Rating: 
Summary: The banality of sleaze
Review: Those who are Republican apologist may condemn this book, although they would have little direct evidence to discredit much of its analysis. Simply put, Brock became a conservative Republican after witnessing the intolerance of politically correct students shouting down Conservative speakers at University symposia, among them Fitzpatrick and Kissenger. He decided to get even with a vengeance. However, I believe the title of the book is rather a misnomer. It should be titled "Blinded by my own Poor Judgment"; yes, and that judgment was Brock's. After publishing an attack on Anita Hill, a more even-handed book on Hillary, Brock began to see the hypocricy of long time Clinton-haters. As Brock said, there might not have been a "VAST" right-wing conspiracy against Clinton, but there was a conspiracy that operated for years among conservatives with monetary and public-opinion influence. Once Brock, a gay man, saw the affairs, drunkenness, back-stabbing, the large constituency of "closeted" gay people in the Republican hierarchy, and the shear hatefulness of many on the right, he got turned off. What struck me most was the shear ineptitude and banality of the right-wing players. I teach in a university and my college freshman sound much more prescient and knowledgeable than the host of attorneys, media mavens, "monied" elite that poured money into conservative "think tanks." The book actually helped me realize that the term "conservative think tank" is an oxymoron. The language directly quoted by the author of many righteous Republicans is not worthy of a street fight, and their tactics much less fair. Hopefully this book will do the simple job of showing the conservative right has no clothes (literally and figuratively). My attitude was a disinterested one when I began the book; but its portrait of the sleazy characters who inhabit the right-wing speaks for itself. No need to interpret; just read what they said. The current political/economic scene, ie., summer 2002 demonstrates I believe that the new right has no ideas, just anger. As James Baldwin stated, "Anger ultimately does most damage to the one who hates." So, the piteous quality of the right does shine through, although they would never admit or consider themselves in that light. But as the song goes "De Nile just ain't a river in Egypt."
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent
Review: It is hard to add more to the long list of reviews here, but I'll try. This book does a good job of exposing the underbelly of the conservative right. Man, it can get ugly down there! Brock's unflinching story does not pull any punches and he names all the names. Get the book and read it, it is quite a page-turner. You'll either love it or hate it, but either way you'll have a strong reaction to it. This shwos how the dirty politics games works.
Rating:
Summary: He confessed all the way to the bank
Review: First, the content of the book. My first response is that those to whom the author refers, the right wing political figures too many to name (Limbaugh, Moon, Gingrich, Thomas, Starr, and a several other names come up frequently) the foundations who funded them and their sponsors, and the "journalists" should be prosecuted. While I'm not an avid Clintonphile, I do believe there were people out to get Bill Clinton even before he was sworn in and Brock confirmed that, almost in those words. So these right wing activists put their own ideological needs before those of the country. Their depth of hypocrisy, doing that while declaring "patriotism," is unforgivable. I wish them all the worst. Brock covers--or rationalizes--his conversion to the right. He ended up at Berkeley and was quickly turned off by the inflexibility of the politically correct left. So he swung to the right (who, he later realized, were immeasurably more doctrinaire than the Berkeley left!) Okay. In some ways, I've done the same, though much more moderately and over a period of 30 years, not a few weeks. He relocated to no other place than Washington, DC, wrote for Rev. Moon's "Times"--while realizing that it was simply an ideological tool--and developed a reputation among right wing circles. He was a regular columnist for the "American Spectator, a kind of right wing "Tass," and eventually wrote rubbish like "The Real Anita Hill," while acknowledging, in retrospect at least, that it was of dubious credibility. He continued to grow in those circles. Eventually he came out of the closet; a gay guy among some of the most rabid gay bashers in recent history. He acknowledges that despite "homophobia" and gay bashing, because he sang the right tune, he continued to be accepted by his right wing associates. He kept writing for the "Spectator," despite knowing that what he wrote was at least questionable if not out and out false. Yet he kept doing it. His reflections on the book "Strange Justice, which challenged the credibility of his Anita Hill book, were interesting. He'd relied on some sources of whom he was suspicious for his book. The "Strange Justice" authors had far more credible sources which refuted nearly all he'd declared in his book and may have made Thomas look worse than Anita Hill had. Yet all that did was scare Brock. He continued working for the "cause" along with others for whom the end justified the means. The book incites a reader to recall the FCC rules which, until a couple of decades ago, insisted on "equal time" on public airwaves to prevent one side from dominating the waves. The media to which Brock refers, paper or electronic, were invariably one-sided right-wing. He acknowledges, for instance, that it's only right wing loons who'll read the diatribes against Hillary Clinton. That's sad. It has led to a terribly divided country. David's conscience grew. I recall when Brock's book on Hillary Clinton, a side of whom I admire, came out. The press reported that the far right, the people to whom David dutifully reported for all those years--and off of whom he made a large fortune--was furious with him. He didn't expose Hillary as a lesbian, a harlot, or a megalomaniac. She seemed almost admirable, yet, as Brock confirms in this text, he still wrote the book and found all he could to discredit her. That's what he was PAID to do. Well, at least Brock describes the other volumes on Hillary as based on hearsay, gossip, and unsubstantiated rumors. Oh, and his take on, first, the right's intent to impeach Clinton, despite his having been elected, even before the Lewinsky event, and, particularly, the conspiracy--literally--by these same zealots to make a bigger deal out of Lewinsky than the incident really was, is well worth reading. (And, as he points out in the final pages, in the final analysis, that all backfired and the public rejected that sort of rightist dogma.) But then there's David's rather orthodox references to the Sandanistas. It's apparent that he hasn't done much reading on Central America since is "conversion" to less-than-right. Indeed, the adjectives he uses to describe the Sandanistas are the same sort of nonsense I heard from Reaganauts. He needs to do some homework since the conversion rather than spouting what remains of his ideological hang-ups.
That's why, David, I didn?t give you five stars. I truly do appreciate your forthrightness, coming out after all this time and exposing the lunacy and lies for what they were. Well, you got four stars. I AM glad you said what you did. --This text refers to the Hardcover edition
Rating:
Summary: Distortion and Dishonesty
Review: Brock was a right-wing scandal reporter in Washington DC during the Bush, Reagan, Clinton, Bush years. The story is a personal memoir of Brock's coming to terms with his unethical reporting, his acceptance of himself as a gay man and the GOP's dirty schemes against the Democrats and against Clinton which he supported through his writings. He also wrote "The Real Anita Hill" (which he now denounces) and "The Seduction of Hillary Rodham". The book is very detailed covering many events and a lot of people, which supports the credibility of the book. Although I struggled to get through the book, probably more because of my own intellectual deficiency than because of the book itself, I found it insightful and well worth reading. And scary. It is concerning that a reporter (or anyone) would intentionally misconstrue information and justify it in his mind. I am sure there are people on all sides of the political spectrum who distort information to support their cause. With the media concentration in the hands of a few that use the media to support their personal agenda, it is especially alarming. How can you trust what you read or hear from any source? Where does one turn to find honesty? The world appears to be built on distortion and dishonesty. As a side note, the struggle of being a gay man as describe by Brock throughout the book is a realistic picture of how most gay men in professions survive in today's world.
Rating:
Summary: hate as a political weapon
Review: Brock exposes the the names, dates and salons of the hypocritical hate machine that became the conservative wing of the Republican Party in the 1990's and the damage that it did to the country.
Rating:
Summary: Absolutely amazing
Review: Brock's book is a veritable "Who's Who" of the Republican right and an expose of the right-wing disinformation machine the Republicans built in the 90s. There are so many reviews of the book, I hesitated to write one. But here are some points many of the other reviews leave out. Brock clearly shows that the worst thing that ever happened to the GOP was the collapse of communism. Without the communists to hate and deride, Republicans were left in a vacuum. Their party had no real platform beyond communism's destruction other than the unspoken platform of maintaining the status quo of the military industrial complex. So when the Soviet Union collapsed, the Republicans looked for new enemies domestically: professional women, gays and the politically correct elitist media culture. Whether he realizes it or not, Brock does an exceptional job of showing the underlying premiss as to why the extreme wing of the GOP hates professional women and gays so much: both threaten the dominate male culture. Hence, professional women are characterized as "bull-dog dykes" and gay men as "ineffectual fags." Neither stands up to what a real man should be like nor what a real woman should be like. Brock's repetition of how professional women and gays are characterized clearly shows how the same euphemisms are used over and over. The other thing this book does is provide a list of names of everyone invovled in the Republican hegemony. It is ironic that one of these individuals likes to keep a picture of Lenin as a sort of role model, because Brock's portrayal of the GOP shows it to be even more ideologically entrenched than the communist party ever was, and just as, if not more so, viscious in its internal purges of anyone who doesn't tow the line. In the end, you'll wonder what ever happened to true conservatism. Does conservatism really have a place in today's political discussion? Or is it as atavistic, inbred and hateful as Brock describes it to be? Rather than being the shoulders of the past that today's leaders could use to stand upon to peer into the future, as described by the late conservative writer Russell Kirk, conservatism appears to have regressed into an infantile chorus of whining. Finally, Brock puts himself right in the middle of all this, unflinchingly showing how egotistic, power and status hungry he was along the way. He does make some attempt to explain why he behaved so shallowly, but it is much too early for Brock to really be able to objectively evaluate his own pitfalls. In the years to come, however, I'm sure he will complete his personal evaluation, and it wouldn't surprise me if he revisits this topic later in his life with the new perspective of time and distance. In all, this book is a must read for anyone who remotely considers themselves a follower of American politics.
