What do you think?
Rate this book
Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy
Prominent liberals support a whole litany of policies and principles: progressive taxes, affirmative action, greater regulation of corporations, raising the inheritance tax, strict environmental regulations, children’s rights, consumer rights, and more. But do they actually live by these beliefs? Peter Schweizer decided to investigate the private lives of politicians like the Clintons, Nancy Pelosi, the Kennedys, and Ralph Nader; commentators Michael Moore, Al Franken, Noam Chomsky, and Cornel West; entertainers or philanthropists Barbra Streisand and George Soros. Using publicly-available real estate records, IRS returns, court depositions, and their own published statements, he sought to examine whether they lived by the principles they so forcefully advocate.
What he found was a long list of contradictions. Many of these proponents of organized labor had developed various methods to sidestep paying union wages or avoid employing unions altogether. They were also adept at avoiding taxes; invested heavily in corporations they had denounced; took advantage of foreign tax credits to use non-American labor overseas; espoused environmental causes while opposing those that might affect their own property rights; hid their investments in trusts to avoid paying estate tax; denounced oil companies but quietly owned them.
Schweizer’s conclusion is simple: liberalism in the end forces its adherents to become hypocrites. They adopt one pose in public, but when it comes to what matters most in their own lives–their property, their privacy, and their children--they jettison their liberal principles and adopt conservative ones. If these ideas don’t work for the very individuals who promote them, Schweizer asks, how can they work for the country?
What he found was a long list of contradictions. Many of these proponents of organized labor had developed various methods to sidestep paying union wages or avoid employing unions altogether. They were also adept at avoiding taxes; invested heavily in corporations they had denounced; took advantage of foreign tax credits to use non-American labor overseas; espoused environmental causes while opposing those that might affect their own property rights; hid their investments in trusts to avoid paying estate tax; denounced oil companies but quietly owned them.
Schweizer’s conclusion is simple: liberalism in the end forces its adherents to become hypocrites. They adopt one pose in public, but when it comes to what matters most in their own lives–their property, their privacy, and their children--they jettison their liberal principles and adopt conservative ones. If these ideas don’t work for the very individuals who promote them, Schweizer asks, how can they work for the country?
272 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2005
53 people are currently reading
387 people want to read
About the author
Peter Schweizer
54Ìýbooks384ÌýfollowersPETER SCHWEIZER is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. From 2008-9 he served as a consultant to the White House Office of Presidential Speechwriting and he is a former consultant to NBC News. He has written for the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, National Review, Foreign Affairs, and elsewhere. His books include The Bushes, Reagan's War, and Do as I Say, Not as I Do.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 55 reviews
October 8, 2020
You’ll find plenty of hypocrisy in this book that’ll make your blood boil. Noam Chomsky calls the Pentagon the worst institution on the planet while accepting money from them to make his books. Cornel West blasts capitalism while taking advantage of it at every opportunity. Michael Moore blasts Wall Street while owning stock (and lies about it). These are plenty of other hypocrites mentioned in this book including, but not limited to, Nancy Pelosi, George Soros, Al Franken, Ralph Nader, and Gloria Steinem. Hypocrisy from the right is discussed in the beginning of the book.
November 17, 2022
"We need people like Soros who is fearless"
Hillary Clinton
"[Trump] he is going to fail; his ideas are self-contradictory"
“I don’t think the markets are going to do very well.�
George Soros, in Davos, 2017
This book is demolishing for those liberals, profiled. It's a Left on demise mode; in derision. No wonder they lost the 2016 election. They just don’t live up to their standards, or principles. Or commitments.
