What America is reading these days
The redoubtable Billmon points our attention to Amazon’s non-fiction bestseller list, where we discover that those Americans who can read are sucking up left-wing titles.
Representing the left in the top 25, we have (titles I own in bold):
- #1: Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right by Al Franken
- #2: Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth by Joe Conason
- #4: Thieves in High Places: They’ve Stolen Our Country--And Its Time to Take It Back by Jim Hightower
- #7: Bushwhacked: Life in George W. Bush’s America by Molly Ivins, et al
- #8: Sleeping With the Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude by Robert Baer
- #9: Stupid White Men ...and Other Sorry Excuses for the State of the Nation! by Michael Moore
- #10: Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America by Barbara Ehrenreich
- #12: The Best Democracy Money Can Buy: The Truth About Corporate Cons, Globalization and High-Finance Fraudsters by Greg Palast
- #18: Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush’s War on Iraq by Sheldon Rampton, John C. Stauber
- #20: The Culture of Fear: Why Americans Are Afraid of the Wrong Things by Barry Glassner
- #22: What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias and the News by Eric Alterman
\t
\t
\t
\t
\t
\t
\t
\t
\t
\t
\t
On the other hand, the right is represented by (still in the same top 25 list):
- #6: Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism by Ann Coulter
\t
Al Franken’s position in the Number One spot is, of course, a gift from Fox News, for which I’m sure Franken will be forever grateful. The rest of the titles, I assume, made it into the bestseller list on their own merits. I’m not sure why Ann Coulter’s screed sells as well as it does, but I have to concede that some hardcore wingnuts probably read, at least a little.
Another book that I’m looking forward to is one that did not make the bestseller list, but I expect that it will be worthwhile nonetheless: The Great Unraveling: Losing Our Way in the New Century by Paul Krugman.
Given these sales figures, we have to assume that Americans are reading all these liberal ideas. How can we get Americans to vote like they read?
You said “Americans who can read”, but since about half the country is Republican, they must be reading something else. After all, the most recent poll said that about 56% of Americans still supported the war in Iraq. So, just because that’s what’s on the best-seller lists, don’t assume that that means 90% of Americans believe those ideas. \r
\r
I call myself a liberal, but I find most liberal discourse these days so venal and petty that I would discount most of those books out of hand. \r
\r
ZB
You said “Americans who can read”\r
\r
Yes, but I suppose that a weblog is not the best way to convey my sense of sarcasm.\r
\r
...about half the country is Republican...\r
\r
Actually, I believe the split is closer to 40% Republican, 40% Democrat, 20% Independent (or Other), but for your purposes I readily concede that this is “about half” of the country.\r
\r
...I find most liberal discourse these days so venal and petty that I would discount most of those books out of hand...\r
\r
I agree. You will notice that I have not reviewed or recommended either Moore’s Stupid White Men or Palast’s The Best Democracy Money Can Buy on this site. Although both made a few good points, I didn’t particularly care for either of them. (I have yet to receive Conason’s Big Lies, so the jury is still out on that one.) Of the books currently listed in the top 25, I suspect that only two will endure beyond the Bush administration’s tenure. \r
\r
I don’t assume that 90% of American believe these ideas at all (after all, I’ve purchased a great many right-wing books, even though I don’t agree with most of them), but isn’t a little unusual that there is such a pronounced difference between how people vote and what they are reading? When Newt Ginrich and Dick Armey’s Contract With America was in every bookstore in America, it was in keeping with the political climate of the time. These days the political climate seems to have the opposite effect on book sales. Doesn’t that strike you as odd?
I guess it does indeed. Maybe a minority of hard-core lefties are buying them all up and sending them to their friends!
Maybe a minority of hard-core lefties are buying them all up and sending them to their friends!\r
\r
\r
Yeah, would you like a copy?
\r
Seriously, though, I cannot help but wonder if this flood of anti-Bush propaganda will influence the outcome of the 2004 elections. I doubt it will, because the titles in the current list are mostly fluff (whereas Contract with America was meant to be a serious tract, a covenant of sorts), but if it does, well, the bestseller list literally speaks volumes.
I think it will end up hurting the Democrats if anything. I think the irrational hatred of lefties for Bush (combined with their thinking he’s stupid, which is demonstrably false since he keeps whooping their ass) will only backfire on them, the way that the hatred of Clinton pushed the right off the edge. \r
\r
For many of my lefty friends, it’s no longer permissible to say “I think Bush is right about X, but wrong about Y and Z”. To say he is anything less than evil makes you somehow compromised. \r
\r
This makes the left all the more eager for a new election, but pushes the center away. \r
\r
Unless the left suddenly pulls their head out of their collective ass, get ready for another 5 years of Bush.
