Download Ain't My America: The Long, Noble History of Antiwar Conservatism and Middle-American Anti-Imperialism, by Bill Kauffman
Be the very first to download this publication Ain't My America: The Long, Noble History Of Antiwar Conservatism And Middle-American Anti-Imperialism, By Bill Kauffman as well as allow checked out by surface. It is really easy to review this publication Ain't My America: The Long, Noble History Of Antiwar Conservatism And Middle-American Anti-Imperialism, By Bill Kauffman since you don't have to bring this printed Ain't My America: The Long, Noble History Of Antiwar Conservatism And Middle-American Anti-Imperialism, By Bill Kauffman all over. Your soft documents book could be in our kitchen appliance or computer so you can delight in reviewing all over and also every time if required. This is why lots numbers of individuals likewise check out guides Ain't My America: The Long, Noble History Of Antiwar Conservatism And Middle-American Anti-Imperialism, By Bill Kauffman in soft fie by downloading the book. So, be one of them who take all benefits of reviewing guide Ain't My America: The Long, Noble History Of Antiwar Conservatism And Middle-American Anti-Imperialism, By Bill Kauffman by on-line or on your soft documents system.
Ain't My America: The Long, Noble History of Antiwar Conservatism and Middle-American Anti-Imperialism, by Bill Kauffman
Download Ain't My America: The Long, Noble History of Antiwar Conservatism and Middle-American Anti-Imperialism, by Bill Kauffman
Ain't My America: The Long, Noble History Of Antiwar Conservatism And Middle-American Anti-Imperialism, By Bill Kauffman. In undertaking this life, several individuals always attempt to do as well as obtain the very best. New understanding, encounter, lesson, as well as everything that can boost the life will be done. Nonetheless, many individuals sometimes really feel puzzled to obtain those points. Really feeling the restricted of experience as well as resources to be much better is one of the does not have to own. However, there is a really straightforward point that can be done. This is just what your teacher constantly manoeuvres you to do this. Yeah, reading is the response. Checking out an e-book as this Ain't My America: The Long, Noble History Of Antiwar Conservatism And Middle-American Anti-Imperialism, By Bill Kauffman and various other references could enhance your life high quality. Exactly how can it be?
As one of the home window to open the new world, this Ain't My America: The Long, Noble History Of Antiwar Conservatism And Middle-American Anti-Imperialism, By Bill Kauffman provides its incredible writing from the writer. Published in one of the preferred publishers, this book Ain't My America: The Long, Noble History Of Antiwar Conservatism And Middle-American Anti-Imperialism, By Bill Kauffman turneds into one of one of the most needed publications lately. In fact, guide will not matter if that Ain't My America: The Long, Noble History Of Antiwar Conservatism And Middle-American Anti-Imperialism, By Bill Kauffman is a best seller or not. Every book will certainly always offer best resources to obtain the viewers all finest.
Nonetheless, some people will seek for the best seller publication to read as the initial reference. This is why; this Ain't My America: The Long, Noble History Of Antiwar Conservatism And Middle-American Anti-Imperialism, By Bill Kauffman exists to satisfy your need. Some individuals like reading this publication Ain't My America: The Long, Noble History Of Antiwar Conservatism And Middle-American Anti-Imperialism, By Bill Kauffman due to this prominent book, but some love this due to preferred author. Or, numerous also like reading this publication Ain't My America: The Long, Noble History Of Antiwar Conservatism And Middle-American Anti-Imperialism, By Bill Kauffman because they really have to read this book. It can be the one that truly love reading.
In getting this Ain't My America: The Long, Noble History Of Antiwar Conservatism And Middle-American Anti-Imperialism, By Bill Kauffman, you might not always go by walking or using your electric motors to guide establishments. Obtain the queuing, under the rain or warm light, as well as still search for the unknown book to be in that publication store. By visiting this web page, you could only hunt for the Ain't My America: The Long, Noble History Of Antiwar Conservatism And Middle-American Anti-Imperialism, By Bill Kauffman and also you could locate it. So currently, this time around is for you to opt for the download link and also acquisition Ain't My America: The Long, Noble History Of Antiwar Conservatism And Middle-American Anti-Imperialism, By Bill Kauffman as your own soft data publication. You could read this publication Ain't My America: The Long, Noble History Of Antiwar Conservatism And Middle-American Anti-Imperialism, By Bill Kauffman in soft data only as well as save it as all yours. So, you do not need to fast place guide Ain't My America: The Long, Noble History Of Antiwar Conservatism And Middle-American Anti-Imperialism, By Bill Kauffman right into your bag anywhere.