(Chomsky and Chavez)
(Chomsky)
"The American intervention, like all other imperialist wars, has stirred up ethnic and class hatreds, set groups against one another, intensified every conceivable antagonism to bloody conflict. The Vietnamese and the Thai, the two strongest and most dynamic societies in the region, are virtually at war. The Cambodian army has massacred Vietnamese. The Meo have been set against the Lao and other hill tribesmen"
in:
MIT's darling, linguist and philosopher, prominent activist in the late sixties against the US intervention in Vietnam, Chomsky had a consistent message against the Pentagon and the military industrial complex. However, he produced several books, financed by (guess who??): the military and the Pentagon. Chomsky and wife, as well. Sympathetic with the Castro Cuban regime and other nations in central America, he seemed not to recognize that as he condemned American ‘interventionism�, he was favoring the other interventionists (the Soviets, namely). What a patriot. I pity he didn’t stay in Venezuela, Chavez’s. Of course, at home, he conducts himself like a capitalist, according to the search made by Schweizer (check on Chomsky real estate, boat, speeches fees, protection guards).
As one student of Chomsky told Mother Jones: “Chomsky thinks he is a feminist but –at heart- he’s an old fashioned patriarch�.
And yet, it's curious this quote from Chomsky himself.
"There’s a famous definition in the Gospels of the hypocrite, and the hypocrite is the person who refuses to apply to himself the standards he applies to others. By that standard, the entire commentary and discussion of the so-called War on Terror is pure hypocrisy, virtually without exception. Can anybody understand that? No, they can’t understand it."
Noam Chomsky, in Power and Terror, 2003
So, who's the hypocrite?
(Multimillionaire Michael Moore)
Michael Moore is just laughable. Truly, the so-called ‘man from Flint�, actually doesn’t live there. He’s from a neighborhood, with zero black people: Davison. His mouth has been often full of the charges of “racism� yet how many black people did he hire in his movies and documentaries? The author found that out of 134 people hired (as professionals for the production, cinematography, etc) Moore let 3 black people in. Just shameful. How about his Foundation? How about his Concorde trip to London and the Ritz stay-in? His mouthful also rages against capitalism, yet (despite denying any stockholding) he’s got a Foundation portfolio full on Pharma companies, defense corporations stocks etc. Yes, don’t look at what I do.
Yet, I reckon his powers of prediction. I watched him foretelling about Trump's winning in 2016. Now, with the recent 11/9 documentary, he's saying Trump to be the "last president". Is this a wish, or a prediction?? Time will tell.
(Michael Moore)
What are the main differences Schweizer perceives between conservatives and liberals? They are: (1) unlike liberals, conservatives “understand and accept the reality of hypocrisy as part of the human condition"; conservatives “confine their moral beliefs to the realm of the personal conduct and responsibility�. Yet (2) liberals like to “legislate their beliefs and impose them on others �(like progressive taxes, affirmative action etc.).
Again, take the case of John Kerry in the 2004 campaign, when he was criticizing the super-rich for not paying their share. And yet, the Kerries had a net worth of $700 million, and, according to the author, their “fair share� wasn’t that great.
This is a world of profound contradictions.
(Congresswoman Nanci Pelosi)
Yes, she's rotten rich, one of the richest politicians. You should take a peep at the Pelosis exclusive hotels.
This is quintessential contradiction. A man who decries the evils of capitalism and who says of himself: "I am a class limousine liberal". Indeed, an offshore business man, advocating more taxes for the wealthy. Philanthropist as well as currency speculator/predator (poor times for the British pound, the Thai baht and the Russian ruble, who doesn't recall??). Let's just Move On.
BARBRA STREISAND? No, she din't move to Australia or Canada; she's still in the USA. She was once, maybe, the most powerful liberal in Hollywood, champion on raising funds and close confidante of Bill Clinton.
(NADER)
Apparently a Spartan man, he’s become a shrewd investor, owner of two Foundations.