Rating:
Summary: A Fascinating Work--Although not Journalism
Review: David Brock is, by training, a journalist. By nature, however, he is a desperate attention seeker. In and of itself, this is no sin--an annoyance, perhaps, but no sin. His sin, however, involved the combnination of the his training and his nature. Put simply, Brock lied to be liked, admired, respected, and loved. His detalied account of his waltz with the far right of politcal partisanship is fascinating in the extreme. It is also, however, impossible at times to believe. It is the old story of the Boy Who Cried Wolf in post-modern garb. He lied to be accepted by the right--how do we know that he isn't now lying to be accepted by the left? We don't and we can't. What we can do is read his book, investigate the events he discusses for ourselves, and take a serious look at the political warfare which our Founding Fathers hoped would never invade our soil. David Brock and this book, while informative and interesting, are sad testaments that those noble hopes were in vain.
Rating:
Summary: An Inside Look at Right Wing Hate
Review: David Brock knows the American Right Wing firsthand, having become a cult figure within rightist circles with the publication of his expose book "The Real Anita Hill." He now comes forward to reveal how he fabricated the truth and presented a knowingly false picture of the courageous law school professor who dared to speak out against Clarence Thomas during his confirmation hearings for an associate justice's position on the U.S. Supreme Court. Brock displays himself as a young man overcome by hubris, a false pride and swollen-headed egotism resulting from a meteoric career jumpstarted after four years at the University of California, in which he worked at such stalwart rightist publications as the Washington Times and the American Spectator. He notes that at the Washington Times a contrary editorial policy was established which was the reverse of most newspapers, where content is diluted to remove overtly political proselytizing. The practice, known as "Prudenizing," was established by political editor Wes Pruden, and involved expanding stories by providing more overly political rightist bite. At American Spectator he was encouraged to proceed full speed ahead against President Clinton. The result was the infamous "Troopergate" story, which he now concedes was a virulent attack by Cliff Jackson, longtime Clinton Arkansas nemesis in conjunction with some disgruntled state troopers angry over being passed over for promotions they believed they deserved. The American Spectator was financed by billionaire Richard Melon Scaife, who bankrolled the rightist media blitz to impeach President Clinton. After much soul searching Brock then enraged his benefactors by writing a sympathetic biography of Hillary Rodham Clinton. At that point he was denounced as a shameful turncoat by anti-Clinton haters hungry for more red meat of the Anita Hill stripe. By then Brock had learned his lesson and was fresh out of hate, having seen Religious Right hypocrisy firsthand as adherents of monogamy and Puritanical living in reality often debauched themselves with womanizing and excessive drink. As a result, Brock returned to his original roots as a Robert Kennedy liberal.