From "the finest literary stylist of the American right," a surprising and spirited account of how true conservatives have always been antiwar and anti-empire (Allan Carlson, author of The American Way) Conservatives love war, empire, and the military-industrial complex. They abhor peace, the sole and rightful property of liberals. Right? Wrong.
As Bill Kauffman makes clear, true conservatives have always resisted the imperial and military impulse: it drains the treasury, curtails domestic liberties, breaks down families, and vulgarizes culture. From the Federalists who opposed the War of 1812, to the striving of Robert Taft (known as "Mr. Republican") to keep the United States out of Korea, to the latter-day libertarian critics of the Iraq war, there has historically been nothing freakish, cowardly, or even unusual about antiwar activists on the political right. And while these critics of U.S. military crusades have been vilified by the party of George W. Bush, their conservative vision of a peaceful, decentralized, and noninterventionist America gives us a glimpse of the country we could have had--and might yet attain.
Passionate and witty, Ain't My America is an eye-opening exploration of the forgotten history of right-wing peace movements--and a clarion manifesto for antiwar conservatives of today.
- Sales Rank: #1152784 in Books
- Brand: Brand: Metropolitan Books
- Published on: 2008-04-15
- Released on: 2008-04-15
- Original language: English
- Number of items: 1
- Dimensions: 8.37" h x 1.16" w x 6.18" l, .91 pounds
- Binding: Hardcover
- 304 pages
- Used Book in Good Condition
Review
"Here begins the effort to restore a principled conservatism after the havoc wreaked by George W. Bush. Bill Kauffman is a terrific writer and Ain't My America is a terrific—and essential—book."—Andrew J. Bacevich, author of The New American Militarism
"This is my kind of book: historically grounded, fiercely honest, and wonderfully expressed. It is one of the best books I’ve read in years. Bill Kauffman is a conservative of the highest order, unlike the false brand now conducting our national affairs."—George McGovern
"You don't have to be a liberal, a progressive, or a socialist to oppose war and imperialism. Bill Kauffman's Ain't My America is a must read for those free-marketers, right wingers and conservatives who want to live in peace with the world. Regardless of your politics, if you are against wars of aggression and would like to try something other than bombing our way out of our problems, you will profit from this lively book."—Nicholas von Hoffman, author of Hoax: Why Americans are Suckered by White House Lies
"For those who have been neoconned into believing that conservatism means unquestioned support for the warfare state, Ain’t My America is the perfect way to show that real conservatives defend peace and liberty."—Ron Paul
About the Author
Bill Kauffman is the author of six books, most recently Look Homeward America (named one of the best books of 2006 by the American Library Association) and America First. (Dispatches from the Muckdog Gazette, 2004, is available from Picador in paperback.) Kauffman has written for The Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, and The American Conservative, among other publications. He lives in upstate New York with his family.
Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.
Introduction
Left stands for peace, right for war; liberals are pacific, conservatives are bellicose. Or so one might conclude after surveying the dismal landscape of the American Right in the Age of Bush II.
Yet there is a long and honorable (if largely hidden) tradition of antiwar thought and action among the American Right. It stretches from ruffle-shirted Federalists who opposed the War of 1812 and civic-minded mugwump critics of the Spanish-American War on up through the midwestern isolationists who formed the backbone of the pre–World War II America First Committee and the conservative Republicans who voted against U.S. involvement in NATO, the Korean conflict, and Vietnam. And although they are barely audible amid the belligerent clamor of today’s shock-and-awe Right, libertarians and old-fashioned traditionalist conservatives are among the sharpest critics of the Iraq War and the imperial project of the Bush Republicans.
Derided as isolationists—which, as that patriot of the Old Republic Gore Vidal has noted, means simply people who “want no part of foreign wars” and who “want to be allowed to live their own lives without interference from government”1—the antiwar Right has put forth a critique of foreign intervention that is at once gimlet-eyed, idealistic, historically grounded, and dyed deeply in the American grain. Just because Bush, Rush, and Fox are ignorant of history doesn’t mean authentic conservatives have to swallow the profoundly un-American American Empire.
