Once upon a time, liberals knew what they believed. They believed America must lead the world by persuasion, not command. And they believed that by championing freedom overseas, America itself could become more free. That liberal spirit won America's trust at the dawn of the cold war. Then it collapsed in the wake of Vietnam. Now, after 9/11, and the failed presidency of George W. Bush, America needs it back. In this powerful and provocative book, Peter Beinart offers a new liberal vision, based on principles liberals too often forget: That America's greatness cannot simply be asserted; it must be proved. That to be good, America does not have to be pure. That American leadership is not American empire. And that liberalism cannot merely define itself against the right, but must fervently oppose the totalitarianism that blighted Europe a half century ago, and which stalks the Islamic world today. With liberals severed from their own history, conservatives have drawn on theirs—the principles of national chauvinism and moral complacency that America once rejected. The country will reject them again, and embrace the creed that brought it greatness before. But only if liberals remember what that means. It means an unyielding hostility to totalitarianism—and a recognition that defeating it requires bringing hope to the bleakest corners of the globe. And it means understanding that democracy begins at home, in a nation that does not merely preach about justice, but becomes more just itself. Peter Beinart's The Good Fight is a passionate rejoinder to the conservatives who have ruled Washington since 9/11. It is an intellectual lifeline for a Democratic Party lying flat on its back. And it is a call for liberals to revive the spirit that swept America, and inspired the world.
Peter Beinart is the author of The Crisis of Zionism and The Icarus Syndrome: A History of American Hubris and The Good Fight. A former editor of The New Republic, he is an associate professor of journalism and political science at the City University of New York, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, and the senior political writer for The Daily Beast. He lives with his family in New York City.
'This book has to be read as part of the thrust, parry, and jostle going on within the milky political spiral that is the Democratic Party. The author, Peter Beinart, is a war Democrat. His allegiance is to the Lieberman faction in the party. “Just as Vietnam turned liberals against the cold war, Iraq has now turned them [Howard Dean-type liberals] against the war on terror. America badly needs an alternative vision,” he writes, “for fighting global jihad. And yet the liberalism emerging today denies that fighting global jihad should even be a priority.”'
Mostly, this book is out of date for the current political climate. The first half seemed to be a convoluted history of the democratic party, including asides for every small political faction that might have been an important player at some point, but has zero relevance for today. Although a history of the Democratic party would be a book I'd be interested in reading, this was not what this book was supposed to be and wasn't particularly interesting. I did think the points made in the second half of the book had much more relevance for the current election, and would be excellent as small pamphlet rather than the dry second half of this book.
A bit dense, but still a good history lesson and reinforcement of what makes liberal values so important to the United States today and in the past. I used the title as the title of my first Liberally Speaking column.
Pre-Obama era argument that U.S. liberals need to advocate more interventionist actions in world problems. Good points made, but seems like everything the U.S. government does in the Middle East just makes things worse.
I bought this book when I attended Beinart's lecture at Syracuse University this week. He was so intelligent, and well-informed, and well-spoken, his book just has to be good.
This was an interesting book with a well thought out line of thought. The overall lean seemed more to the right than the left, but overall it was good and concisely written.