What do you think?
Rate this book
The Mendacity of Hope: Barack Obama and the Betrayal of American Liberalism
“ The Mendacity of Hope should help wake up all those Obama-voters who've been napping while the wars escalate, the recession deepens, and the environment goes straight to hell.” —Barbara Ehrenreich From the former editor-in-chief of Harper's Magazine comes a bold manifesto exposing President Obama's failure to enact progressive reform at home and abroad. National Magazine Award finalist Roger Hodge makes a hard-hitting case against Obama's failure to deliver on the promises of his campaign. The first book-length critique of the Obama's presidency from a prominent member of the left, The Mendacity of Hope will strike a chord with anyone stirred by the words of Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, and Frank Rich. It's the book that every frustrated progressive in America has been waiting to read.
- GenresPoliticsNonfiction
272 pages, Hardcover
First published October 1, 2010
6 people are currently reading
81 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
March 9, 2014
I am not as quick to jump on the anti-Obama bandwagon as Roger Hodge is, but his book "The Mendacity of Hope: Barack Obama and the Betrayal of American Liberalism" is a compelling, well-researched, and thought-provoking read, and it is, at the very least, helping to clear the vision of those of us who have kept those rose-colored glasses on for so long.
Hodge, a former editor of Harper's Magazine, is the liberal's liberal: someone who clearly understands and appreciates the subtle nuances of both the political Left and Right. He seems to have a knack for seeing through the political bullshit to what is actually going on. There are literally dozens upon dozens of anti-Obama books out there, but most of them seem to be written by sore-loser Republicans and/or right-wing nutjobs who still can't seem to grasp that, yes, Obama was born in the U.S. and, no, he is not a radical Muslim. That Hodge is a liberal---one who is both willing and able to sharply and surgically criticize contemporary American liberalism and its poster boy, Obama---somehow lends a credibility to the book (for me, at least). There is also the added bonus that he is a great writer. Some of his passages come across as beautiful prose poems, which seems extremely surreal and superfluous in a book about politics; it does nothing to add to it but certainly doesn't take anything away from it either.
Hodge begins his book immediately on the offensive, claiming that Obama's message of hope and change was a smoothly-calculated ploy to hide his secret agenda of politics-as-usual and, worse, a continuation of the Bush Administration's liberty-destroying policies.
Obama's presidency, he writes, has been one in which he has "merely changed the wallpaper and rearranged the furniture in the White House: his financial policies are in essence those set in motion by George W. Bush, and when it comes to the eternal "global war on terror" he has stealthily embraced the unconstitutional war powers claimed by his predecessor or left the door open for their quiet adoption at some later date. (p. 1)"
Harsh words, but can he back it up? Actually, he doesn't have to, really. Obama's first five years in office tell the tale. The fact that, as Hodge points out early, none of Obama's campaign promises have actually come to pass (with the exception, maybe, of Obamacare, of which Hodge has many not-so-nice things to say), that a quick glance at Obama's list of "investors" (as Hodge calls his campaign contributors) and the policies that Obama has shaped that conveniently help those investors, and the quiet actions that Obama has made to appease both sides of the political aisle that have succeeded in pleasing neither, tells an interesting story of a pretty ineffectual President.
Granted, one could argue that the same arguments could be made for every one of Obama's predecessors. After all, everyone knows ALL politicians lie, especially in their campaign speeches. It's also not a stretch to think that every politician who made it to where they are must in quid pro quo fashion, help those who helped them get there. It's also not a stretch to imagine a president's well-meaning but pointless attempt at pleasing everyone all the time. Indeed, Hodge admits that Obama is just the latest in a string of presidents who has let money and the lust for power guide his actions.
One may need a PhD. in economics to understand some of the chapters in Hodge's book. In one chapter, titled "Barack Obama, Inc.", Hodge goes on at length about the derivatives market and Obama's relationship with Robert Rubin, "a former top executive of both Goldman Sachs and Citigroup". I'm not going to pretend that I understood a lot in this chapter, but the main gist seems to be this: the legislation that Obama has passed since coming to office in 2008, in regards to economic policy, have generally been pro-business and more helpful to corporations and more harmful to the little guy. In other words, Obama is actually a Republican.
