Ryan, Debi, and Toren Cragun's Blog

Ivins, Molly, and Lou Dubose. 2000. Shrub: The Short but Happy Political Life of George W. Bush. Largeprint.

Rating:
8

Summary:
Witty, well-written, and disturbing

The authors, Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose, are journalists and authors who, apparently, have followed George W. Bush’s political career in Texas closely. The book covers everything from G.W. Bush’s childhood to his involvement with his father’s political campaign and finally his political career as governor of Texas.

The bulk of the book examines different components of Bush’s politics and the book is actually divided up by these areas after the chronological history leading up to Bush’s election as governor. For instance, it covers Bush’s record on the environment, on Hispanics in Texas, on Big Business (all of which are deplorable), and on education, the only area where Bush may have done something right.

The book was written during the 2000 campaign, so it was written before Bush was elected president.

Review:
The writing in the book is engaging and humorous and is laced with Texan phrases (e.g., ‘madder than a skillet full of rattlesnakes’) that add an air of Cowboyish authenticity.

The book is also remarkably insightful as regards Texas politics in general. For instance, they point out that being governor of Texas is only the fifth most powerful position in Texas (the lieutenant governor and person in charge of agriculture are more powerful). After finding this out, I’m amazed the political pundits haven’t made a bigger deal out of it. Not only is Bush a political novice (in terms of actually serving in political office), but the one position he did hold before becoming president wasn’t even a powerful position. Considering I’m writing this during the 2004 election in which John Edwards is being criticized for his lack of political experience this fact is even more astonishing. Based on the description of Bush’s responsibilities in this book, he’s a novice compared with Edwards, and a toddler compared to John Kerry.

The authors also make clear that G.W. Bush’s interest in politics makes very little sense considering he abhors reading and discussing policy and doesn’t like to spend his time governing. He has said that one of the things he likes least is reading books on policy. As a result, the authors argue that the bulk of G.W. Bush’s policy and political positions come from Karl Rove, who is referred to as ‘Bush’s Brain’ (an epithet that is, I believe, both accurate and well-deserved). How an individual that is completely uninterested in governing can become the President of the U.S. is nothing short of a slap in the face of logic and intelligence. It’s so astonishing one might believe Karl Rove and the Republican Party pulled off a bloodless coup of reason in the U.S., facilitated, of course, by the Republican spin machines known as ‘talk radio’. The more I learn about Bush, the more amazed I am that he is the current president of the U.S. The guy has no record, just spin.

Another quote from the book seemed to summarize Bush’s basic political philosophy, “Bush is a wholly-owned subsidiary of big business.” All of Bush’s policy, with the exception of what he has done to cater to the Christian Right (more on this below), has been beneficial to big business. Bush could care less about the working man; he’s never been one and the longer he remains in power, the more likely he’ll never have to even see one again.

The author does point out two things that Bush did well (thanks again to Karl Rove) in developing his campaign for governor and his presidential campaign in 2000: 1) He catered to the Spanish vote (even though he knows all of two phrases in Spanish; he’s not fluent like he claims). 2) He breached the divide between Country Club Republicans and the Christian Right. Both of these maneuvers have helped him increase his base, regardless of the fact that he cares nothing for them.

Interestingly, the authors of ‘Shrub’ make a prediction at the end of the book, saying that if history is a good instructor, George W. Bush is likely to do exactly what he did for Texas to the U.S. Unfortunately, the authors were right: the poor are poorer, the rich are richer, big business is making away like a bandit, and the environment has gone to pot.

Overall, I highly recommend this book. Unfortunately, those that need to read it the most are probably the least likely to get their hands on it. After reading it, it would be amazing if someone could even consider voting for Bush in 2004.

(Note: I listened to this book on CD).

Franken, Al. 1996. Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations. Island Book.

Rating:
6

Summary:
Occasionally funny; gets old quick

Franken uses close to three hundred pages to try to illustrate why Democrats and their liberal ideologies and philosophies are a better approach to politics and social problems than are Republican ones. In doing so, he spends about 1/5 of the book calling Rush Limbaugh ‘fat’. Another fifth is spent explaining why Limbaugh is a liar and, in Franken’s words, an ‘idiot’ (a sentiment I am more inclined to agree with and definitely found more interesting than the continuous ranting that Limbaugh was obese).

In the mix, Franken uses his occasionally witty humor to attack several other famous conservative Republicans and illustrate why a large number of them are hypocrites, insensitive capitalists, and not very nice people. There isn’t much in the way of fair and balanced rhetoric as Franken considers Bill Clinton to be the greatest president of the twentieth century (even greater than FDR).

Franken also spends a good deal of time talking about two additional topics that are really unrelated despite his continued attempts to integrate them into his discussions – his family and his assistant Geoff. Franken continuously blames the poor quality of the book on the fact that he’s spending all of his time with his kids (unlike all of those ‘mean’ Republican conservatives). Of course this is all really supposed to be meant in jest, but after reading the book I began to wonder…

Review:
Despite sharing a liberal perspective on society and life, I didn’t really love this book. It started out pretty good with some funny commentary and rather creative presentation. But after the 80-something time Franken went on a rant about how fat Limbaugh is, it started to bug me. What does he being fat have to do with his political ideas? If he were the secretary of health, I could understand how it is relevant, but he’s a propagandist, not a nutritionist. There are also several ‘chapters’ that are only two to three pages in length that are really just excuses for why he didn’t do more research (I call them chapters because they start a new page, but whether they are really chapters…).

Which introduces a second issue. Despite claiming that Limbaugh is a liar and misleads or outright deceives his followers a lot of the time, Franken doesn’t employ traditional scientific/academic approaches to his presentation of data – only rarely does he actually cite sources. Though I must admit I am more inclined to agree with the information Franken presents because much of it sounds as though it at least closely resembles the information with which I am familiar (I’m a sociologist), it would have been nice if Franken had at least footnoted his data. As it stands, I would suggest that anyone that reads this book read it only for humor and not as a source of accurate information.

Some additional problems include the repetitiveness of the book. Despite what Franken seems to think, his political ‘expertise’ seems limited to just a few issues, which he returns to over and over. In short, he repeats himself a lot. Also, there is absolutely no continuity from ‘chapter’ to ‘chapter’; the book does not ‘flow’.

Overall, even though I would agree that Rush Limbaugh (and now Sean Hannity and Michael Savage) tends to appeal only to the uneducated who don’t question and refuse to think for themselves (which might also explain the appeal of Rush Limbaugh and the Republican party to religious conservatives), this book isn’t the best platform for presenting the counter arguments. Sometimes it is funny and there are even occasionally glimpses of brilliant writing, but it doesn’t take long to realize that Franken’s primary comedic tool is the insult. One or two insults are occasionally funny, but a book of insults can only appeal to people who are less interested in the issues than they are in attacking the opponent. Though Michael Moore occasionally stoops to this level, also doesn’t do a very good job of citing references, and isn’t particularly qualified to be writing on this topic, I think he does a better job of focusing on the issues and making sound arguments than does Franken. As a result, I would recommend Moore’s books instead of Franken’s.