I think it will end up hurting the Democrats if anything.\r
\r
History might prove you right on that count. \r
\r
...it’s no longer permissible to say “I think Bush is right about X, but wrong about Y and Z”.\r
\r
Well, part of that is no doubt due to the fact that Bush is the most ideologically driven president ever. If you don’t already buy into his worldview, it’s difficult to agree with him on anything--because his positions are all very far to the right of any president we’ve ever had before. Although I didn’t much care for his father’s presidency, I could at least agree with the elder Bush on a fair number of issues. Likewise with Reagan (although I was almost too young to have any political feelings at that point). But with this Bush, we have an all-or-nothing, “with me or against me” president. By his own declarations, Bush makes enemies of those who do not agree with him on everything. You can hardly blame that on liberal foolishness.\r
\r
Unless the left suddenly pulls their head out of their collective ass, get ready for another 5 years of Bush.\r
\r
I don’t deny that we might be in for another term under Bush, but I would attribute it more to public sleepwalking than liberal head-up-ass syndrome (although there is certainly plenty of that, too).\r
\r
The American people want to believe that Bush is right, because the alternative is downright mortifying.
Having taken a walk, dropped off some library books, had dinner, and taken a shower, I’ve had some time to think more about Zak’s assertion that it is no longer permissible to partially agree with Bush. The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that this is entirely Bush’s fault.\r
\r
Max Cleland makes a pretty good example. This Democrat strongly supported Bush’s position on the resolution authorizing war in Iraq, but he opposed the national missile defense system. Bush’s response? He campaigned hard against Cleland in the mid-term elections, regularly impugning his patriotism the whole time--and Cleland is a veteran who lost three of his four limbs in Vietnam in the service of his country! Apparently, Saxby Chambliss (who never served in the military) was more patriotic than a decorated veteran.\r
\r
Senator Landrieu knows how Cleland feels, for she, too, supported Bush--and he campaigned against her as hard as he could. Twice. In the mid-term election, and the run-off that followed, Bush hammered her repeatedly. Apparently, that’s how he repays his Democratic supporters. Unlike Cleland, however, she managed to survive Bush’s full frontal attacks and kept her seat in the Senate. Think she’s going to go out on a limb for Bush again?\r
\r
Hell, Bush even takes shots at people in his own party who don’t completely toe his line. Just ask Voinovich, Snowe, Coleman, or Chafee. And McCain, too, to a lesser extent. Oh, and Jeffords! Jim Jeffords left the GOP because he couldn’t stand Bush’s excessive pushiness anymore.\r
\r
People who oppose Bush’s agenda refuse to agree with him on anything because he will shoot you in the back, politically speaking, if you don’t obey his wishes on everything. You can’t give the guy even an inch, because he demands the whole mile.\r
\r
You can’t compromise with him, so you’ve just got to hope you can beat him. There are no other options--Bush won’t allow them.
Hmmm...I don’t agree with your reasoning. You are talking about people who are already Republicans or on the right in general who get punished for not toeing the party line. I know that happens.\r
\r
However, that is a different issue from people on the left and Democrats not allowing others on their side to pick and choose policies they agree and disagree with. \r
\r
In other words, it isn’t the fact that Bush does it that also makes lefties demand total ideological obedience to the party line. \r
\r
Behavior on the left is the responsibility of people on the left, not of Bush.
I don’t agree with your reasoning.\r
\r
Likewise, I don’t agree with yours. It is not the case that Democrats do not allow anyone to disagree, but rather that there is no point in agreeing with him at all if you don’t agree totally.
In fact, quite the opposite is true. The DLC is pushing the party to the right, trying to imitate Bush, because it feels that the national mood is shifting to the right. This is why the DLC praises Lieberman and despises Dean. Clearly you cannot assert that Democrats do not allow party members to agree with Bush--the folly of the party is that they try too hard to be like him and do not do an adequate job of drawing distinctions!
I’m not talking about political affiliation or support. I don’t support the Republicans anyway. It’s just about saying “Bush is wrong about most things, but right about X”, because that’s what I personally believe.\r
\r
Unfortunately, stating that in most left-of-center circles is likely to make you an apostate. \r
\r
If Bush mentioned off-handedly that his favorite color was Blue, you’d have people in Berkeley marching against the color the next day. That’s what I mean. \r
I’m not talking about political affiliation or support.\r
\r
\r
\r
Oh. Well, I’m sure you’ll excuse my misinterpretation of, “Democrats not allowing others on their side to pick and choose policies they agree and disagree with,” because that rather struck me as a statement about political affiliation.
