E.J. Dionne

Why the Right Went Wrong offers a historical view of the right since the 1960s. Its core contention is that American conservatism and the Republican Party took a wrong turn when they adopted Barry Goldwater's worldview during and after the 1964 campaign. The radicalism of today's conservatism is not the product of the Tea Party, Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne writes. The Tea Partiers are the true heirs to Goldwater ideology. The purity movement did more than drive moderates out of the Republican Party--it beat back alternative definitions of conservatism. --Publisher.

Conservatism--From Goldwater to the Tea Party and Beyond

Why the Right Went Wrong

A noted political commentator offers a passionate argument about American identity, what is tearing the United States apart and what can be done to restore Americans' confidence.

The Battle for the American Idea in an Age of Discontent

Our Divided Political Heart

In this new edition of his national bestseller, E. J. Dionne brings up to date his influential proposals for a politics that can and must find a balance between rights and obligations, between responsibility and compassion. From the New, Updated Introduction: "At the heart of Why Americans Hate Politics is the view that ideas shape politics far more than most accounts of public life usually allow. I believe ideas matter not only to elites and intellectuals, but also to rank and file voters. Indeed, I often think that the rank and file see the importance of ideas more clearly than the elites, who often find themselves surprised by the rise of the movements that arise from the bottom up and shape our politics."

Why Americans Hate Politics

One of our most visible, trenchant, and witty political commentators, the author of the bestselling Why Americans Hate Politics, offers a tough critique of President George W. Bush and the Democratic opposition on the eve of a landmark presidential election -- and points to a way out of cynicism and defeatism. With passion, clarity, and humor, E. J. Dionne describes today's political atmosphere as the bitterest he can remember. Never have Democrats been as frustrated by their inability to move the debate. The party of Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Clinton, Dionne says, is lost in pointless feuds, outdated strategies, and old arguments. Democrats have lost track of what they stand for so they don't know what they're fighting for and besides, they've forgotten how to fight back. In describing how Democrats, moderates, and liberals have failed to match Republicans and conservatives in commitment, resourcefulness, and clarity, Dionne invents what is likely to become a popular parlor game among the politically committed. In "The Wrong Stuff," he lists ten futile arguments -- big versus small government, for example -- that Democrats keep having with themselves. "The Right Stuff" focuses on ten arguments they should start making about taxes, business, and the role of government. Dionne zeroes in on how a floundering Bush administration used September 11 to politicize national security issues for partisan advantage. Enraged but intimidated by ruthless opponents, the Democratic party failed to find its voice on security issues and was soundly beaten in 2002. Drawing on some lessons from the 2004 primary campaigns, Dionne argues that anger and frustration have in fact awakened progressives to the need for innovation in organizing, in approaching an increasingly conservative media, and in formulating politically useful and plainly stated ideas. Learning from the conservative movement's successes, liberals have begun the work of reconstruction. The politics of revenge, Dionne argues persuasively, can give way to something better: a progressive patriotism built on hope and optimism about America's role in the world and its capacity to renew social justice at home.

Republican Toughs, Democratic Wimps, and the Politics of Revenge

Stand Up Fight Back

William Kristol

On December 12, 2000, a controversial decision by the Supreme Court of the United States effectively ended the disputed presidential contest between George W. Bush and Albert Gore Jr. with a 5-4 ruling that revealed the court to be as bitterly divided as the electorate. Four days earlier, the Florida Supreme Court had abruptly changed the dynamics of the election by reversing a lower court and ordering hand recounts of "undervotes" statewide. The U.S. Supreme Court quickly stepped in to halt the recounts and agreed to hear Bush v. Gore. After brief oral arguments and a short period of deliberation, the high court reversed the state court decision. The justices in both cases were bitterly divided, and passionate language emerged in both the majority rulings and the dissents. The drama and divisiveness of this extraordinary saga come to life in the rulings, opinions, and dissents from these two cases: U.S. Supreme Court case 00-949 (Bush v. Gore) and Florida Supreme Court case 00-2431 (Gore v. Harris). The first section of this volume gathers the complete text of both rulings, along with selections from oral arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court case. The second section of the book gathers the most significant opinion pieces from journalists and scholars on both sides of the political fence. Selected and organized by political analysts E.J. Dionne and William Kristol, these articles illuminate the perspectives of both sides about the various twists and turns in the post-election campaign, and the landmark judicial intervention. A companion website will provide links to documents from additional legal proceedings and other related documents and writings. The legal and historical significance of the 2000 election will be studied and debated for years to come. This volume combines the most important source documents with the most intelligent opinion and analysis about the conflict and its controversial resolution.

E.J. Dionne

About

Books

Join the club