To anyone keeping track at home, according to Hodge, this shouldn't be that shocking. He writes, "Indeed, Obama's senatorial record, and later presidential positioning, were best summed up in an interview he gave to the Chicago Tribune in july 2004: 'There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who's in a position to execute.' (p. 27)" Hodge claims that Obama's entire career has been a calculated effort to become President, and, once he gained the office, to ensure that he obtained re-election. Again, cynical but not really all that shocking.
I have heard, time and again (perhaps most famously from a quote by Ralph Nader) that there is no real substantive difference between the Republican Party and the Democrat Party. So why do so many voters (myself included) get duped into thinking one party is better than the other?
Hodge seems to think that we shouldn't beat ourselves up too much about it, because both parties have perfected the art of mendacity; basically, the art of lying. The goal of presidential candidates, regardless of party affiliation, is to get elected. While a statement like this should earn nothing more than an inevitable "Duh", it paints a rather bleak and depressing picture about our elected officials.
Money rules Washington, and corporations have the money, along with the 1% of the country's super-rich. We are no longer living in a democracy, and we haven't been for a long time. We are, unfortunately, living in a land that our Founding Fathers warned us about, a land where special interest groups and Super-PACs and donors like the Koch Bros. call the shots, and men like Obama, who may have good intentions, are merely corruptable puppets. Most of us know this already, but we live in a kind of "denial" bubble because we don't see any way of changing it.
The ending of Hodge's book is far from hopeful. He admits that a drastic change in the way things are done in politics is unlikely any time soon, if ever. He writes that "the prospect of a constitutional remedy is dim. But if we do not at least try to remove the source of the corruption---the money that drives our politics, the equation of spending with political speech and voting---then we might as well give up and join those who ignore politics altogether. If we shrug and say that the system of corrupt influence can never be overturned, then we are truly doomed. But if we are to give up, at least let us avoid the bad faith of pretending that some attractive and eloquent corporate tool like Obama might save us. (p. 232)" Harsh words, indeed, but nevertheless words that need to be said.
Hodge, a former editor of Harper's Magazine, is the liberal's liberal: someone who clearly understands and appreciates the subtle nuances of both the political Left and Right. He seems to have a knack for seeing through the political bullshit to what is actually going on. There are literally dozens upon dozens of anti-Obama books out there, but most of them seem to be written by sore-loser Republicans and/or right-wing nutjobs who still can't seem to grasp that, yes, Obama was born in the U.S. and, no, he is not a radical Muslim. That Hodge is a liberal---one who is both willing and able to sharply and surgically criticize contemporary American liberalism and its poster boy, Obama---somehow lends a credibility to the book (for me, at least). There is also the added bonus that he is a great writer. Some of his passages come across as beautiful prose poems, which seems extremely surreal and superfluous in a book about politics; it does nothing to add to it but certainly doesn't take anything away from it either.
Hodge begins his book immediately on the offensive, claiming that Obama's message of hope and change was a smoothly-calculated ploy to hide his secret agenda of politics-as-usual and, worse, a continuation of the Bush Administration's liberty-destroying policies.
Obama's presidency, he writes, has been one in which he has "merely changed the wallpaper and rearranged the furniture in the White House: his financial policies are in essence those set in motion by George W. Bush, and when it comes to the eternal "global war on terror" he has stealthily embraced the unconstitutional war powers claimed by his predecessor or left the door open for their quiet adoption at some later date. (p. 1)"
Harsh words, but can he back it up? Actually, he doesn't have to, really. Obama's first five years in office tell the tale. The fact that, as Hodge points out early, none of Obama's campaign promises have actually come to pass (with the exception, maybe, of Obamacare, of which Hodge has many not-so-nice things to say), that a quick glance at Obama's list of "investors" (as Hodge calls his campaign contributors) and the policies that Obama has shaped that conveniently help those investors, and the quiet actions that Obama has made to appease both sides of the political aisle that have succeeded in pleasing neither, tells an interesting story of a pretty ineffectual President.
Granted, one could argue that the same arguments could be made for every one of Obama's predecessors. After all, everyone knows ALL politicians lie, especially in their campaign speeches. It's also not a stretch to think that every politician who made it to where they are must in quid pro quo fashion, help those who helped them get there. It's also not a stretch to imagine a president's well-meaning but pointless attempt at pleasing everyone all the time. Indeed, Hodge admits that Obama is just the latest in a string of presidents who has let money and the lust for power guide his actions.
