Where America Went Wrong: And How To Regain Her Democratic Ideals (Financial Times Prentice Hall Books) by John R. Talbott

John Talbott utilized a commanding understanding of economics and politics to come up with the best solution I have yet to hear or read on how to restore the American democratic ideal, as well as the economy. He explains, in no uncertain terms, how the economy is connected to democracy, and how democracy has been diminished by political leaders, with more than a little push from corporate America. He cites corporations, the affluent wealthy, some interest groups, some academics and a good portion of the media for contributing to the demise of democracy, with their short-sightedness. And they dragged the economy down along with it. This book blows so many whistles, that Talbott is having difficulty promoting it. It's reminds me of when Dr. W. Edwards Deming went to Japan to teach the Japanese about statistical quality control, because nobody in America was interested. His direction shifted the perception of Japanese products from shoddy imitations to one of quality products in only four years. Talbott is up against a similar apathy in America today, nobody wants to take one step back in order get two steps ahead. Yet he has been invited to advise several developing countries. If Americans don't wake up, someone else might pass us by democracy-wise, the way the Japanese did quality-wise, at least for a time. But Talbott's advise comes at a price. Americans have to exercise their constitutional responsibilities! I think it's worth it. But you should read the book and decide for yourself. Let him convince you, as he convinced me! Then let's go save our democracy!

I am libertarian (little "l" - not the political party). However, I enjoy reading and listening to the statist and collectivist viewpoints, and am always on the lookout for well-reasoned statements of such.

This is not one of them.

Example 1 - "How can people claim their laws are moral unless those laws have been determined by a majority of the citizens?" (Ch. 3)
The text presents many of its points as rhetorical questions--sometimes several in a row comprise an entire paragraph. The author claims here that morality is based on the whim of the majority.

Example 2 - "The world headquarters of the World Bank is chock-full of very well-dressed men and women who appear to spend more time on their wardrobe than on their policy development statements. How could these wealthy elites possibly be effective in solving world poverty?"
Regardless of my view on the role of World Bank, this is the silliest syllogism I've ever seen:
A-World bank staff wear expensive clothes
B-It seems to me they spend a lot of time picking out clothes
C-Therefore, wealthy people should have no say in helping the poor.

Example 3 - "Any developing country would be wise to also delineate in constitutional form the specific rights enjoyed by every one of its citizens. And what rights will you give these participants? The right to bear arms? The right to peacefully assemble? To choose their religion? To protest? [...] To exclude corporations from the political process?" (Ch. 9, Step 8)
The author states several ideas he has for fashioning a new constition (or re-fashioning the US' constitution--he claims: "Give me one hour in Washington, and I could change the rules by which the economic game is played..."). Here he suggests that a bill of rights include the right "to exclude corporations from the political process". That's an individual liberty?

Example 4 -(arguing for government regulation over 'collective goods') "These free riders come in many forms, including polluters, law breakers, property thieves, embezzlers, and even corrupt government officials. Here is the strongest argument that government must be allowed to allocate collective goods, why some government regulation is a good thing, and why businesses and individuals must abide by the law in a civilized society" (Ch. 2)
Early in the book, the author reveals his "strongest argument", and all of his examples are those who violate property--he includes the government.

Example 5 - "I am not interested in making a broad attack on the rich or in questioning their morality. [...] I am also not interested in starting a class war, which is often the charge raised whenever this issue surfaces." (Ch. 5)
Not interested? Hm ...
"Americans are much more compassionate, generous, and sympathetic than their television shows exhibit. But their target audience, the wealthiest Americans, may not be."
"the self-interest of the rich does not always align perfectly with the broader population"
" in pursuit of their narrow self-interests the wealthy, if given the chance, have an opportunity to destroy our economy and our democracy"
"Should the most self-centered and richest people in our country be given the responsibility to run the government?"
"Wall Street tells a story about the insatiable greed of the wealthy: [a rumor of a 'screaming match' over $50,000 in a $7,000,000 deal, then a couple paragraphs later:] As discussed earlier, that last dollar of earnings is awfully important to them, and it is not easy to get it away from them. They dislike all taxes."
"There are other important differences between rich folk and poor and middle-class folks."

Example 6 - "The philosophical problem with the libertarian movement is that it is hard to find a poor libertarian. It is a philosophy that appeals mostly to the haves and not the have-nots."
I suppose he means it is hard a wealthy person to find a poor libertarian. Of all my libertarian-leaning friends, none of them are wealthy.

Example 7 - "Only 50% of eligible voters typically vote in an American presidential election. ... (It is hard to differentiate by voting turnout numbers alone a truly apathetic electorate from one that is intentionally withdrawing its support of the regime because it recognizes that government by the people has been modified to mean government by the wealthiest people.)"
The intimation is that these are the only two reasons why people would not vote: they are either truly apathetic, or protesting the influence of the wealthy.

A book that talks about providing more rights and power to the average person and taking it away from the very intuitions that so many of us feel control our lives, surly is a book that would have wide appeal. After all the book starts off by talking about the desire of all peoples in the world to be free and wasn't that one of the much repeated positive outcomes of the recent war? This book talks to these issues and has a main theme, which is that more democracy in American and across the world, will raise the standard of living for all people.

The author believes that more Americans need to get involved in the working of the government. The author suggests that if there was more public involvement in government, there would be a dramatic reduction in the influence of the special interest groups (big business) that have taken hold in America. He tries to tie in the overall heath of the American economy by arguing that the more democratic we are, the more prosperous we will all be. His argument got close to a bit of redistribution of wealth plan with some of his views on taxation, but his examples and comments gave credence to his overall claims.

I do not know if the author is correct in his view of America today and its significant pitfalls that lie ahead, but who does not want to read a book that tells you that you need more individual power. The book feeds into the somewhat common view that the special interests i.e. business leaders, rich and elected officials have taken control in one large power play designed to give them all the riches. For someone having difficultly making a house payment, this view is right on the money. Overall I found the book interesting and well written. The author had a spark about his writing style that made you want to take action, on what I do not know, but take action none the less. If you are not happy with the current state of politics in America then grab this book and be outraged all over again.