\r
“Bush is wrong about most things, but right about X”, ... that’s what I personally believe.\r
\r
And, hey, I won’t fault you for it! But Bush would. He would run your ass over. Twice.
\r
Incidentally, which issue do you agree with Bush on? Iraq? If so, I agree that a solid pro-war argument could have been made, but Bush didn’t make the solid argument--he went for the emotional one, which now seems to have been a very poor choice.
I agree that Iraq was a good move. However, I think that there is a possibility Bush will fail on the follow-through, as he did in Afghanistan. \r
\r
For me, the WMD arguement is peripheral, so I was neither persuaded nor disuaded by what Bush said.
I agree that Iraq was a good move.\r
\r
Iraq could have been a good move, but I think Bush has, to a large extent, already failed on the follow-through. In almost every instance, short-term expediencies have overruled sound planning. A solid, long-term plan (which would have required being forthright with the American public about the obligations of occupation) would have obviated nearly all of the problems we are having now. It would have involved taking the time to persuade recalcitrant allies and build up a real coalition. Bush failed to do any of these things in his rush to get the war started.\r
\r
For me, the WMD arguement is peripheral...\r
\r
Ah, but the WMD were the “reason” for rushing into war! If it were not for the threat of WMD, Congress would have told Bush to cool it, build a case for regime change, and get a broad base of support for this adventure. It was only the threat of WMD that persuaded Congress to look the other way while Bush shafted his obligations to the U.N. and to international law.\r
\r
If not for the threat of immenent attack by “hundreds of tons of chemical weapons” and a “reconstituted nuclear program,” Bush would not have been able to rally an invasion quite so quickly. If not for WMD, what the hell was the rush? Saddam was effectively contained. He posed no immediate threat. We could have--and should have taken more time to plan our post-Saddam strategy.
Sako,\r
I basically agree with you, but a couple points: The success or failure of the Iraqi proposition is hardly a set thing yet. We won’t know for sure for another 5-10 years. \r
\r
Also, regardless of whether or not the Bush administration really thought that WMD’s were an “imminent threat”, the fact is that the nation never would have allowed war solely on the basis of removing Sadam from power for complex, vague geopolitical reasons, the kind of reasons I think make the best argument for the war. It simply never would have happened.
The success or failure of the Iraqi proposition is hardly a set thing yet. We won’t know for sure for another 5-10 years.\r
\r
You will acknowledge, I hope, that I made this same comment in your blog back in April.\r
\r
...the nation never would have allowed war solely on the basis of...the kind of reasons I think make the best argument for the war.\r
\r
You have to face the fact that some arguments are hard, perhaps even impossible, to sell to a free people. Democracy does not ensure that all the best decisions are made--it only ensures that those decisions represent the will of the people.\r
\r
If you cannot persuade the nation to go to war for the reasons you feel are the right ones, does that entitle you to make up a reason that you know everyone will go for?\r
\r
Of course not.
Well, there are competing ideas of democracy: letting the people dictate everything, or letting the people elect leaders who are then to be trusted to a certain extent. Obviously this is a delicate balance. \r
\r
For a much better examination of why I disagree with you on this point, see here.
Nope, not at all convinced by that argument. \r
\r
While correct in pointing out that elected leaders are trusted to make decisions that their constituents cannot be fully privy to, this position fails to note one incredibly obvious thing: In our system of government, the elected leaders we trust to make decisions about war work in the Congress, not the White House. The only reason Bush was authorized to wage this war is because he claimed to have solid intelligence about Iraq’s WMD. \r
\r
The Constitution does not allow the president to declare wars. This case was an exception--but only because of the WMD. \r
\r
While you might be right in claiming that you cannot share such information with all Americans, our government requires that you at least persuade Congress.
Good point!\r
\r
The last word on WMD’s, however, might be yet to be spoken.
Yes, that’s true, but it is now abundantly clear that Saddam Hussein was not an immediate threat--at least, not on the scale that would warrant a Congressional resolution authorizing extra-Constitutional powers for the president.\r
\r
Without that imminent threat, we are forced back to Square One.\r
\r
[Aside: We sure have come a long way from the topic of Amazon’s bestseller list, haven’t we?]
[Aside: We sure have come a long way from the topic of Amazon’s bestseller list, haven’t we?]\r
\r
I was going to say… and then noted you said it already.\r
\r
I was going to comment, I wonder if the book sales might not portend to an untapped radio and TV audience out there for the liberal perspective? Watch “Crossfire” and you’ll see that there are quite a few liberals making quite a bit of noise in the audience. With a few dozen right-wingers with their own, unshared pundit shows out there and none on the liberal side, I think that the networks are missing out on a possibly very large market.\r
Post a comment
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.