“BLACK people in the United States differ from all other modern people owing to the unprecedented levels of unregulated and unrestrained violence directed at them. No other people have been taught systematically to hate themselves� psychic violence—reinforced by the powers of state and civic coercion� physical violence—for the primary purpose of controlling their minds and exploiting their labor for nearly four hundred years. �
Cornell West, in 'Race Matters'
About Cornel West, one of the most gifted black thinkers, he is the “consummate entrepreneur capitalist�, says Schweizer. He is the one calling America a “chamber of horrors� and recommending blacks to attend black colleges. Mind you, he wrote �
Well, Al Franken just “resigned�, recently. And about Hillary Clinton, I won’t comment, as, presumably, we all know a lot about her (or them).
(That was the issue of Newsweek Dec 28 1998/ Jan 4 1999. The first impeachment in 130 years just Happened)
In the Conclusion, the author calls the attention to the fact that most of them have escaped “accountability�. Correct.
UPDATE
December 14, 2007
This book got me thinking. Someone smarter than me wrote:
"Democrats, as a general rule, oppose giving the people any choice in matters -- unless the matter involves sex. It seemed like a good observation -- they don't think we can choose whether or not to wear seat belts, get health insurance, serve in the military (note that the biggest -- and nearly only -- proponents for reinstating the draft are Democrats), give more money to the government, or a host of other examples. It's only in matters related to sex (gay rights, gay marriage, abortion, etc. etc.) that they are champions of "choice."
As a general rule, the Democrats don't want the people to choose -- unless it's in a way that doesn't really matter.
Health insurance? You can choose to get yours through work or get yours through the government. But the idea that you might want to go without -- for whatever reason -- is NOT an option.
Buy a vehicle? Sure. But don't even THINK of getting a big, gas-guzzling SUV. Whether or not you have a valid reason for wanting one, or can afford the gas and simply want one, you can't have one. They'll slap you with extra taxes, or just juggle the gas mileage laws so the manufacturers simply can't afford to sell you what you want.
Send your kids to a better school? No problem -- as long as you don't mind paying for your kid's education twice. You get to pay for the school they think your kid should go, and if you ask for a voucher to go elsewhere, fuggedaboutit.
Join a union or not? If history is any indicator, sure -- but you still get to pay your dues. And member or not, you generally have NO say in how those dues are spent -- especially those that end up in politicians' coffers.
You can even hear it in their opposition to the war in Iraq. One of the more common terms used to assail it is "choice" -- "led us into a war of choice," "chose to lead us into an unnecessary war," and the like. Regardless of one's position on the war, the use of the term "choice" as a pejorative is rather revealing.
And now back to sex. Here, they can't abolish "choice," so they simply devalue it. Homosexuality isn't a "choice," it's simply how people were born (and who among us knows if that is completely true or not?). And when it comes to abortion, the strategy is to simply make the "choice" as meaningless as possible. Have the baby, abort it -- it's all the same."
-Jay Tea, Wizbangblog.com
Think about it for a minute. The mindset of liberals has always baffled me. Think about the absurdity of carbon offsets, and Al Gore flying around in private jets telling us commoners how to live our lives. Think about how much liberal politicians hate low taxation (no matter how much it benefits the economy). Well, liberals have never understood Economics...
"Democrats, as a general rule, oppose giving the people any choice in matters -- unless the matter involves sex. It seemed like a good observation -- they don't think we can choose whether or not to wear seat belts, get health insurance, serve in the military (note that the biggest -- and nearly only -- proponents for reinstating the draft are Democrats), give more money to the government, or a host of other examples. It's only in matters related to sex (gay rights, gay marriage, abortion, etc. etc.) that they are champions of "choice."
As a general rule, the Democrats don't want the people to choose -- unless it's in a way that doesn't really matter.
Health insurance? You can choose to get yours through work or get yours through the government. But the idea that you might want to go without -- for whatever reason -- is NOT an option.
Buy a vehicle? Sure. But don't even THINK of getting a big, gas-guzzling SUV. Whether or not you have a valid reason for wanting one, or can afford the gas and simply want one, you can't have one. They'll slap you with extra taxes, or just juggle the gas mileage laws so the manufacturers simply can't afford to sell you what you want.