One may need a PhD. in economics to understand some of the chapters in Hodge's book. In one chapter, titled "Barack Obama, Inc.", Hodge goes on at length about the derivatives market and Obama's relationship with Robert Rubin, "a former top executive of both Goldman Sachs and Citigroup". I'm not going to pretend that I understood a lot in this chapter, but the main gist seems to be this: the legislation that Obama has passed since coming to office in 2008, in regards to economic policy, have generally been pro-business and more helpful to corporations and more harmful to the little guy. In other words, Obama is actually a Republican.
To anyone keeping track at home, according to Hodge, this shouldn't be that shocking. He writes, "Indeed, Obama's senatorial record, and later presidential positioning, were best summed up in an interview he gave to the Chicago Tribune in july 2004: 'There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who's in a position to execute.' (p. 27)" Hodge claims that Obama's entire career has been a calculated effort to become President, and, once he gained the office, to ensure that he obtained re-election. Again, cynical but not really all that shocking.
I have heard, time and again (perhaps most famously from a quote by Ralph Nader) that there is no real substantive difference between the Republican Party and the Democrat Party. So why do so many voters (myself included) get duped into thinking one party is better than the other?
Hodge seems to think that we shouldn't beat ourselves up too much about it, because both parties have perfected the art of mendacity; basically, the art of lying. The goal of presidential candidates, regardless of party affiliation, is to get elected. While a statement like this should earn nothing more than an inevitable "Duh", it paints a rather bleak and depressing picture about our elected officials.
Money rules Washington, and corporations have the money, along with the 1% of the country's super-rich. We are no longer living in a democracy, and we haven't been for a long time. We are, unfortunately, living in a land that our Founding Fathers warned us about, a land where special interest groups and Super-PACs and donors like the Koch Bros. call the shots, and men like Obama, who may have good intentions, are merely corruptable puppets. Most of us know this already, but we live in a kind of "denial" bubble because we don't see any way of changing it.
The ending of Hodge's book is far from hopeful. He admits that a drastic change in the way things are done in politics is unlikely any time soon, if ever. He writes that "the prospect of a constitutional remedy is dim. But if we do not at least try to remove the source of the corruption---the money that drives our politics, the equation of spending with political speech and voting---then we might as well give up and join those who ignore politics altogether. If we shrug and say that the system of corrupt influence can never be overturned, then we are truly doomed. But if we are to give up, at least let us avoid the bad faith of pretending that some attractive and eloquent corporate tool like Obama might save us. (p. 232)" Harsh words, indeed, but nevertheless words that need to be said.
November 27, 2011
Here we go...a book where I had to Google the cover to make sure I knew the meaning of the word "mendacity." I did. In my dying Borders (or in two dying Borders -- I had to wait until this book was 50% off) I opened a few pages and WOW. I was back to reading Harpers Magazine, in book form. The four or five pages I thumbed through were scathing -- they completely matched my mood about current affairs. I picked up the book for $12.50.
I read this book in two whirlwind sessions, about four months apart. Herein lies the book's problem. Mr. Hodge would have done better to spend less time on a single witty, cleverly crafted history lesson on the differences between (Jeffersonian / Madisonian) Republicanism vs. Hamiltonian Federalism. Instead, your eyes will glaze over at points between pages 110ish to 235. Whither Barack Obama? By devoting so many pages to the 18th and early 19th centuries, the author overemphasizes the preamble of his argument, and at times loses the point of the book.
But this book deserves four stars. I read through it in two whirlwind sessions, so you can, too. During the final chapter and a half, the pages flew by and I caught myself alternating between chuckles and exclaiming, "hell yes!" to nobody in particular. If you want "easy to read," check out "The Redneck Manifesto," which I have previously reviewed. If you want current affairs, stick to magazines (books are so out of date). But if you want a good, scholarly argument about what's wrong with this country and how we should all get over our differences and fix it, check this one out. It's a good read, and now I can use the word "mendacity."
I read this book in two whirlwind sessions, about four months apart. Herein lies the book's problem. Mr. Hodge would have done better to spend less time on a single witty, cleverly crafted history lesson on the differences between (Jeffersonian / Madisonian) Republicanism vs. Hamiltonian Federalism. Instead, your eyes will glaze over at points between pages 110ish to 235. Whither Barack Obama? By devoting so many pages to the 18th and early 19th centuries, the author overemphasizes the preamble of his argument, and at times loses the point of the book.