Rooted in the Farewell Address of George Washington, informing such conservative-tinged antiwar movements as the Anti-Imperialist League, which said no to U.S. colonialism in the Philippines, finding poignant and prescient expression in the extraordinary valediction in which President Dwight Eisenhower warned his countrymen against the “military-industrial complex,” the conservative case against American Empire and militarism remains forceful and relevant. It is no museum piece, no artifact as inutile as it is quaint. It is plangent, wise, and deserving of revival. But before it can be revived, it must be disinterred.
A note, first, on taxonomy. To label is to libel, or at least to divest the subject of individuating contradictions and qualifications. I have found that the most interesting American political figures cannot be squeezed into the constricted and lifeless pens of liberal or conservative. Nor do I accept the simpleminded division of our lovely and variegated country into red and blue, for to paint Colorado, Kansas, and Alabama requires every color in the spectrum. Right and Left have outlived their usefulness as taxonomic distinctions. They’re closer to prisons from which no thought can escape.
Yet the terms are as ubiquitous as good and evil, and in fact many on the Right do think, Latinately, of their side as dexterous and the Left as sinister. I say it’s time for a little ambidexterity. So my “Right” is capacious enough to include Jeffersonian libertarians and Jefferson-hating Federalists, Senators Robert Taft and George McGovern (yes, yes; give me a chance), dirt-farm southern populists and Beacon Streeters who take hauteur with their tea and jam, cranky Nebraska tax cutters and eccentric Michigan tellers of ghostly tales, little old ladies in tennis shoes marching against the United Nations and free-market economists protesting the draft. My subjects are, in the main, suspicious of state power, crusades, bureaucracy, and a modernity that is armed and dangerous. They are anti-expansion, pro-particularism, and so genuinely “conservative”—that is, cherishing of the verities, of home and hearth and family—as to make them mortal (immortal?) enemies of today’s neoconservatives.
Above all, they have feared empire, whose properties were enumerated well by the doubly pen-named Garet Garrett: novelist, exponent of free enterprise and individualism, and a once-reliable if unspectacular stable horse for the Saturday Evening Post. Writing in 1953, he set down a quintet of imperial requisites.
1. The executive power of the government shall be dominant.
2. Domestic policy becomes subordinate to foreign policy.
3. Ascendancy of the military mind, to such a point at last that the civilian mind is intimidated.
4. A system of satellite nations.
5. A complex of vaunting and fear.2
Between “Constitutional, representative, limited government, on the one hand, and Empire on the other hand, there is mortal enmity,”3 wrote Garrett, who did not burst with confidence that the former would vanquish the latter. He wrote in the final days of the Truman administration. The executive bestrode the U.S. polity. Militarism and the cult of bigness held sway. The blood rivers of Europe had yet to run dry. More than fifty thousand American boys had died—for what?—on the Korean peninsula. Truman had refused to obtain from Congress a formal declaration of war; future presidents would follow suit. The dark night of Cold War was upon us. This was what our forebears had warned against.
Why did these men (and later women) of the “Right” oppose expansion, war, and empire? And, in contemporary America, where have all the followers gone?
From the Republic’s beginning, Americans of conservative temperament have been skeptical of manifest destiny and crusades for democracy. They have agreed with Daniel Webster that “there must be some limit to the extent of our territory, if we are to make our institutions permanent. The Government is very likely to be endangered . . . by a further enlargement of its already vast territorial surface.”4 Is it really worth trading in the Republic for southwestern scrubland? Webster’s point was remade, just as futilely, by the Anti-Imperialist League. It was repeated by those conservatives who supplied virtually the only opposition to the admission of Hawaii and Alaska to the Union. As the Texas Democrat Kenneth M. Regan told the House when he vainly argued against stitching a forty-ninth star on the flag, “I fear for the future of the country if we start taking in areas far from our own shores that we will have to protect with our money, our guns, and our men, instead of staying here and looking after the heritage we were left by George Washington, who told us to beware of any foreign entanglements.”5
Expansion was madness. John Greenleaf Whittier compared its advocates to hashish smokers.
The man of peace, about whose dreams
The sweet millennial angels cluster,
Tastes the mad weed, and plots and schemes,
A raving Cuban filibuster!6
George W. Bush, it is rumored, preferred coke to hash, but his utopian vision of an American behemoth splayed across the globe would be, to conservatives of eras past, a hideous nightmare.