Send your kids to a better school? No problem -- as long as you don't mind paying for your kid's education twice. You get to pay for the school they think your kid should go, and if you ask for a voucher to go elsewhere, fuggedaboutit.
Join a union or not? If history is any indicator, sure -- but you still get to pay your dues. And member or not, you generally have NO say in how those dues are spent -- especially those that end up in politicians' coffers.
You can even hear it in their opposition to the war in Iraq. One of the more common terms used to assail it is "choice" -- "led us into a war of choice," "chose to lead us into an unnecessary war," and the like. Regardless of one's position on the war, the use of the term "choice" as a pejorative is rather revealing.
And now back to sex. Here, they can't abolish "choice," so they simply devalue it. Homosexuality isn't a "choice," it's simply how people were born (and who among us knows if that is completely true or not?). And when it comes to abortion, the strategy is to simply make the "choice" as meaningless as possible. Have the baby, abort it -- it's all the same."
-Jay Tea, Wizbangblog.com
Think about it for a minute. The mindset of liberals has always baffled me. Think about the absurdity of carbon offsets, and Al Gore flying around in private jets telling us commoners how to live our lives. Think about how much liberal politicians hate low taxation (no matter how much it benefits the economy). Well, liberals have never understood Economics...
October 20, 2020
This is sad and also accurate. But in the telling he becomes as venal as the Leftists. Well not entirely that vicious as the Leftists usual tirades, but much closer than any other politico book I've read since about 2015.
Saying that, I completely agree with his specific and detailed examples. Chomsky has always made me literally get agita from my middle youth. But all of the examples are worthy of the title. More.
Looking at the deep hypocrisy of the lifestyles and choices- it always amazes me that they are "popular" in any sense of a following for people who actually live the respective "good" moral standards of this particular set of values.
Others have said it better in review. I'd rather read positive than negative with such bottom feeder depth for their "sharing" role model, to be truthful.
Saying that, I completely agree with his specific and detailed examples. Chomsky has always made me literally get agita from my middle youth. But all of the examples are worthy of the title. More.
Looking at the deep hypocrisy of the lifestyles and choices- it always amazes me that they are "popular" in any sense of a following for people who actually live the respective "good" moral standards of this particular set of values.
Others have said it better in review. I'd rather read positive than negative with such bottom feeder depth for their "sharing" role model, to be truthful.
March 2, 2009
This book was very short and covered a few people that conservatives love to hate. I liked some of the profiles but was very turned off by the way the author chose to forgive some conservatives who behaved badly. Excuses are never a good thing.
March 4, 2016
I found this pretty informative. I have added more people to My Hate List now. On another note though, the author was so very diligent in pointing fingers back at those pointing fingers that it just ends up in a mud fight. And like my Sweet Wife always tells me: When you play in the mud with the Pig you both get dirty, except the Pig loves it. I thought the ending was pretty good and a nice summed up conclusion. Fortunately most or all of the people that were depicted in this book will be dead in ten years. However, just like a , when you cut off one head two grows in it's stead. So there will be even more hypocrites that have seen these people's bad examples.
I thought Barbra Streisand was ugly before. Now she's a hideous wretch.
I thought Barbra Streisand was ugly before. Now she's a hideous wretch.
January 5, 2016
I think everyone is a hypocrite to some degree but what made this book an enjoyable read was the people Schweizer chose to profile are all incredibly self righteous and arrogant. So to see someone dismantle a fraud like Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky while doing it in a way that is well researched and honest is refreshing as these people are often shown in the media as these beacons of goodness and catalysts for positive change when in fact they are basically just scam artists that prey on people's emotions. Everyone knows that liberals are two faced, it's the only way you can believe what they believe, but to see what these people do when they think no one is watching is shameful. I would rate this higher but I have no desire to revisit any of this again
June 14, 2008
A great, well-researched book, with footnotes all over the place so you can look up the facts individually if you need them. It's an entertaining read, and though it was written by a conservative and will mostly be read by a conservative audience, moderates and liberals willing to be challenged about their heroes would do well to give it a try too. It's not an attack on their beliefs themselves, but on the way these liberal "icons" fail to live up to their own beliefs. It's ammunition for those of us who didn't like them to begin with, and an eye-opener for people who do agree with them but might want to find some new leaders.
