010 elections, it appears the movement continues to gain numbers AND strength.

Note for Kindle users: there are 313 detailed end-notes at the end of the narrative, and not one of them is linked to the text. Actually, the paper-bound versions of the book don't appear to provide note-numbering in the narrative either. Mr. Blumenthal's work is so rigorously supported, that any such numbering/linking would likely get in the way of the reading experience. There's also a nice index in the back, and it, too, is not linked. But Kindle users can merely highlight the index entry they want and obtain context-oriented search results from the entire text in a few moments. Very nice.

Blumenthal has succeeded again!
This is an excellent book that is very well researched.It is interesting, engaging, and sure to surprise you.I would recommend this book to anyone who wants a different view on the republican party than what is spread by Faux News and other right wing toxic talkers.

ignorance is bliss
Almost wish that I hadn't read this book, to many very ugly facts about our supposedly representative government...!

Informative and Fun to Read
Max Blumenthal's Republican Gomorrah: Inside the Movement that Shattered the Party is a brilliant analysis of the psychological disorders that inform the actions and beliefs of the fundamentalist wing of the Republican party. Blumenthal defines this faction of the Repubicans as "almost exclusively white, overwhelmingly evangelical, fixated on abortion, homosexuality, and abstinence education; resentful and angry; and unable to discuss how and why it had become this way." The author attempts to figure out precisely this: why and how the moderate sector of the Republicans has been taken over by the Bible-thumping, scary freaks.

Blumenthal arrives at the conclusion that in order to recruit people for their movement, evangelical fundamentalists rely on the culture of trauma. The author analyzes the "culture of personal crisis undergirding the Christian right" and discovers that all prominent fundamentalists come to their radical beliefs from the background of problematic families, sexual and physical abuse. The evangelicals are often so insistent on the correctness of corporal punishment for children precisely because abused kids later form a pool of possible new converts. Blumenthal analyzes the lives of a striking number of famous evangelical fundamentalists and discovers just how much their actions follow the pattern exhibited by sadomasochistic personalities.

Among other kinds of trauma that the fanatical evangelicals bent on overtaking this country welcome, the recession is the one that has made them really happy and has driven crowds of desperate people to their ugly megachurches and hateful sermons. Behind the rhetoric of exaggerated, screaming patriotism, the evangelicals conceal their readiness to rejoice over every kind of suffering experienced by the American people. This suffering is their best hope of finding new converts traumatized enough to buy into the cannibalistic beliefs of the Christian right.

We all know that prominent evangelicals have a tendency to be besieged by scandal at every turn. Blumenthal analyzes the connection between these people's tortured backgrounds and insane ideology on the one hand and the nature of the sexual scandals they are involved in on the other. Brought together, these stories of hatred informed by depravity and hypocrisy make a daunting impression. How come we allow these decidedly unhealthy individuals play such an important role in this country's politics?

In the secod half of his book, Blumenthal demonstrates how the Christian right set out to hijack McCain's presidential campaign from the start. According to the journalist, McCain was forced to accept the fiercely fanatical Sarah Palin as his running mate in order to pacify the fundamentalists. We all know, of course, where that led him.

Blumenthal writes extremely well. Even though he discusses a significant number of stories in his book, he manages to avoid confusing the reader with an abundance of dates, names, and details. The book is structured extremely well and is written in a lucid, beautiful prose style. This is decidedly not a holiday type of reading. It is unlikely to make you feel very hopeful for the political future of the country that allows a crowd of truly sick individuals to acquire such an incredible prominence. However, everybody who cares about this country has to understand that there is no greater threat to the United States than these fanatics.

Interesting and Provocative, But Too Speculative
"Republican Gomorrah" is a prime example of "a great book that might have been."But my first quibble is with the rather sensational title.The book is less about the Republican Party than certain elements functioning, often uncomfortably and sometimes angrily, within it.And that element, according to Blumenthal, is a pastiche of Christian evangelical and fundamentalist organizations like "Focus on the Family," "The Promise Keepers," and the aggressively millenialist "Third Wave" movement.But I would not call these threads a "movement" in any coherent sense except insofar as they might have similar socio-political objectives and use the Republican Party as a platform in this reach for power, a platform that, even Blumenthal concedes, can be very shaky at best.