But this book deserves four stars. I read through it in two whirlwind sessions, so you can, too. During the final chapter and a half, the pages flew by and I caught myself alternating between chuckles and exclaiming, "hell yes!" to nobody in particular. If you want "easy to read," check out "The Redneck Manifesto," which I have previously reviewed. If you want current affairs, stick to magazines (books are so out of date). But if you want a good, scholarly argument about what's wrong with this country and how we should all get over our differences and fix it, check this one out. It's a good read, and now I can use the word "mendacity."
October 23, 2010
I am one of those people who is deeply disappointed and disturbed by the actions of the Obama administration on a wide range of issues, so this book, highly critical of Obama, was important for me as it was an opportunity to explore in detail the issues that concern me.
I learned about this book because a part of it was excerpted in a recent issue of Harper's Magazine.
Mr. Hodge takes the issues apart one by one and examines them in the context of their history and shows that Obama's performance, and the critique of it, dates back to the contest between Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists one the one hand and James Madison and the Jeffersonians on the other beginning just after the ratification of the Constitution. It is a good summation of that controversy which has raged, with varying degrees of heat, ever since.
If you are interested in American history, Constitutional history, and current events and also happen to like really well-written prose, then I highly recommend this book; it is certainly one of the best reads for this year from my perspective.
I learned about this book because a part of it was excerpted in a recent issue of Harper's Magazine.
Mr. Hodge takes the issues apart one by one and examines them in the context of their history and shows that Obama's performance, and the critique of it, dates back to the contest between Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists one the one hand and James Madison and the Jeffersonians on the other beginning just after the ratification of the Constitution. It is a good summation of that controversy which has raged, with varying degrees of heat, ever since.
If you are interested in American history, Constitutional history, and current events and also happen to like really well-written prose, then I highly recommend this book; it is certainly one of the best reads for this year from my perspective.
November 30, 2014
Oprah said of Obama, "He is the one", but Hodge believes Obama is simply another one. He argues that the Obama presidency is as of now another four years of corporations and the government serving their own special interests rather than average people. Financial bailouts (also done by Bush) and health care reform enact new rules...without fully delving into prevention of the systemic dynamics that got the banks in trouble and have made health care so expensive. Hodge explores Obama's actions with those of past presidents and looks at how the revolving door between government and the corporate leadership is not a new trend, only a continuing trend under the Obama administration. This issue of special interests has plagued America since the original founding battle between the Federalists and Jeffersonians. Overall, an interesting read, but some sections are laborious to get through and somewhat dry.
January 4, 2017
"I was extremely sceptical of this book when I was lent it by my father. I don't particularly like polemics and I figured, despite the claims on the back cover, that I would react the usual way to such things: which is that I would dismiss outright after 25-50 pages.
Sure enough that was my first reaction. I can't help but say to Hodge that, like anyone else, Obama is only one man, and any man who is subject to all the favour-promising of the American presidential cycle is hardly someone to count upon. And I can't help but think Hodge was one of the ones who fell for him (at least at some point in the distant past) otherwise why is he so mad? (unless of course he is just tired, like so many of us, of the St. Obama stuff)
But despite these concerned something happened: I began to agree with him. I think my initial scepticism had a lot to do with the fact that I haven't paid attention to US politics with any seriousness in years, simply because every American TV news source except for PBS makes me absolutely insane (and I don't get PBS). I frankly stopped paying attention. So when I have defended Obama to some (on both sides) as "well-meaning" and "just a man" it turns out I was doing so without anything to justify it.
The scary thing about this book (okay one of the scary things) is that Obama is essentially Bush with different interests, only Bush was at least somewhat incompetent, had to rely on others (often as incompetent) and who really wasn't good at hiding what he was up to. Obama is very good at convincing a sizable portion of reasonable Americans (I do not consider the "solid 25%" to be reasonable Americans, so the comparison with Bush doesn't fit) that he is trying very hard to change things and to be a major improvement over Bush, when he is anything but. If Hodge is to be believed (and he has reputable sources for most of his claims, except for the odd, often hilarious, opinion), Obama is in many ways worse than Bush because Obama acts like he isn't Bush whereas Bush was transparent in that sense (if in no other).
I am not for a second attempting to justify any of the far right criticisms that come from the Tea Party types. And, to clarify, that's not what this book is about. Hodge doesn't believe Obama is a socialist (I suspect he would like him if he was); rather Hodge sees Obama as more of the same Reagan/Bush/Clinton/ Bush Jr. that has put the US where it is now. They really haven't differed all that much on policy in real terms (except for how much the debt has skyrocketed under two of them) and the fact that Obama is just more of the same is infuriating if only because he has always claimed he is not (and the others really haven't made much of that).