February 5, 2016
Seems to consist mostly of pointing fingers at various public figures that are not republican, and saying "look who has stock (or money or property)".
The said figures are the targets because they dare to speak in a different voice on behalf of what might be good for the people who are not major stockholders or property owners, and the danger is it might come to pass if more people heard this.
It might not be possible to have another affairgate, and some way of throwing sand about to create a storm and make people shield their eyes had to be found.
......................
It might be informative to read of some of the details, and even disheartening, to find out about various public figures who tried to do good for people and spoke out on behalf of them, to find out that White water consisted of middle class and poor getting a raw deal bordering on cheating and Pelosi owns expensive resorts with no one allowed to join unions, to find out how Soros played with economies of various nations and how Streisand does not pay happy wages. To find how few of them employ any minorities, any other races or cultures, or even women.
But only if one thinks that this book gives all the information there is to give on any of those, with no context spared, and no mitigating circumstance left out.
Let us give benefit of doubt and say the writer is sincere, and not merely throwing mud at people who are likely to be good for the people of US who are not the top rich people.
But then one looks at his conclusions towards the end and sees the agenda clearly. Their practices are completely right and justified while it is their thinking and speaking and general public stance that is wrong, he states emphatically. They employ only "white" males because they want the best, and he does not blame them, he concludes.
To begin with humans are not, ever, "white" - except as an exaggeration or a euphemism. Cows, dogs, cats, horses, various birds and flowers are or can be white, but no human ever looked naked while wearing white clothes, of any shape or size. If there were such a risk no white clothing would be allowed in public much less formal occasions.
That aside, to conclude that employment of males of a certain origin implies that they are the best, is to go with a logic much like rich making money because they are rich - by being given positions and higher pay packets and market tips and club memberships where real deals are struck and expensive gifts worth millions that they don't need.
Or one could conclude that any conqueror was always right, which is why the attack succeded - whether Attila the Hun or any of those that managed to attack various western nations, including their own parts.
Shocking? Yes, it is - and so it is to conclude that "white" males get all the well paid jobs only because they and no one else is good enough.
The real agenda of the writer is not even for the men and women who can do it, as it was of Ayn Rand, but it is of rich white men ruling because they according to the writer are the only competent ones.
............
If such conclusions along his logic were warranted, let us see where it can take us.
Schweitzer says that people who speak for the poor and against malpractices of stocks and business should not indulge in stock. If they do, it is because their practices are good and their speeches are fraud.
Would he say Roman church consisting of bishops indulging in paedophilia and other unsavoury activities amounts to their theory being no good and paedophilia being good?
He says Streisand and others lobbying for fair pay and hours are fraud because they do not practice it. And he further says this proves their theory is wrong, since they cannot live it.
Would he admit that any male MD or otherwise medical professional practicing in ob-gyn is deficient in knowledge by definition, since they their professional activities have nothing to do with their own personal experiences? Would he condemn them for fraud?
Would a lawyer be fraudulent in practicing defense or prosecution of murder accused without having experienced murder? Should an actor die in process of portrayal of death?
According to his logic, no male, much less a celebate institution, should have any right to say a word about pregnancy or anything related to it.
In fact no celebate person should have anything to do with a marriage, much less proclaim rights and wrongs of one, or performing the ceremony.
..............
That was a few of the natural conclusions arising from stretching the logic of his concluding chapter and applying it to other fields of life where it might make more sense, such as male ob-gyn or celebate males dictating rules of marriage and reproduction.