Robert Nisbet, the social critic who was among the wisest and most laureled of American conservatives, wrote in his coruscant Conservatism: Dream and Reality (1986): “Of all the misascriptions of the word ‘conservative’ during the last four years, the most amusing, in an historical light, is surely the application of ‘conservative’ to the [budget-busting enthusiasts for great increases in military expenditures]. For in America throughout the twentieth century, and including four substantial wars abroad, conservatives had been steadfastly the voices of non-inflationary military budgets, and of an emphasis on trade in the world instead of American nationalism. In the two World Wars, in Korea, and in Viet Nam, the leaders of American entry into war were such renowned liberal-progressives as Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy. In all four episodes conservatives, both in the national government and in the rank and file, were largely hostile to intervention.”7
In the two decades since Nisbet’s observation the historical amnesia has descended into a kind of belligerent nescience. Today’s self-identified conservatives loathe, detest, and slander any temerarious soul who speaks for peace. FDR and Truman join Ronald Reagan in the trinity of favorite presidents of the contemporary Right; those atavistic Old Rightists who harbor doubts about U.S. entry into the world wars or our Asian imbroglios (scripted, launched, and propagandized for by liberal Democrats) are dismissed as cranks or worse. Vice President Dick Cheney, lamenting the August 2006 primary defeat of the Scoop Jackson Democratic senator Joseph Lieberman, charged that the Democrats wanted to “retreat behind our oceans”8—which an earlier generation of peace-minded Republicans had considered a virtuous policy consistent with George Washington’s adjuration to avoid entanglements and alliances with foreign nations.
Felix Morley, the Washington Post editorialist who would have been a top foreign-policy official in the Robert Taft administration, wrote in 1959: “Every war in which the United States has engaged since 1815 was waged in the name of democracy. Each has contributed to that centralization of power which tends to destroy that local self-government which is what most Americans have in mind when they acclaim democracy.”9 Alas, Dick Cheney, the draft-dodging hawk, the anti-gay-marriage grandfather of a tribade-baby, is not an irony man.
I will consider the anti-expansionists of the early Republic in the first chapter. My focus in this book, however, is on “conservative” anti-imperialists of the twentieth century—the American Century, as that rootless son of missionaries Henry Luce dubbed it. The men and women whom I shall profile regarded Lucian expansion, conquest, and war—whether in the Philippines in 1900 or Vietnam in 1968—as profoundly un-American, even anti-American. The American Century, alas, did not belong to the likes of Moorfield Storey, Murray Rothbard, or Russell Kirk. But the American soul does.
These brave men and women also insisted, in the face of obloquy and smears, that dissent is a patriotic imperative. For questioning the drive to war in 1941, Charles Lindbergh would be called a Nazi by the FDR hatchet man Harold Ickes, and for challenging the constitutionality of Harry Truman’s Korean conflict, Senator Robert Taft would be slandered as a commie symp by The New Republic. Patrick J. Buchanan would be libeled as an anti-Semite for noting the role that Israel’s supporters played in driving the United States into the two (the first two?) invasions of Iraq, and the full range of anti–Iraq War right-wingers would be condemned as “unpatriotic conservatives” by National Review in April 2003. Same as it ever was. As Senator Taft lamented in January 1951 during the brief but illuminating “Great Debate” over Korea and NATO strategy between hawkish liberal Democrats and peace-minded conservative Republicans, “Criticisms are met by the calling of names rather than by intelligent debate.”10
In pre-imperial America, conservatives objected to war and empire out of jealous regard for personal liberties, a balanced budget, the free enterprise system, and federalism. These concerns came together under the umbrella of the badly misunderstood America First Committee, the largest popular antiwar organization in U.S. history. The AFC was formed in 1940 to keep the United States out of a second European war that many Americans feared would be a repeat of the first. Numbering eight hundred thousand members who ranged from populist to patrician, from Main Street Republican to prairie socialist, America First embodied and acted upon George Washington’s Farewell Address counsel to pursue a foreign policy of neutrality.
As the America Firsters discovered, protesting war is a lousy career move. Dissenters are at best calumniated, at worst thrown in jail: for standing against foreign wars and the drive thereto Eugene V. Debs was imprisoned (World War I), Martin Luther King Jr. was painted red and spied upon (Vietnam War), and those who have spoken and acted against the Bush-Cheney Iraq War have been subject to a drearily predictable array of insults and indignities.