If you read this and agree with him, at the very least you will be greatly disappointed and quite possibly more likely you will be enraged at the farce that is Obama Inc. "
Sure enough that was my first reaction. I can't help but say to Hodge that, like anyone else, Obama is only one man, and any man who is subject to all the favour-promising of the American presidential cycle is hardly someone to count upon. And I can't help but think Hodge was one of the ones who fell for him (at least at some point in the distant past) otherwise why is he so mad? (unless of course he is just tired, like so many of us, of the St. Obama stuff)
But despite these concerned something happened: I began to agree with him. I think my initial scepticism had a lot to do with the fact that I haven't paid attention to US politics with any seriousness in years, simply because every American TV news source except for PBS makes me absolutely insane (and I don't get PBS). I frankly stopped paying attention. So when I have defended Obama to some (on both sides) as "well-meaning" and "just a man" it turns out I was doing so without anything to justify it.
The scary thing about this book (okay one of the scary things) is that Obama is essentially Bush with different interests, only Bush was at least somewhat incompetent, had to rely on others (often as incompetent) and who really wasn't good at hiding what he was up to. Obama is very good at convincing a sizable portion of reasonable Americans (I do not consider the "solid 25%" to be reasonable Americans, so the comparison with Bush doesn't fit) that he is trying very hard to change things and to be a major improvement over Bush, when he is anything but. If Hodge is to be believed (and he has reputable sources for most of his claims, except for the odd, often hilarious, opinion), Obama is in many ways worse than Bush because Obama acts like he isn't Bush whereas Bush was transparent in that sense (if in no other).
I am not for a second attempting to justify any of the far right criticisms that come from the Tea Party types. And, to clarify, that's not what this book is about. Hodge doesn't believe Obama is a socialist (I suspect he would like him if he was); rather Hodge sees Obama as more of the same Reagan/Bush/Clinton/ Bush Jr. that has put the US where it is now. They really haven't differed all that much on policy in real terms (except for how much the debt has skyrocketed under two of them) and the fact that Obama is just more of the same is infuriating if only because he has always claimed he is not (and the others really haven't made much of that).
If you read this and agree with him, at the very least you will be greatly disappointed and quite possibly more likely you will be enraged at the farce that is Obama Inc. "
December 20, 2010
This is one of the many books I borrow from the library to look over rather than to read. After spending a couple of hours with it I still don't know it well enough to properly award it stars because it's more dense than I expected and I only followed a couple of threads. I settled for three.
The Mendacity of Hope is a stiff criticism of Obama and his administration from the point of view of the hard left. Hodge, who was the editor in chief of Harper's magazine, makes logical arguments, does not resort to ad hominem attacks, and makes a remarkably well worked out case. His conclusion is that Obama has been an utter failure.
His main point is that Obama campaigned on change - he was going to change the climate in Washington.
Hodge heard that to mean Obama would somehow neutralize the power of lobbyists and Wall Street. Obama's campaign having received more contributions from Wall Street than McCain's - ironically, Goldman Sachs was his largest Wall Street contributor - Hodge was naive if he really thought that the traditional powers in Washington were going to be vanquished by this young, optimistic, and inexperienced politician. ". . . it became fully manifest that hope and change had been transformed by the alchemy of power into continuity and cynical realpolitik."
The book is not for centrists or conservatives as it will only infuriate them with it's progressive assumptions: of course the only sensible, workable, and moral way to provide health care is through a complete government takeover and a system like that in England. Of course contributions to political campaigns by businesses are corrupting and immoral and have nothing to do with free speech. Of course war is totally immoral and we should pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan immediately at any cost. Come to think of it, if you are a run-of-the-mill liberal you aren't going to be too pleased with much of Hodge's criticism or many of his solutions.
But unlike much - perhaps most - political analysis this is a book that doesn't seem to me to be exaggerating the author's point to sell books. Hodge is pointing out what he sees as wrong in Obama's programs - and these criticisms turn out to be pretty much those the conservatives are wringing their hands about, though the right has very different solutions in mind.
The Mendacity of Hope is a stiff criticism of Obama and his administration from the point of view of the hard left. Hodge, who was the editor in chief of Harper's magazine, makes logical arguments, does not resort to ad hominem attacks, and makes a remarkably well worked out case. His conclusion is that Obama has been an utter failure.