Rating: 
Summary: Sleazy expose of ideological hypocrisy
Review: This book will appeal mostly to liberals who regard the so-called "radical" right as "extremist" and "dangerous" or who admire (for whatever reason) Bill Clinton and are eager to believe that Clinton was not seriously corrupt (and I'm not referring to the sex scandals or any of that other Monica Lewinsky nonsense). Conservative idealogues will hate the book and will seek any convenient rationalization to dismiss it out of hand. Meanwhile, the true significance of the book will be lost to both camps, because neither has any independent interest in the truth. Brock's book is largely made up of unpleasant gossip about prominent conservative pundits. He is eager to show them as a bunch of hypocrites and liars who would stoop at nothing to gain their sinister political ends. He passes on all kinds of personal information of a demeaning kind about the people he used to associate with, some of it derived from personal confidences he received while he was friends with these people. The unstated suggestion is that, since these conservatives are shallow, unscrupulous, and immoral, this somehow discredits conservative ideas. That, in any case, is how the book will be read by liberal ideologues, who are eager for any rationalization, no matter how shallow or illogical, that allows them to dismiss conservativism out of hand. Because of Brock's self-acknowledged mendacity in regards to his Anita Hill book, some have questioned if he can be trusted at all. But I don't think the problem is whether he's telling any outright laws. As a matter of fact, my guess is he's probably telling the truth. The trouble is that he gives only one-quarter of the picture. If you tell only the bad things about a person, you can make them look pretty bad without actually telling a palpable lie. But you have given a distorted picture nonetheless. This is what Brock is guilty of in this book. He gives us only the dirt on ideological conservatives, providing us with a very distorted picture of the people that make up its ranks. The reality is really far more complex and morally ambiguous. The so-called "Clinton crazies" were in fact on to something: they are guilty of merely allowing fanaticism to distort their judgment concerning how they were to combat the problem that having a very corrupt President who was too clever to get caught at anything really serious. (And Monica Lewinsky was not really all that serious.) They became obsessed with sex scandals and the President's personal conduct when the real problem was Clinton's willingness to compromise national security in order to raise campaign funds. (See "Year of the Rat" for the details.) Brock's tome, despite the sleaze factor and the unsavory attempt to cater to liberal illusions, does touch on what is a very serious problem within the conservative movement. The revelations about the personal lives of various conservatives brought forth in this book are not surprising to anyone privy to inside information. In the post sixties era, conservatives, no less than liberals, have become morally corrupted by the prevailing hedonism of contemporary American society. This is a problem only for conservatives, because unlike those on the other side of political spectrum, conservatives are committed to a system of values that does not accord with a culture of hedonism. Conservatives who, because of their lifestyle, do not practice what they preach, open themselves not merely to the charge of hypocrisy, but also to ideological conflicts of interest. They may find their lifestyle conflicting so seriously with their ideology that they will have to switch sides. If I'm not mistaken, something like this has happened with Brock himself. I suspect we will run across others as well in the years to come. This is quite a turn from the way things used to be before the sixties, when most conversions were from left to right, rather than right to left. What has not changed, however, is the widespread hypocrisy and mendacity evinced by intellectuals of all political persuasions, right, left, or center. In that sense, nothing has changed since Benda and Orwell published their famous critiques of intellectuals in the first half of the twentieth century.
Rating:
Summary: No excuse for being "blinded by the right"
Review: So, Hillary Clinton was right after all: there WAS a vast right-wing conspiracy out to destroy her husband's presidency. What we've got here, in David Brock's "Blinded by the Right," is the inside story on how the conspiracy worked, who funded it, and the lengths to which it was willing to go in order to achieve its goals. As convincingly portrayed by Brock, these people (Richard Mellon Scaife, Jerry Falwell, Ann Coulter, Matt Drudge, etc., etc.) are downright frightening: virulently homophobic, vicious, sleazy, lying, nasty, and fascistic are just a few of the adjectives that spring to mind. And these are just the inside members of the conspiracy. What's possibly even scarier is the millions of ordinary Americans who BELIEVED (and still believe) this hateful, spiteful garbage heap of lies. I'm referring particularly to the "dittoheads" (those who have loaned out their brains to Rush Limbaugh) and to all those afficionados of the most outrageous claims regarding Bill Clinton (that he was a murderer, drug dealer, etc.). We all know someone like that -- at work, in our families, at church, wherever. And now, essentially, due to a questionable-at-best "victory" in the 2000 Presidential election, these same people are now running the country. Brock lays it all out for the reader in his book, and nobody has denied what he has to say. The thought that these anti-democratic, right-wing extremists (John Ashcroft, Dick Cheney, and their ilk) are now in charge of this country is not a pleasant one, to put it mildly. If you don't understand why, you desperately need to read David Brock's book. Even if you DO understand, in fact, you still should read Brock's book, just to get the full flavor of what the right-wing agenda is all about and how it works. I've only got three significant criticisms of this book. First, there's no appendix, which is frustrating. Second, David Brock is not a sympathetic character for the vast majority of the book (still, Brock's assertions ring true, and also have not been refuted by anyone). Finally, this book is unpleasant to read -- it could (and should) make you sick to your stomach. As portrayed by Brock, the vast right wing conspiracy is far from harmless; it did a great deal of damage to our country and continues to do so. But, after reading David Brock's book, at least none of us can pretend we don't know the "lunatic fringe" is out there, or that we must fight it. In other words, after reading David Brock's courageous and timely book, none of us have any excuse for being "blinded by the right." Thank you, David Brock, for finding your conscience at long last!
|