It has long been so. Edgar Lee Masters, the Spoon River Anthology poet and states’-rights Democrat who threw away his career by writing a splenetic biography of Abraham Lincoln decrying Honest Abe as a guileful empire builder, recalled of the Spanish-American War: “There was great opposition to the war over the country, but at that time an American was permitted to speak out against a war if he chose to do so.”11 Masters had lived through the frenzied persecutions of antiwar dissidents under the liberal Democrat Woodrow Wilson. He had little patience with gilded platitudes about wars for human rights and the betterment of the species. He knew that war meant death and taxes, those proverbial inevitabilities that become shining virtues in the fog of martial propaganda. Masters, in the argot of today’s war party and its publicists, was a traitor, a cringing treasonous abettor of America’s (and freedom’s!) enemies.
Yet Masters and his ilk were American to the core, and the antiwar Middle Americanism they represented has never really gone away. It surfaced even during Vietnam, that showpiece war of the best and brightest establishment liberal Democrats. Although most conservative Republicans were gung-ho on Vietnam, discarding their erstwhile preference for limited constitutional government, the right-wing antiwar banner was carried by such libertarians as Murray Rothbard (who sought, creatively, to fuse Old Right with New Left in an antiwar popular front) and the penny-pinching Iowa Republican congressman H. R. Gross, who said nay to the war on the simple if not wholly adequate grounds that it cost too much.
The Iraq wars of the Presidents Bush have rekindled the old antiwar spirit of the Right, though it is easy to miss in the glare of the bombs bursting in the Mesopotamian air. Indeed, Bush Republicans and pro-war Democrats have fretted mightily over recent surveys from the Council on Foreign Relations showing that the American people are reverting to—horrors!—isolationism, which the CFR defines invidiously as a hostility toward foreigners but which I see as a wholesome, pacific, and very American reluctance to intervene in the political and military quarrels of other nations.
The old American isolationism endures, despite the slurs, despite its utter absence within the corridors of power. President George W. Bush, as messianically interventionist a chief executive as we have ever endured, took out after the bogeyman in his 2006 State of the Union address: “Our enemies and our friends can be certain: The United States will not retreat from the world, and we will never surrender to evil. America rejects the false comfort of isolationism.”12 And America, or rather its masters, chooses the bloody road of expansion and war.
The men who write the words that thud from Bush’s mouth felt compelled to rebuke nameless isolationists because, as a Pew Research Center survey of October 2005 found, 42 percent of Americans agreed that the U.S. “should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own.” As a Pew press release noted, over the last forty years “only in 1976 and 1995 did public opinion tilt this far toward isolationism.”
Democrats were “twice as likely as Republicans to say the U.S. should mind its own business internationally,” a sign of just how successful Bush and the neoconservatives have been in reshaping the GOP mind, as it were. (A decade earlier, Pew found no substantial difference in isolationist attitudes among Republican and Democratic partisans.)
Despite the Wilsonian tattoo issuing from the White House and repeated assertions that the U.S. military is constructing a democratic Middle East, Pew found that “promoting democracy in other nations” comes in dead last in the foreign-policy priorities of Americans. Only 24 percent of respondents affirmed that goal, as compared to 84 percent who favored “protecting jobs of American workers” and 51 percent who placed “reducing illegal immigration” atop their list.13 These latter two are classic themes of the isolationist Right, as embedded, for instance, in the presidential campaigns of Patrick J. Buchanan.
There is nothing freakish, cowardly, or even anomalous about these Middle Americans who are turning against foreign war. They are acting in the best traditions of their forebears. But those forebears have been disgracefully forgotten. The history of right-wing (or decentralist, or small-government, or even Republican) hostility to militarism and empire is piteously underknown. The traditions are unremembered. Which is where this book comes in.
The Bush-whacked Right is incorrigibly ignorant of previous “Rights.” For all they know, Robert Taft may as well be Che Guevara. Yet there is a good deal of subsurface grumbling by the Right, among Republican operatives (who understand the potential of an anti-interventionist electoral wave); D.C.-based movement-conservatives, who recall that in the dim mists of time they once spoke of limited government as a desideratum; and at the grassroots level, where once more folks are asking the never-answered question of the isolationists: why in hell are we over there?
Bill Clinton lamented after his 1997 State of the Union address, “It’s hard when you’re not threatened by a foreign enemy to whip people up to a fever pitch of common, intense, sustained, disciplined endeavor.”14 Old-style conservatives would deny that this is ever a legitimate function of the central state. “Sustained, disciplined endeavor” driven by a populace at “fever pitch” and organized by a central state is fascistic. It ill befits the country of Ken Kesey and Bob Dylan and Johnny Appleseed. It sure as hell ain’t my America.