His main point is that Obama campaigned on change - he was going to change the climate in Washington.
Hodge heard that to mean Obama would somehow neutralize the power of lobbyists and Wall Street. Obama's campaign having received more contributions from Wall Street than McCain's - ironically, Goldman Sachs was his largest Wall Street contributor - Hodge was naive if he really thought that the traditional powers in Washington were going to be vanquished by this young, optimistic, and inexperienced politician. ". . . it became fully manifest that hope and change had been transformed by the alchemy of power into continuity and cynical realpolitik."
The book is not for centrists or conservatives as it will only infuriate them with it's progressive assumptions: of course the only sensible, workable, and moral way to provide health care is through a complete government takeover and a system like that in England. Of course contributions to political campaigns by businesses are corrupting and immoral and have nothing to do with free speech. Of course war is totally immoral and we should pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan immediately at any cost. Come to think of it, if you are a run-of-the-mill liberal you aren't going to be too pleased with much of Hodge's criticism or many of his solutions.
But unlike much - perhaps most - political analysis this is a book that doesn't seem to me to be exaggerating the author's point to sell books. Hodge is pointing out what he sees as wrong in Obama's programs - and these criticisms turn out to be pretty much those the conservatives are wringing their hands about, though the right has very different solutions in mind.
March 1, 2011
I wished I had written this book. It is well researched and a great call to return to the true liberal traditions of the Republican Theorists that created the impetus of our American Revolution. If you think that being Democrat means being liberal - read this book.
Want to read
October 28, 2010This is alternately boring and depressing and I don't want to fucking read it anymore.
August 5, 2020
Although difficult to read at times (there's a good amount of US political history I frankly don't have the energy to absorb atm), it was worthwhile to find an in-depth critique of his leadership and political journey. There's a lot to pick up—from fundraisers to policy missteps, plus mind-stirring questions—and I dare say I may have learned more about him from reading this book than from all the media I've seen him on. I'm not American nor have I lived in the US so my opinion of him isn't the most credible but I do believe that, at some point, a big part of the world fell in love with Obama, and so having books like this not only about him but of influential politicians is crucial so people—at least those who have the privilege to read and hopefully spread the word—don't fall blindly and don't forget about the many things that transpired while they held office.
Everything I read in 2020 here :)
Everything I read in 2020 here :)
October 21, 2021
Barack Obama…
Love him: Read this book.
Hate him: Read this book.
Meh 🤷🏻♀️: Read this book.
You read Michelle’s book and like her: Read this book.
“He seems nice. I’d have a beer with him”: Read this book.
I honestly feel that everyone should have read this book. It’s well researched and gave me a lot to think about and connected a lot of the dots that were already there.
Hodge and I aren’t really on the same page but I’ll be paying more attention to him from now on.
Love him: Read this book.
Hate him: Read this book.
Meh 🤷🏻♀️: Read this book.
You read Michelle’s book and like her: Read this book.
“He seems nice. I’d have a beer with him”: Read this book.
I honestly feel that everyone should have read this book. It’s well researched and gave me a lot to think about and connected a lot of the dots that were already there.
Hodge and I aren’t really on the same page but I’ll be paying more attention to him from now on.
June 22, 2025
Rich rhetorical riposte to The Audacity of Hope and a sharp analysis of the Obama Administration’s misspent and underwhelming first two years.
September 28, 2012
Roger put some energy behind this one. It is a meticulously researched and broadly referenced condemnation of our current political system. POTUS is the focus of his anger but this is really a diatribe against the corporatization of our political system dating back to the 18th Century.
Through philosophy and political theory and current events Roger lays out not only how the 1% has been running the show for a long time - centuries but also how some of our "men of the people" (Obama included) have been working the same game. Democrats are invested in the Wall Street game as much as Republicans. Obama is as much a money guy and the war monger as any opponent who runs against him and he was never gonna be the change liberals hoped he would be.
Its a sad thought but at least I enjoyed reading the book. Left leaning folks will learn something and right leaning folks will be satisfied that some of their suspicions were right. Although, the right leaning folks are exposed as just this side of evil incarnate so they shouldn't be too self satisfied by the what the author has to say.
I knew Roger in college and recognized that he was a very smart guy with a biting pen and a sharp sense of humor. This book fully embodies those attributes of what I remember from 20+ years ago.