How, then, does Blumenthal chart a "movement?"This is main problem with the book.I believe that he looks at stated socio-political objectives and all too readily at times ascribes identical power-reaching methodologies to different groups with different theological moorings, essentially presenting these groups as a kind of camarilla.I don't think he marshals enough evidence of ties between organizations to make this rather far-reaching and even sightly conspiratorial theory work well.A pretty fair amount of "cherry picking" goes on in this book, and while the similitudes are provocative, they do not a compelling case make, much less anything "shattering."

But, the great strength of the book is the organization Blumenthal sees as the center of this fractious web - Focus on the Family.Here, the author has clearly done a significant amount of homework about the organization, its structure, its "modus operandi" in politics, and its founder, Dr. James Dobson.And the picture he paints is alternatively benevolently and darkly Orwellian, but no less stifling, vaguely schizophrenic, and even a shade "cultish."Some have called his characterizations of "Focus" hateful and mean-spirited.I am less sure of that.Blumenthal punctuates his critique of this lock-down group with sometimes empathetic and pitying observations, and worries that sometimes people with the best of intentions can incidentally create the worst monsters.His portrayal of Ted Haggard is especially pitiful.So while Blumenthal may have no love for this group, he certainly takes no glee in the downfall of some of its most prominent and not-so-prominent members.But, he clearly sees the organization as wanting to be nurturing in a Manichean kind of way, but falling time and again into duplicity and the chase for power which not only creates internal problems for the group, but has led individual lives breaking into pieces when they somehow run afoul of a too-rigid orthodoxy "Focus" leaders seem to routinely disregard when less than convenient.Blumenthal lays out quite a morality play where endings are often less than happy.

The main weakness, however, especially prominent towards the end, is his deployment of a theoretical psycho-historical construct which ascribes much of the self-loathing and even delusional behavior he documents to a kind of necrophiliac urge finding its ultimate expression in masochistic negationism.This is not new, and enough anecdotal evidence and philosophy exists to make the theory a provocative and illuminating interpretive mode.But, I don't think Blumenthal takes enough care to differentiate "theory" from "hard empirical fact" here, and this could mislead readers. This does not mean he is wrong to use this approach, but more back citing and explanation is needed to justify the selection.I thought it was a jarring and even inexplicable shift from the more detached "reporting" and personal tones found in the rest of the book.

The sources I checked out seem solid and in context without distortions, but the lack of footnoting was a problem for me and made the task difficult.Also, my copy did have some typos and the book could have used another good editing.It needs a rework in those departments.

A provocative book, and, in parts, a thoughtful one but with the limitations I pointed out.Had he stuck with "Focus on the Family" as opposed to his more frenetic approach, I think the work would have been far, far stronger.

Recommended with noted reservations.

... Read more

Product Description
FDR's Republicans: Domestic Political Realignment and American Foreign Policy illuminates the debate over foreign policy that took place in the United States prior to World War II. Robert E. Jenner approaches this issue from the perspective of Republican members of the House and Senate, who eventually came to support the interventionist position of a Democratic president. Unlike other diplomatic histories of this period, Jenner focuses on domestic components of the foreign policy debate, combining historical analysis and political theory. ... Read more

Product Description
Back to Basics for the Republican Party is the acclaimed history of the GOP from the civil rights perspective. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (62)

Mr. Zak has done a great job here!
Michael Zak's Back to Basics for the Republican Party is an informative and well written book. For those who have little historical knowledge it is a great primer on the history of the party and how that relates to the history of the nation. It contains however many tidbits of information that those well versed in history may not know. Zak makes a powerful case for his assertion that the GOP historically stood for certain principles which in recent decades have been lost for political expediency. A common thread of core beliefs started with the party's early development over the slavery issue and continued on until the later part of the 20th century when some of those common principles appear to have been lost.

