What We Do

Carla Comments/ Barbara's Byline

Secure Online Ordering

P&P Membership

Store Book Groups / Classes at P&P

Politics and Prose At...

Out-of-Store Events

Gift Certificates

Sale Books

Book-Each-Month Gift Program

Modern Times Coffeehouse

Posted September 25, 2007

I jumped at our staff’s suggestion that I use the website to post my thoughts, because, among other opportunities, it gives me a chance to reflect on the extraordinary talks that I hear, often several times a week. Last week was just such a week; I hosted four fantastic discussions by authors: Robert Draper, Senator Christopher Dodd, Jonathan Kozol, and Alan Greenspan.

In fact, last week was more than any of us bargained for. In between interviewing for a new general manager, ordering upcoming books for the next season, and squeezed in between the Jewish High Holidays, I spent many hours introducing and hosting the four events.

On a beautiful first-of-fall weekend, Sunday afternoon (Sept. 16) journalist Robert Draper spoke about his book DEAD CERTAIN: Inside the Bush White House. Draper, who used to be a reporter for the esteemed Texas Monthly, interviewed Governor Bush several times. He decided to write about President Bush and asked the White House for permission to interview the President but never heard back. After he had largely written the book, he was unexpectedly granted six interviews, which he said made him go back and rewrite some of the book.

He neither fawns over him nor condescends to Bush. If you like Bush, you will find a portrait of a determined leader who concentrates on accomplishing what he wants to have done. If you dislike the President, you will find a portrait of a man so single minded that he never wants to hear competing evidence. Although the President likes to brag about how he is comfortable in his skin, Draper feels that his certitude and stubbornness show a fundamental insecurity. Hence, the title. Draper told one story that did not make it into the book: when governor, Bush told Draper that what he most admired about his father as president was that he resisted the pressure to invade Iraq.

Senator Dodd signing copies of his new books

The letters were found by Senator Christopher Dodd’s sister among their parents’ belongings some years ago. Dodd sent them to a family friend and asked if they were worth publishing. The answer was an unequivocal yes. Senator Dodd pointed out that the way in which the trials were conducted gave the allies the moral high ground. Tom Dodd saw the Nuremberg trials as a triumph for the rule of law. Senator Dodd said that the present administration believes that we have to surrender rights in order to become more secure.

Tuesday night, Jonathan Kozol spoke to a largely young group at Sixth & I Historic Synagogue. Kozol is an inspiration to young teachers. (When asked who in the audience are teachers, at least half raised their hands.) In his latest book, LETTERS TO A YOUNG TEACHER, he asks teachers to remain flexible and free spirited in spite of the weight of the national testing. One of the reviewers accused him of repeating himself in his books, but Kozol is conducting a long crusade to bring to an end the separate and unequal schools that he documented in Savage Inequalities and many other books. He has recently founded a new movement called Education Action! to galvanize people who are concerned about education.

Kozol spoke at length about the No Child Left Behind Act and how it increases the disparities between the affluent suburbs and hard-pressed cities. In fact, he is conducting a fast to draw attention to the need to amend the act when it is up for renewal this year. After speaking for an hour, and answering questions for twenty minutes, Jonathan signed books for another hour and a half, talking to each person. The long wait was made bearable a beautiful reception sponsored by Sixth & I.

Photo, Bruce Guthrie 2007

We have to brag that Alan Greenspan only presented three live book talks for THE AGE OF TURBULENCE: 92nd Street Y, Barnes and Noble in NYC, and Politics and Prose. Lisner Auditorium was the site of Greenspan’s Wednesday talk, which Politics and Prose co-hosted (with the Mid-Atlantic Venture Association). Again the audience was overwhelmingly young with many students in attendance. Mr. Greenspan spoke in conversation with Daniel Yergin, author of The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power. Dan kept conversation going for an hour and a half with a relaxed Greenspan. He asked him about his most newsworthy quotations about the tax cuts. Greenspan explained that he thought that there would be huge surpluses which would be bad for the economy so he backed tax cuts when they were proposed in 2002.

He spoke at length about the changes brought about by the end of the cold war which gave a boost to economies all over the world, but said that phase is at an end. We are into a new period affected by the rise of strong economies in Asia and by globalism in general. The US central bank, he says, will not have as much influence in the future as it did in the past.

So that was my week. I was not able to stay to hear Dave Barry on Thursday night when he tickled a large crowd. And, of course, I missed the talk by Naomi Klein, on Wednesday, when she excoriated the United States for its links to repressive regimes in order to further US business interests.

All in all, it was a great week for me and for Politics and Prose.

Comments? Email: carla@politics-prose.com

Posted September 12, 2007

On September 5 John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt spoke at Politics and Prose on their controversial book, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. Shockingly, their talk had been cancelled at a half dozen places because of angry reaction to their thesis. Politics and Prose believes in inviting authors whose views we don't agree with and trusts the debate that will take place will be vigorous and civil. It was.

By now many of you know the main theme of the book: intense lobbying by the Israel Lobby, comprised of some Jewish organizations and some Christian Evangelical groups, distorts American foreign policy in the Middle East. According to the authors, known as "realists," it is not in the U.S. interest to tilt heavily in the direction of Israel. That favoritism creates suspicion about American peace efforts vis-à-vis Israel and Palestine, angers the Arab world, and jeopardizes American access to oil. The United States has a moral interest in the defense of Israel, but not a strategic one.

As many as 500 people crowded into the store to listen to the authors on a hot night, made warmer by many TV cameras. I was surprised how many regular customers came up to me during the following weekend to comment to me about the evening. Many people congratulated the store for sponsoring such a controversial event.

Some of the prospective hosts had asked for a panel discussion which the authors rejected, feeling, in my view rightly, that they should have the chance to present their views without rebuttal.

Now their views: The authors do not present all views or all evidence, but instead marshal a prosecutor’s brief against support for Israel. America’s support of Israel is largely responsible for Arab and Muslim hatred of America. America’s failure to foster peace between Israel and Palestine was a major reason for Bin Laden’s attack against the U.S. The Israel lobby was a "critical factor" in the decision to invade Iraq.

Stephen Walt's presentation was reasonable. John Mearsheimer, in my judgment, has lost all objectivity on the subject. The book, and the presentation, particularly Mearsheimer's, verged on blaming Israel for much of the United States' serious mistakes in the Middle East during the last twenty years. Mearsheimer lost me when he said that there is no serious opposition to the United States' uncritical support of Israel in the mainstream American media. He and I must read different papers and magazines.

It is absolutely true that this is a subject that needs to be raised and discussed. It is absolutely true that many people are politically scared of the power of the Israel lobby and will not raise questions about the rightness or wrongness of Israel's policies toward the Palestinians and the rightness and wrongness of American policies toward other countries of the Middle East.

On the other hand, Walt and Mearsheimer have claimed victim status for themselves because they have been roundly attacked. They could have spared themselves some of the opprobrium had they written a more balanced, nuanced book. The policy debate would be further along instead a discussion for and against their book. We could be having a serious discussion about the critical factors to take into consideration in making Middle East policy.

Comments? Email: carla@politics-prose.com