I should own up to my own biases. I belong to no political camp: my politics are localist, decentralist, Jeffersonian. I am an American rebel, a Main Street bohemian, a rural Christian pacifist. I have strong libertarian and traditionalist conservative streaks. I am in many ways an anarchist, though a front-porch anarchist, a chestnut-tree anarchist, a girls-softball-coach anarchist. My politics are a kind of mixture of Dorothy Day and Henry David Thoreau, though with an upstate New York twist. I voted for Nader in 2004 and Buchanan in 2000: the peace candidates. I often vote Libertarian and Green. I am a freeborn American with the blood of Crazy Horse, Zora Neale Hurston, and Jack Kerouac flowing in my veins. My heart is with the provincial and with small places, and it is from this intense localism that my own isolationist, antiwar sympathies derive. I misfit the straitjackets designed by Fox News and the New York Times. So does any American worth the name.
You can have your hometown or you can have the empire. You can’t have both. And the tragedy of modern conservatism is that the ideologues, the screamers over the airwaves, the apparatchiks in their Beltway viper’s den, have convinced the Barcalounger-reclining National Review reader that one must always and forever subordinate one’s place, one’s neighborhood, whether natal ground or beloved adopted block, to the empire.
It isn’t true! It never has been true. There is nothing conservative about the American Empire. It seeks to destroy—which is why good American conservatives, those loyal to family and home and neighborhood and our best traditions, should wish, and work toward, its peaceful destruction. We have nothing to lose but the chains and taxes of empire. And we have a country to regain.
Copyright © 2008 by Bill Kauffman. All rights reserved.
Most helpful customer reviews
34 of 37 people found the following review helpful.
Awesome apologetic and manifesto
By Andrew S. Rogers
When I look over my old reviews on Amazon.com, I notice that I've given a lot of books four or five stars. On the one hand, it makes sense -- if a book's no good, I'm seldom inclined even to finish it, let alone write a review of it. But this creates the problem of what do I do when a book comes along that really merits the highest possible rating? So let me say here that the only reason I am giving "Ain't My America" five stars is because I can't give it six or even seven.
I wish I'd written this book.
"Ain't My America" is not simply one of the number of books coming out these days calling on the GOP to resuscitate its ancient dedication to peace, economy, and small government. Admirable as those books are, "Ain't My America" has a much larger scope, and Bill Kauffman a much more ambitious brief: the dismantling of empire, the rediscovery of community, and the rebirth of the patriotism of home, family, and locality.
It's, frankly, an unfamiliar and at times uncomfortable message. As the son of a navy family, I found myself strangely moved by Kauffman's description of the toll the unrooted military-family lifestyle has on marriages and children -- and while I admit to never having quite thought of it this way before, I find myself in absolute agreement with his contention that "family-values conservatives" should be the strongest opponents of war and militarism, precisely because of the impact those forces have on families and children. Once you accept that, it's hard to deny the author's contention that George W. Bush "is, by policy, the most antifamily president in American history" (p. 216).
And that's just one of the powerful arguments Kauffman presents. It definitely makes we want to track down his other books at the earliest opportunity. So too does his impressive skill as a writer. I particularly enjoyed his facility with the unusual vocabulary word -- though I noted with some disappointment that the flair for this he showed in the introduction and early chapters dissipated somewhat as the book progressed. Souvenirs I carry with me from the first few pages alone include "nescience," "temerarious," "gleet," "omnifariousness," "atrabilious," and "mingy," plus "fossicking about in tramontane sinkholes" and the frankly delightful "the dashing if dotty Samuel F.B. Morse."
As "conservative" pundits and politicians bang the war drums and sing songs in praise of empire, I've been wondering more and more if they would still love America if we weren't a -- even the -- global powerhouse. I suspect they would not, and that Bill Kauffman's vision of a "little America" is one they not only couldn't accept, they might not even be able to imagine it. It ain't their America. But more and more, "unrooted" as I admit to being, I'm coming to think it's mine.
18 of 19 people found the following review helpful.