Through philosophy and political theory and current events Roger lays out not only how the 1% has been running the show for a long time - centuries but also how some of our "men of the people" (Obama included) have been working the same game. Democrats are invested in the Wall Street game as much as Republicans. Obama is as much a money guy and the war monger as any opponent who runs against him and he was never gonna be the change liberals hoped he would be.
Its a sad thought but at least I enjoyed reading the book. Left leaning folks will learn something and right leaning folks will be satisfied that some of their suspicions were right. Although, the right leaning folks are exposed as just this side of evil incarnate so they shouldn't be too self satisfied by the what the author has to say.
I knew Roger in college and recognized that he was a very smart guy with a biting pen and a sharp sense of humor. This book fully embodies those attributes of what I remember from 20+ years ago.
November 22, 2010
I read less than half of this book and got sick of it. While I too await a gorgeous critique of Obama from the left, I could care less about the form this book comes in.
In terms of content--It makes a few important points, I think. For instance--Joe Biden authored the Patriot Act? How appalling is that. Anyway, but it focuses too much (at least the beginning) on the economic choices Obama has made and the campaign contributions he has accepted. While these are certainly points of discussion, they are not specific to our current President. Such actions sadly are normal and typical of American politics. But where is the biting critique about the wars? The drones? The civilian deaths? Aligning ourselves with malignant warlords in Afghanistan? Continuing torture programs (albeit more secretly?)
In terms of writing--this dude cannot write. Yes, he has a command of the English language, but not a very compelling one. Overall, I found the book boring. This topic should not have been this boring, but Hodge made it so. A shame.
In terms of content--It makes a few important points, I think. For instance--Joe Biden authored the Patriot Act? How appalling is that. Anyway, but it focuses too much (at least the beginning) on the economic choices Obama has made and the campaign contributions he has accepted. While these are certainly points of discussion, they are not specific to our current President. Such actions sadly are normal and typical of American politics. But where is the biting critique about the wars? The drones? The civilian deaths? Aligning ourselves with malignant warlords in Afghanistan? Continuing torture programs (albeit more secretly?)
In terms of writing--this dude cannot write. Yes, he has a command of the English language, but not a very compelling one. Overall, I found the book boring. This topic should not have been this boring, but Hodge made it so. A shame.
April 23, 2013
I was very open to the thesis of this book, that basically Obama had turned his back on a progressive agenda to pursue a centrist, establishment agenda that does not challenge the powers that be. Unfortunately, the author presents very little evidence of that thesis, even though he may actually be correct. There is evidence out there that Obama chose Wall Street reform that was minimally threatening to Wall Street. That the banks were put in charge of the home owner loan modification program that was intended to benefit struggling home owners. The list goes on on this, but the author does not always specifically make that point, nor back it up with examples. The book might actually be mistitled, because the book does not focus as much on Obama at the title suggests.
November 3, 2010
Just began this critical and angry book from the LEFT about the current Administration. The Tea Party is angry but there are some of us on the LEFT BANK who feel we have been betrayed and also feel like this man has lied to us. Betrayal carries more vengence than the sour grapes of the Tea Party "simpletons"
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
May 30, 2011
My reading this book has nothing to do with having any particular political view. It is a perfect example of non-fiction writing based on a single subject.
The book is really about small "r" republican ideals.
Picking the quintessential "liberal" president to make this point was a fantastic choice.
Exemplary diction, too. Only a single sentence seemed unnecessary.
The book is really about small "r" republican ideals.
Picking the quintessential "liberal" president to make this point was a fantastic choice.
Exemplary diction, too. Only a single sentence seemed unnecessary.
August 24, 2011
This book is awful. I have been concerned about some of President Obama's choices while in offie, but I am still a Democrat. I saw that this was a critique from the Left and thought it might be interesting. It isn't. It is dreadful and seems to be more of a full on attack than a critique.
October 11, 2012
Rather than a thoughtful liberal critique of Obama, the author devolves into complaining about everything in American history that he doesn't like.
April 7, 2018
This was interesting. It was a little plodding at times, but I specifically chose this book because it was written by a self-described liberal, and I was interested in reading a fair criticism of President Obama's policies that was not blinded by partisanship. The author makes some good observations and points, and I agreed with many of his conclusions, in spite of our being on totally opposite ends of the political spectrum. I always appreciate it when I can find common ground with someone I disagree with.
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews