Ask HN: Best books on Politics

[HowardRoark]

I am itching to read a few books on theory of political philosophies and how they fare in practice.

I was born in a small developing nation where the word 'Communism' still sells like hot cake. As I grew up, I got infatuated with with other extreme - 'Randism' and I still am. While I go back to my country and see the nation filled with poverty and a few filthy riches, I feel like non-violent communism is the way to go. When I come back to US and enjoy the freedom, I feel very differently. Basically, I am confused - food vs freedom!

I was wondering if anyone has any good suggestions on books on politics that everyone should read. My intention is to learn the strength and flaws of each and have a more realistic view of the world.

[maxharris]

Have you read the OPAR (Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand)?

Your question seems to assume that Objectivism is a political philosophy, but this is simply not the case.

Rand put it eloquently: "I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows. <p> This — the supremacy of reason — was, is and will be the primary concern of my work, and the essence of Objectivism. (For a definition of reason, see Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.) Reason in epistemology leads to egoism in ethics, which leads to capitalism in politics."

On "food vs. freedom" (I take this to mean that you believe that capitalism delivers material goods, but not freedom): you might be defining freedom incorrectly, or taking the meaning of the word from one context and applying it inappropriately to another context. (Rand makes it clear in her Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology that all definitions are contextual.) Also see http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/freedom.html

[chwahoo]

From the context of the post, I think the OP means exactly the opposite by "food vs. freedom".

However, to address the point in your last paragraph, "freedom" is not a word with a clear definition, despite Rand's strong assertions to the contrary. Virtually any political philosophy purports to protect "freedom" in some of its senses.

[libber]

Its a biography but a biography I derived a lot of philosophy from - The Years of Lyndon Johnson by Robert Caro. Here is a blurb that wikipedia lists as the theme:

Throughout his books, Caro examines the acquisition and use of political power in American democracy, from the perspective both of those who wield it and those who are at its mercy. In an interview with Kurt Vonnegut, he once said: "I was never interested in writing biography just to show the life of a great man," saying he wanted instead "to use biography as a means of illuminating the times and the great forces that shape the times particularly political power."

I agree with that theme and enjoyed the description of how power is wielded in democracies and all the gory details of getting elected, how issues help/hurt a candidate and just how nimble a fish you must be as a presidential wannabe in Americas 1950s democracy.

[SHOwnsYou]

Solid base for American political thought and law: Democracy's Discontent It will give you valuable insight into the current political process, how it was formed, why some laws are the way they are, and it has chapters discussing privacy law, free speech, religion, and a multitude of others. The chapter over the 14th Amendment offers such a great framework to view the Constitution that reading this book alone before college allowed me to ace any government type class I ever took.

More dense and more theory: Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. I have read it 3 or 4 times and I still haven't digested all of it. It starts with an excellent argument for the primacy of justice and then destroys it. My favorite section of his book was about morality/enforceability of contracts in a philosophical sense. Worth several reads.

[julius_geezer]

Aristotle said that drama is more philosophical than history, but (it seems to me) sometimes history may be more philosophical than philosophy, so, with an obvious American bias

_The Federalist Era_ _The Machiavellian Moment_, J.G.A. Pocock _The History of the United States During the Administrations of Jefferson and Madison_, Henry Adams _The Old Regime and the Revolution_ by de Tocqueville, also his history of 1848. _The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution_, Bernard Bailyn Polybius

Lionhearted recommends a book on Castiglione--Castiglione's own book of the courtier is well worth reading and should be easy to find.

[zoomzoom]

The most simple recommendation that I would like to make is to avoid at all costs becoming an evangelist for any particular political philosophy. They all fare poorly when taken too literally because people are too complex and reality is too subtle. Nobody is free without food, but food is worthless without freedom, to extend your metaphor.

And now for the answer to your question: I would read something by Karl Popper, and then ponder some of the great social experiments of the 20th century - Milgram and Zombardo for a start.

[emit_time_n3rgy]

Former spy & 'open source intelligence' advocate Robert Steele reviews an incredible amount of books and encourages people to use his reviews as a library of its own. You will have to do some searching through this large directory of his positive reviews:

http://www.phibetaiota.net/2010/07/worth-a-look-re-mixed-boo...

[gatsby]

This provides a good intro to a historical variety of political theories and includes everything from the ancient Greek traditions to Marx and Heidegger.

http://www.amazon.com/History-Political-Philosophy-Leo-Strau...

[curt]

The Road to Serfdom by Hayek

Great book

[lionhearted]

Read some quality history of long dead eras. I find the most intriguing to be Sengoku (Warring States) Japan, the transition from the late Roman Republic to the early Roman Empire, and Renaissance Italy. You can find good narratives and commentaries of these eras, like Edward Gibbon's History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Eiji Yoshikawa's Taiko (historical fiction, but accurate enough jumping off point). Reading a biography that follows one guy around can be pretty good - Julia Cartwright's "Baldissare Castiglione" is pretty good, it's a good read especially if you've already read The Prince by Machiavelli. (Definitely read a commentary/analyis of The Prince alongside it, though, so you understand the pressures on Machiavelli while writing)

Likewise, reading autobiographies and first hand accounts alongside commentaries can be interesting. I like Julius Cesar's autobiographical "The Gallic Wars." I have an electronic copy of Flavius Josephus's Books of the History of the Jewish War against the Romans, but haven't read it yet - but that looks really, really fascinating to me. I'll read it along with a commentary.

Understanding old politics (Roman, fragmented Italy states, fragmented Japan followed by unified Japan) has helped me understand new politics. Basically, the mainstream interpretation of anything political that happened after year 1750 or so is questionable and suspect. By all means, still learn modern history, but there's so much misinformation out there.

If you want a real head trip, go read Abraham Lincoln's first inaugural address. That'll show you how inaccurate the mainstream interpretation of events 200 years ago are. Really, seriously, it messed with my head when I read it -

http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html

Read his thoughts on slavery and fugitive slaves in there, and his argument for why nonviolent secession from the union is an act of violence. "In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors."

Start with the history of old politics if you want to understand new politics. Everything you've learned post-1750 without verifying from primary sources is suspect. I'm not exaggerating, nor am I a conspiracy theorist - I dig around through primary sources. Ever stop and wonder why the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor after the USA was its closest ally from the formation of the Empire up until four years before the war broke out?

All mainstream views on modern politics are suspect. Start with older eras with issues we aren't emotional about today, then once understanding duplicity and doublespeak, start learning about the modern era. For the record, I wholly support Lincoln and think he was a great President, despite the fact that I have a 180 degree different view of his intentions than most people. (In my view from my studies, he was a pure conquest imperialist, not any sort of liberator... but I still like him and think he made largely the right choice after the secession)