Whether your interest is merely to better understand the political history of the United States and the political parties or is to better understand the history of the Republican Party this book is well worth the read. The writing is well done and a page turner. Zak does not pretent do present a totally objective or disinterested history here - he clearly is a fan of the first century of GOP politics and makes no apology for it. The serious student of history must take that into consideration. However his bias does not make the book any less useful, informative or readable.

I heartily recommend this book. It is not the type of book I normally review in my ezine but is worth the effort.

Daniel R. Murphy
[...]

Now ashamed to be a Democrat
After reading the first few pages of this book, I began to get pretty angry.All of my life I have voted Democrat and this book really chilled me to the bone.I personally feel totally duped.Did you know that every single African-American congressman before 1934 was a Republican?When I heard about the violence perpetrated by Democrats, their invention of the KKK, the "Southern Manifesto" that Southern Democrats in the late 1950s tried to use so that they could argue that Brown versus Board of Education (which forced racial integration into public schools in the South), and the white Democrats lynch mobs that killed hundreds of blacks in places like Colfax Louisiana, it just made me sick to my stomach.Top it off with Strom Thurmond (Democrat - West Virginia) being a former Ku Klux Klan member, who filibustered against the passage of the civil rights movement to 1964, and you've got wholesale fraud on behalf of the Democrat party.I'm changing my voting registration today.Tomorrow I will be a proud Republican.

The Republican Party Back to Basics
Back to Basics for the Republican Party, Third Edition Republicans are arguing about a new direction.You can't know where you are going unless you know where you've been.This Party history is excellent for the professionals and the novice.I think it is "a must read."

BUY AND DISSEMINATE THIS BOOK
I have read all of the reviews that have been uploaded as of 5/23/2008, and the purpose of this filing is to summarize the points that were made AND to provide a perspective that has not yet been uploaded.

I have been carrying-around this book for a year, having learned about its author after I listened to Michael provide a speech to a Republican group in the Philadelphia suburbs.My only complaint is that it does not easily slip into my pockets, because there is so much concentrated information that I would want to reference during conversations.

It contains more than a "string of pearls"; it conveys "history with an attitude" which renders it easier to recall, and observations therein have subsequently been noted in other sources, notably the strong civil rights record of the GOP that indubitably dates-back to Lincoln...threading throughout the "narrative" that Republicans have generated for ~150 years.

COMMENTS:

Bruce Rheinstein's review serves to reinforce the history-lesson provided by Zak, amplifying and amending; it is engaging itself, and essentially the book is shown to pass muster when it emphasizes the contributions of the Radical Republicans.

Aaron Z. Gadouas's review emphasizes that Zak provided a timely manifesto and historical overview of the ideas that define the Republican Party, vital reading for activists and thinkers.

Michael Miller's review focuses upon the need to show the GOP has been anti-racist, and it recognizes the ability of Zak's book to help "recalibrate GOP compasses."

Former Diplomat observes that this book has been cited in a Supreme Court Opinion (as a DC "cult favorite") because it debunks myths and probes "simple truths."It should be noted that it has a treasure-trove of references, reflecting the extensiveness of the research that yielded it.

American laments that too few blacks appreciate the GOP's civil rights legacy.That the turning-point occurred in 1964 is probed, for Zak provides insight as to how their current D-orientation could/should be countered.

Patrick D. John considers it to be a GOP-Infomercial, claiming it oversimplifies and elides over key-points (some of which are discomfiting); the author aspires to compose a text (as a Black Republican) that emphasizes the former ("Black") more than the latter ("Republican").His review should be consulted for myriad details that weren't included in the book, although some are more arguable as quasi-facts than are others.

George L. Lyon praises Zak for telling us the story that mainstream academia would rather just ignore, namely, that the Radical Republicans were courageous and accomplished.

PJ Hunger "Peej" praises the book because it renews excitement, corrects the course and calls for an engaging vigor not seen for a terribly long time; regarding the GOP, we can dust it off, polish it up, get it working again and show it off.The pivotal observation, however, is that the book conveys essential truths that are as relevant now as they were when first articulated and implemented.

Publius condemns the book because, to him, it represents a self-fulfilling prophesy.Allegedly, it starts with a premise and then creates supportive facts.As examples, it suggests that stereotypes applicable 100 years ago are no longer relevant.He forgets, however, that ideologies that generated those behaviors have evolved over time...but have not dissipated.The reviewer recommends Gould's "GOP" for history, but he fails to dispel the thrust of Zak's presentation of the GOP's strong Civil Rights legacy.

Jonathan Jenkins considers it to be of textbook quality, best perceived as serving as a compendium of the GOP's rich history and as a motivator for budding activists.

Karen B. portrays it as brilliantly concise, an observation recalls that Hemingway--when discussing "The Old Man and The Sea"--invoked this short-book as a model for how the best writers know what to edit OUT as much as what is necessarily included.

Jorge Roque praises the book for reminding him of why he's a proud Republican.

Ann Kotelman writes (simply/eloquently):"My friends, particularly the Democrats, are calling me a born again Republican. The book is inspiring, informative and cemented my affiliation with the party and my belief in Republican ideals."This captures, assuredly, the experience of most who have experienced Zak's efforts.

A Customer emphasizes both how replete the book is with nuggets and how well it conveys fundamental Republican principles that he tries to convey as often as possible.

S. Gershberg considers it a must-read because, by tracing the history of the Republican party, it show us where the political system needs to go at the start of the millennium.It contains so much fascinating detail that the reader must remember to try to remember all the concepts that it conveys so effortlessly.

Cathie Adams claims the book will put wind under your wings.As timely as the book may appear now to be (pre-Presidential Elections), it also has a timeless quality.

Bill Carroll says it all:"Michael Zak's book, "Back to the Basics for the Republican Party," is at once a splendid history lesson of our nation and an illuminating dialogue of our political system. Mr. ZaK begins with the events and the ideas that gave rise to the Republican Party. He goes on to explain how the fundamental tenets of the party enabled the Republicans to save the Union, rid our country of slavery and lay the foundation for the modern American economy. Mr. Zak then discusses how the GOP strayed from its principles, allowing the Democratic Party to gain the advantage. Finally, the author provides, through his own incisive analysis, the framework by which the Republican Party can regain the moral and political high ground, and lead America to even greater accomplishments. Nonetheless, this book is neither a dry nor a pedantic study. It is a thoughtful, well-written, compelling and entertaining discourse in the realm of politics. Most importantly, "Back to the Basics for the Republican Party" is a clarion call for the GOP to return to its roots. I highly recommend this outstanding book."

*

I had planned to encompass all the reviews, but the last one was so concisely correct that it cannot be bested by any other reader.

ABrilliant Historical Chronicle
If you're a dedicated Republican and want Sean Hannity style content, Sean's your guy and Michael Zak is not. Back To Basics is truly a brilliant work, chronicling the history of the Republican party from its inception to the present.

As a moderate, I do not always agree with my party line, and am often skeptical of the volumes of political hyperbole to which we are subjected. Zak makes a laudable effort to incorporate information sources, evidenced by a 10 page bibliography, single spaced in 6pt type, and a plethora of footnotes through his book.

This is not a quick or casual read. Zak's attention to detail in his investigation of the past 150 years is evident in every paragraph, though his writing style is universally fluid. It's a hard book to put down, especially if you are not well versed in this topic.

His objectivity is evident in his persistent criticism and evaluation ofsignificant individuals and events that have shaped the Republicans to what we are today. Zak does not hide his disappointment in several aspects of the current state of Republicans, however his admonition of returning to the basics on which our party was founded is the most compelling theme in the book.

Readable, informative, research-based, and a clear call to action, Back to Basics for the Republican Party is not only a chronicle; it is a guide for us to re-energize and to once again become the Grand Old Party. ... Read more