Superb, essential, enlightening
By Manfred Arcane
Bill Kauffman's new book is a superb, essential and enlightening look at the noble tradition of skepticism and criticism on the American Right of predatory war and imperialism over two centuries of American history. Kauffman is a lively and entertaining writer sure to enrage many with his well-informed and researched jeremiads (especially his prescription on Texas!). This is a much needed, bracing correction to the spirit of the age, where there are three remaining presidential candidates in May 2008 and all three are unashamed, warmongering interventionists (especially the "conservative" McCain).
I loved this book and am amazed at the quality and prolific nature of this writer, what do they put in the water in Batavia? A minor quibble would be parts of chapter five. While interesting and well written, the criticism of space program (certainly a major budgetary boondoggle) doesn't quite seem to fit the overall theme of the book.
I feel that I have been introduced to a whole new crew of All-American heroes. I knew something about the eccentric John Randolph of Roanoke, but have a newfound respect for the portly anti-colonialist Grover Cleveland and, who would have thought it, the much maligned George McGovern.
15 of 16 people found the following review helpful.
Celebrating the forgotten road
By Earth that Was
Bill Kauffman in "Ain't My America" has delivered an informative, entertaining and passionate tour through almost two hundred years worth of American conservative and middle class anti-militarism and anti-imperialism. This is a tradition that much of modern left and right would rather forget but Kauffman celebrates it.
The historian James Martin was once interviewed. Although usually labelled a 'revisionist' Martin preferred to see himself as an 'additionist', remembering what the other books leave out. Kauffman too has delivered a worthy additionist effort.
This is a passionately partisan and in many ways joyous book. Kauffman introduces a grand selection of characters, not all, but most of them heroic, making a stand for peace and the defense of the old constitutional republic against the many faces of Mars.
Kauffman's shows the great western tradition of American neutralism that crosses party and generational boundaries. George McGovern (Dem.) of South Dakota and North Dakota's Senator Nye (Rep.), the pre-WW2 champion of the Neutrality Acts, both share common roots deep in the American heartland. He explores the careers of Robert Taft and Howard Buffett, of Students for a Democratic Society's Carl Oglesby (who dreamed of a New Left / Old Right alliance against the Vietnam War, before the Marxists threw him out), the Anti-Imperialist League of the late 19th century and Bob Dylan, amongst a phalanx of antiwar artists and writers, more often than not agrarians. He reminds us of the antiwar writings of Robert Nisbet, perhaps postwar America's leading sociologist, certainly leading conservative sociologist, who penned a radical critique of the impact of war as the progenitor of many of the ills of modern society. And he gives exposure to the great postwar critic, Felix Morley, as well as William Appleman Williams.
Kauffman's writing style owes much to the gonzo style and "Rolling Stone" than academe, however his book is lovingly researched and sufficiently referenced to allow interested readers to dig into more conventional scholarly works and original authors on their own.
The tradition Kauffman embraces is actually too large to fit into a single volume. He doesn't explore the great polemic against the arms trade H.C. Engelbrecht and F.C. Hanighen's "The Merchants of Death" that was influential post-WW1 or how Hanighen went on to edit the conservative digest "Human Events". He doesn't explore early and perceptive critiques of the Vietnam War by right wing conspiracy theorist Dan Smoot, Oswald Garrison Villard (who helped found the NAACP) nor the work of the writer Louis Bromfield, an right wing isolationist who (unusually) regulary rubbed shoulders with the Hollywood set in the forties . Still Kauffman has done a remarkable job for one volume.
My main complaint is small. As someone who reads on my daily commute that the chapters do sometimes seem a tad long, I would have preferred more and shorter chapters. Highly recommended.
Ain't My America: The Long, Noble History of Antiwar Conservatism and Middle-American Anti-Imperialism, by Bill Kauffman PDF
Ain't My America: The Long, Noble History of Antiwar Conservatism and Middle-American Anti-Imperialism, by Bill Kauffman EPub
Ain't My America: The Long, Noble History of Antiwar Conservatism and Middle-American Anti-Imperialism, by Bill Kauffman Doc
Ain't My America: The Long, Noble History of Antiwar Conservatism and Middle-American Anti-Imperialism, by Bill Kauffman iBooks
Ain't My America: The Long, Noble History of Antiwar Conservatism and Middle-American Anti-Imperialism, by Bill Kauffman rtf
Ain't My America: The Long, Noble History of Antiwar Conservatism and Middle-American Anti-Imperialism, by Bill Kauffman Mobipocket
Ain't My America: The Long, Noble History of Antiwar Conservatism and Middle-American Anti-Imperialism, by Bill Kauffman Kindle
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar