Rating: 
Summary: Destined to be a Classic
Review: This book should be required reading in freshman civics classes. I couldn't put it down! It's informative, well-documented, and timely. This book will be remembered as one of the best of the year. It will definitely be a classic.Observe the manner in which liberals criticize this book. The attacks are against the author, personally; they can't dispute the substance of the book's content.
Rating:
Summary: Useful perspective
Review: One could almost feel sorry for Liberals lately. What with the roasting they have taken from the likes of Coulter, Hannity and Goldberg, Mona Charen could be accused of piling on. However, this book takes a much longer perspective than the others on the erroneous thinking of Leftists, dating back to the end ofWWII. With copious documentation and quotations she offers predictions and assessments by politicians, the media, and academia which have proven by subsequent events to be totally wrong. By direct citations she walks us through the Cold War, nuclear disarmament movement, and Central American strife. In each instance the Left (including liberal Republicans) took a side which ultimately proved to be against both US interests and world order.
This is a serious study, with none of the uplifting humor of Coulter. But it is very clear and easily read. Dedicated Leftists should read it at their peril. Re-examination of one's deeply held beliefs can be painful.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent!
Review: This book makes a very good point that many liberals, when confronted with foreign policy, try to act like Jeanette Rankin incarnate--that is, opposition to military force at all costs. And I mean at ALL costs. It's like watching someone try to portray a hippie in a bad 60's cop show--and doing a pretty good job of it. The left is so quick to adopt anything contrary because,a ccording to them, nothing is wrong anymore, nothing immoral. But I would argue that failing your country in a time of war, providing support to confirmed enemies of the U.S., and turning a blind eye to the ATROCITIES of communist governments is wrong in ANY age! Peace and reason did not win the Cold War. Measured military build-up and tenacious foreign policy won the Cold War, no matter how much some people would like us to forget it. This book excels at reminding us of that fact. Oh, and isn't it fun watching Jane Fonda get old?
Rating: 
Summary: Old News
Review: "Useful Idiots" is simply a re-hash of what most informed Americans already know. I was dismayed that Charen seemed surprised that after all the evidence is presented, so-called "liberals" still blame America first and refuse to denounce the evils of Communism. What Charen doesn't, or refuses to realize, is the end goals of liberals and Communists are the same. Ann Coulter knows it and has outed the liberals in her books "Treason" and "Slander". Coulter's books are far superior to Charen's.
Rating: 
Summary: How many liberals would ever say "Tear down this wall"?
Review: Some people simply are unable to conceive of minds of men markedly different from themselves. The words are historian Robert Conquest's, but that's the substance of this book by Mona Charen; who provides example after example of people who project their psychological predispositions (to see themselves as inherently peaceful and well meaning) onto anyone showing the slightest indication of feeling similarly. Consequently, any conflict (because evil---by definition almost, does not exist) must be based on misunderstandings. That's why, for such folks, dialogue & negotiation are held so sacrosanct. In many ways it's an alternate religion even (which is convenient if you're an otherwise atheist too). That's why this quarter gives avowed revolutionaries passes on the means employed to achieve their self-pronounced "progressive" ends; and instinctively cautions against ever confronting such "progressives" with force. Even millions of deaths at the hands of such "progressives" do no give "The West" the right to intervene to "Play God", goes the refrain. Hence Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Kim il Sung, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, and the Sandinistas were all lauded by the Left; by outright Communists as well as by liberals who inclined in this direction. Miss Charen's book calls out by name these "Useful Idiots", useful to the cause of tyranny. Lenin called them idiots, it's his phrase; but he was glad to have the support of such dupes. It's not just Cold War history, however. Unfortunately, it's ever present what I wrote above, although now such dupes vociferously protest against any manner of intervention in Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Burma, or you name it. For some, the only country worth protesting is the USA. In other societies, such as those in continental Europe, it's a little easier to identify such dupes since they wear their colors on their sleeves there (as members of Socialist, Green, or Communist parties). In the USA it's harder to tell, at least until that is, such folks open their mouths. That's the benefit of Ms. Charen's book---a record of where those inclined to sympathize with Leftist ideology have stood on every issue since the end of the Second World War. If you need reminding of this, or believed that nonsense during the week of Reagan's funeral---when a slew of those who hated Reagan suddenly seemed inclined to admit that winning the "Cold War" was a communal effort that everyone supported---then I recommend you have a look at this book. Otherwise, you may want to consider some works a little more scholarly than this treatment. (For some books of interest herein take a look at my Amazon readers Guide: "So you'd like to drink up with the Leftists & get drunk on the Future." If my list isn't visible somewhere on this page, it can be accessed by clicking on my name.) Cheers!
Rating: 
Summary: Right-wing Pirates: How Neocons continue to Get It Wrong
Review: W.r.t. the theme of this monotonous screed, this bloviation, I'd sooner trust people of educational and financial background similar to mine, major newspaper reporters, than the author, a fatly paid speech writer for Nancy Reagan who now lives in luxury in northern Virginia. Of course, she sees much reporting as a threat to her position, because it comes from people closer to inconvenient facts than she is and who have less to lose from reporting them. Just assume it's all spin; who can you trust? People with basic life concerns similar to yours or people who make their money spinning for the rich? Even the Romans understood this: "cui bono" means "to whom the benefit?" Following is an example of the sort of reporting to which she so strongly objects:
From the Manchester Guardian, online, October 23, 2001, by George Monbiot, incidentally who also accuses the media of lying, not out of some inexplicable left-wing interest, but rather out of their own economic self-interest:
Here is a list of the countries that the U.S. has been at war with - and bombed - since the Second World War: China (1945-46, 1950-53), Korea (1950-53), Guatemala (1954, 1967-69), Indonesia (1958), Cuba (1959-60), the Belgian Congo (1964), Peru (1965), Laos (1964-73), Vietnam (1961-73), Cambodia (1969-70), Grenada (1983), Libya (1986), El Salvador (1980s), Nicaragua (1980s), Panama (1989), Iraq (1991-99), Bosnia (1995), Sudan (1998), Yugoslavia (1999), and now Afghanistan.
John Flynn * wrote in 1944: "The enemy aggressor is always pursuing a course of larceny, murder, rapine and barbarism. We are always moving forward with high mission, a destiny imposed by the Deity to regenerate our victims while incidentally capturing their markets, to civilise savage and senile and paranoid peoples while blundering accidentally into their oil wells."
Afghanistan has some oil and gas of its own, but not enough to qualify as a major strategic concern. Its northern neighbours, by contrast, contain reserves which could be critical to future global supply. In 1998, Dick Cheney, now US vice-president but then chief executive of a major oil services company, remarked: "I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian." But the oil and gas there is worthless until it is moved. The only route which makes both political and economic sense is through Afghanistan.
If the US succeeds in overthrowing the Taliban and replacing them with a stable and grateful pro-western government and if the US then binds the economies of central Asia to that of its ally Pakistan, it will have crushed not only terrorism, but also the growing ambitions of both Russia and China. Afghanistan, as ever, is the key to the western domination of Asia.
* Traditional liberal John T. Flynn (1882-1964) fought for limited government and noninterventionism against the rising tides of socialism and militarism, quoted from "As We Go Marching."
Of course since this was written, 2001, we've installed a pleasant enough fellow as president of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, a US oilman. He was formerly a top adviser to Unocal in California. Henry Kissinger also works for Unocal. Secretary of the Air Force under George Bush, Sr., Donald Rice, is on Unocal's board of directors. Doesn't Karzai remind anyone of Diem?
"Is there any man, is there any woman, let me say any child here," Woodrow Wilson asked a year after the First World War ended, "that does not know that the seed of war in the modern world is industrial and commercial rivalry?"
Rating: 
Summary: Mark Wiese provides proof of Mona's assertions
Review: I suppose I should be stunned to see such ample evidence of Mona Charen's assertions right here in the 'pages' of Amazon.com reviews. But there it is, for all to see (a review from mid-2004). I quote, briefly:
"I have to admit I have yet to read this particular title though I am compelled to avoid doing so in light of the "brillient" review it has been "givern" by the meticulously illiterate Paul Snow. I could be, probably justly, dubbed fastidious or pedantic for having the basic requirement of an inkling of understanding of the English language as a prequisite for myself paying any attention to a written review, but I don't think I am being overly demanding. I may have been quite willing to explore this particular title, but I have decided vehemently against doing so as a result of this Neanderthal's clear adoration for it.... As for Paul Snow's political views, I don't believe that there is any need for me to rebutt them..."
To summarize Mark's argument:
* He has not read Ms Charen's book.
* He is "compelled to avoid doing so" because of another reviewer's misspellings.
* He claims he only "pays any attention" to reviews that contain no spelling mistakes.
* Yet, again, he emphasizes the high accord he gives this other reviewer: he has allowed the "Neanderthal's" poor spelling to control his own actions.
* And then the coup de grace: Mark presumes such a lofty position of grandeur that he has no need to "rebutt" the review, let alone the book's arguments!
Wow. I wonder... why are Useful Idiots compelled to "butt in" like this? God help us if the Spelling Police are the only ones with a handle on Truth. If I had nothing valuable to say, I'd choose to "butt out" and keep quiet.
Personally, I much appreciated the book. And I think we all could use a little more humility, particularly those of us who have no apparent ability to rebut the facts.
Rating:
Summary: "Idiots" is too kind a word
Review: It's amazing how many of these political books you can read in a short period of time. I always like to take advantage of the lull holidays and breaks from school provide to read the latest offerings from pundits, syndicated columnists, and assorted conspiracy crackpots. The presidential election of 2004 seems to have brought forth a record number of these sorts of books from every point on the political spectrum. Mona Charen, whose face is quite familiar in these parts thanks to her syndicated column in the local newspaper, wrote "Useful Idiots: How Liberals Got It Wrong in the Cold War and Still Blame America First" to call attention to the American Left's absolute inability to oppose any evil threatening the United States. Actually, that last statement isn't entirely true: the American Left did eventually support taking action against German National Socialism in the 1940s. But since then they have persistently refused to assist this country in its battles against the forces of darkness. First, it was the Cold War against communism. Now, fears Charen, they are grumbling about prosecuting the war against Islamic terrorists in general and Al-Qaeda in particular. What else can we expect from people who used to wave Vietcong flags from rooftops?
"Useful Idiots," which is a phrase supposedly uttered by Lenin about western left-wingers, argues that many of the same people who fought tooth and nail to keep America from battling communist governments and pro-communist insurgencies from the 1960s to the 1980s are now claiming that they opposed Marxism from the start. Incredible, isn't it? Unfortunately for people like Jane Fonda, Phil Donahue, Peter Jennings, Dan Rather, Madeleine Albright, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, and Teddy Kennedy, Orwell's memory hole doesn't exist in this country yet. Their statements in support of appeasing the USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba, and all the rest of the communist hellholes are widely available in library archives. In the first few chapters of her book, Charen argues that it wasn't always this way with the Left. There was a consensus about what approach America should take regarding the rise of Marxist-Leninist states in the 1950s and early 1960s. Liberal presidents including Harry Truman, John Kennedy, and Lyndon Johnson advocated a strident anti-communism that was in many ways harsher than far right-wing hawks. Why did their attitudes change? Vietnam. The White House's failure to do whatever was necessary to win the war resulted in a high body count and an expansion of the draft.
From this point forward it's been nothing but a long litany of whining about American foreign policy, usually whining based on a secret sympathy for communist states and a hatred of the United States. Our refusal to support the South Vietnamese government after we pulled out led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands. When the Khmer Rouge began slaughtering millions in neighboring Cambodia a few years later, the Left blatantly ignored the human tragedy of the event and worked hard to insure the West would stay out of this emerging "paradise." On and on it goes, with Charen documenting each successive attempt by the useful idiots to prevent American intervention in states falling to the communist menace. New Soviet leaders like Andropov and Chernenko received the most fawning praise in the pages of the New York Times while the election of Ronald Reagan caused grave consternation. So convinced was the Left of Reagan's inherent evil that they spent most of the 1980s demanding reckless cuts in national defense despite evidence that the Soviet Union had no intention of suspending its arms buildup. The Left sung hymns of praise to the FMLN in El Salvador and the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua, truly believing that these murderous red thugs could do no wrong. No evidence of atrocities deterred them from their visions of utopia just as no action taken by the United States was ever seen as sincere and altruistic.
How bad did things get during this time? Consider this quote from fellow traveler and useful idiot of the highest caliber Suzanne Ross about the discovery that Cuba lobotomized most of their mental patients during a time when the rest of the civilized world condemned the practice: "We have to understand that there are differences between capitalist lobotomies and socialist lobotomies." How can you rationally argue with such fools? This statement would be funny if it wasn't so colossally sick. Charen concludes her book with another story about Cuba, the Elian Gonzalez brouhaha that captured the nation's attention several years ago. Amazingly, the Clinton administration and the leftist mouthpieces in the media insisted the boy return home to Cuba, a startling turn of events considering their unwavering support for every other form of immigration into the country. The reason, according to "Useful Idiots," revolves around the love the Left has for Uncle Fidel and his utopian paradise. Charen cites numerous statements from various media figures, and big names at that, professing their love for Castro's health care system, his educational system, and his big-hearted concern for children as proof that Elian should go home. Why are we even listening to these dolts anymore?
Charen's book ends, interestingly enough, on a point that David Horowitz takes up in his book "Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left," namely by posing a question about why the American Left offers the same support to Islamic terrorists that it did to communists. What I liked best about Charen's book is something she never overtly discusses: if the end of the Cold War proved the essential error of leftist arguments about restraining American foreign policy, why should we trust them now in the war on Islamic terrorists? Moreover, has the Left ever been right about anything related to foreign affairs? Maybe in the post-World War II era, but their track record from then to now can't withstand serious scrutiny.
Rating:
Summary: Reagan won the Cold War -- without their help
Review: By 'their help' I mean the help of the 'useful idiots' of Mona Charen's title. The phrase is Lenin's; the application is Charen's. And it's quite apt.
Charen, columnist/commentator and former speechwriter for Nancy Reagan, is loaded for bear and out to keep history from being rewritten. The ones doing the rewriting are those 'useful idiots', many of whom now want us to believe _they_ helped to win the Cold War.
Nuts, says Charen -- and she proves it by reminding us, in excruciating detail, just what these folks actually said and did during the Cold War era. Even if you remember a lot of this stuff (as I do), you'll appreciate the one-volume reminder -- and if you're in one of the generations following mine, you'll benefit even more directly.
(Or maybe not; apparently there are still people out there who take issue with Charen's views of Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs. Certainly after the Venona decrypts became public about ten years ago, there just hasn't been any question that at least Julius -- though _maybe_ not Ethel -- was a Soviet spy, and there's no serious doubt about Hiss. If Charen doesn't persuade you on these points, follow up with one of the several excellent books on the U.S. Army's Venona Project, or read Ann Coulter's discussion in _Treason_.)
At any rate, Charen's defense of unrewritten history is right on target. Communism has claimed the lives of some 100 million victims, and it's a little late for these 'useful idiots' to turn around and pretend they _really_ opposed it all along.
They didn't. In fact many of them regarded the U.S. and the Soviet Union as 'morally equivalent' (or, worse, blamed the U.S.) and urged dangerous policies that would have doomed this nation. (Don't misunderstand this as an unwillingness to criticize the U.S. or a tendency to dismiss all of its critics as traitors; Charen doesn't think the U.S. is above criticism and certainly doesn't think it's automatically unpatriotic e.g. to oppose a war.)
Nor is this purely a matter of historical interest. Those 'useful idiots' are still out there, blaming the U.S. for 9/11, treating our government as the 'moral equivalent' of al-Qaeda and/or the bloody regime of Saddam Hussein, and blocking effective American action at every step.
Charen's book stands just fine on its own terms, of course, but it also makes a nice companion volume to Coulter's aforementioned _Treason_.
Rating:
Summary: A 101 book
Review: This book will be a useful additional reading for a 101 course on Political Science, and - perhaps - for a course on American politics in an non-American universities. It gives a succint overview of a certain worldview in an important and influential sector of the American population. However, it does not provide much indepth analysis as to how such a worldview had arisen, or why apparently intelligent people would become willing "idiots".
On my part, I would just like to add two points: the first concerns the case of the Rosenbergs. The Venona decryption of signals from the Soviet Embassy in the late 40's, and which were only recently released into the public domain, had since confirmed that the Rosenbergs were indeed spies for the Soviet Union, and had played important roles in the stealing of atomic secrets. There is no question of their guilt. As to whether they should be condemned to death, that's a separate issue.
The second point I want to make is a personal one. I'm an Asian. My grandparents fled Communist China in 1949. My father had to deal with Vietnamese refugees - many of them ethnic Chinese expelled from Vietnam after 1975 - as a soldier. So, my family knows first hand what a menance Communism is. It still amazes me how some intellegent individuals in the West would use Communism (or socialism) almost as a shorthand for a utopian future for third world countries. Those they supposedly sympathise with and speak out for, certainly do not agree with their viewpoints. We are always quite clear that Communism was a grave danger to our own well being.
|