He could just as easily have left it at a more natural conclusion, which is that while these people preach much lofty sounding stuff they practice another. But that had the danger of people merely holding them on par with the fallen bishops who have after all not all been automatically ex-communicated.
In fact one parallel with his logic and conclusion about practice of left wing being better than their theory applied to the paedophile bishops would be to say that it is priesthood that is wrong while porn and paedophilia is the only right thing to do. Shocking, right? But it is his logic and his conclusion, only shifted from those who speak for people and do not practice their theory in their life in perfection, to those who uphold celebacy of their own as superior to others while practicing otherwise in private and preaching compulsory childbearing to all married people and almost all women.
............
He goes into another plane of vitriol when dealing with Steinem, and wishes to know what she expected to find at playboy if not sexism.
Fact is the said sexism was not only about women prancing about in impossible, silly, unhealthy gear for fancy of well fed males - that much is visible from outside the building for any decent person to be disgusted with.
Her working there for investigative jounalism was on one level about exposing how little the pay and how tough the work, unlike the advertisements about fun and glamour and good pay, and how discriminatory the employers towards the women employed compared to male employees, in various terms.
On another level it is about making those women seem less objects and more human to the casually dismissive Schweitzers of this world if possible, by telling their story, even if through one person.
One might as well question Memoirs of a Geisha or indeed all literature with the same Schweitzer question of "what did they expect" of anyone in trouble. One might question what a woman "expected" if her husband murdered her or if her brand new date raped and butchered her. One does not, because one expects more humanity from humanity.
................
He mentions about women who did not marry due to listening to Steinem and are now left alone and forgotten. He blames it on her.
But isn't the idea in west that one marries for love, that love is all, that one should not marry except for love no matter what?
If those women had found love they would have never been alone, married or not; and if they did marry what guarantee did Schweitzer have that they were not divorced, left alone and forgotten after a few or even many years of a marriage? Has it not been happening in his culture, his nation? All too frequently, at that?
His words blaming Steinem indeed belie the notion that west marries for and only for love. While they do not have a system that takes care of a woman finding a home, a husband, security, and is not "left alone and forgotten", they also do not have any social system that would guarantee an equal opportunity to them of a life otherwise, whether socially or professionally. So they are left at the mercy of men who might or might not offer marriage and there are the Schweitzers of the world to blame them for letting go of "opportunities of marriage", in a twisted logic that forgets conveniently about love in blaming the women in every way.
Is love merely a convenient word for the husband of a few or several years divorcing the older wife for a younger toy trophy?
Or is it all just blame the women, blame even more the women who speak - and denounce marriages of any other cultures because they work, with no control by Schweitzer's capitalist system?
...........
Schweitzer would be doing fine if only he refrained from commenting or drawing conclusions, if he merely documented the gaps between practice and speech by various public figures, and it might help if he were not discriminatory in picking on the Streisands and Clintons and Steinems and so forth while leaving alone the paedophile bishops of Roman faith and other goons on the side he claims is honest if thugs.
The said figures are the targets because they dare to speak in a different voice on behalf of what might be good for the people who are not major stockholders or property owners, and the danger is it might come to pass if more people heard this.
It might not be possible to have another affairgate, and some way of throwing sand about to create a storm and make people shield their eyes had to be found.
......................
It might be informative to read of some of the details, and even disheartening, to find out about various public figures who tried to do good for people and spoke out on behalf of them, to find out that White water consisted of middle class and poor getting a raw deal bordering on cheating and Pelosi owns expensive resorts with no one allowed to join unions, to find out how Soros played with economies of various nations and how Streisand does not pay happy wages. To find how few of them employ any minorities, any other races or cultures, or even women.
But only if one thinks that this book gives all the information there is to give on any of those, with no context spared, and no mitigating circumstance left out.
Let us give benefit of doubt and say the writer is sincere, and not merely throwing mud at people who are likely to be good for the people of US who are not the top rich people.
But then one looks at his conclusions towards the end and sees the agenda clearly. Their practices are completely right and justified while it is their thinking and speaking and general public stance that is wrong, he states emphatically. They employ only "white" males because they want the best, and he does not blame them, he concludes.
To begin with humans are not, ever, "white" - except as an exaggeration or a euphemism. Cows, dogs, cats, horses, various birds and flowers are or can be white, but no human ever looked naked while wearing white clothes, of any shape or size. If there were such a risk no white clothing would be allowed in public much less formal occasions.
That aside, to conclude that employment of males of a certain origin implies that they are the best, is to go with a logic much like rich making money because they are rich - by being given positions and higher pay packets and market tips and club memberships where real deals are struck and expensive gifts worth millions that they don't need.
Or one could conclude that any conqueror was always right, which is why the attack succeded - whether Attila the Hun or any of those that managed to attack various western nations, including their own parts.
Shocking? Yes, it is - and so it is to conclude that "white" males get all the well paid jobs only because they and no one else is good enough.
The real agenda of the writer is not even for the men and women who can do it, as it was of Ayn Rand, but it is of rich white men ruling because they according to the writer are the only competent ones.
............
If such conclusions along his logic were warranted, let us see where it can take us.
Schweitzer says that people who speak for the poor and against malpractices of stocks and business should not indulge in stock. If they do, it is because their practices are good and their speeches are fraud.
Would he say Roman church consisting of bishops indulging in paedophilia and other unsavoury activities amounts to their theory being no good and paedophilia being good?
He says Streisand and others lobbying for fair pay and hours are fraud because they do not practice it. And he further says this proves their theory is wrong, since they cannot live it.
Would he admit that any male MD or otherwise medical professional practicing in ob-gyn is deficient in knowledge by definition, since they their professional activities have nothing to do with their own personal experiences? Would he condemn them for fraud?
Would a lawyer be fraudulent in practicing defense or prosecution of murder accused without having experienced murder? Should an actor die in process of portrayal of death?
According to his logic, no male, much less a celebate institution, should have any right to say a word about pregnancy or anything related to it.
In fact no celebate person should have anything to do with a marriage, much less proclaim rights and wrongs of one, or performing the ceremony.
..............
That was a few of the natural conclusions arising from stretching the logic of his concluding chapter and applying it to other fields of life where it might make more sense, such as male ob-gyn or celebate males dictating rules of marriage and reproduction.
He could just as easily have left it at a more natural conclusion, which is that while these people preach much lofty sounding stuff they practice another. But that had the danger of people merely holding them on par with the fallen bishops who have after all not all been automatically ex-communicated.
In fact one parallel with his logic and conclusion about practice of left wing being better than their theory applied to the paedophile bishops would be to say that it is priesthood that is wrong while porn and paedophilia is the only right thing to do. Shocking, right? But it is his logic and his conclusion, only shifted from those who speak for people and do not practice their theory in their life in perfection, to those who uphold celebacy of their own as superior to others while practicing otherwise in private and preaching compulsory childbearing to all married people and almost all women.
............
He goes into another plane of vitriol when dealing with Steinem, and wishes to know what she expected to find at playboy if not sexism.
Fact is the said sexism was not only about women prancing about in impossible, silly, unhealthy gear for fancy of well fed males - that much is visible from outside the building for any decent person to be disgusted with.
Her working there for investigative jounalism was on one level about exposing how little the pay and how tough the work, unlike the advertisements about fun and glamour and good pay, and how discriminatory the employers towards the women employed compared to male employees, in various terms.
On another level it is about making those women seem less objects and more human to the casually dismissive Schweitzers of this world if possible, by telling their story, even if through one person.
One might as well question Memoirs of a Geisha or indeed all literature with the same Schweitzer question of "what did they expect" of anyone in trouble. One might question what a woman "expected" if her husband murdered her or if her brand new date raped and butchered her. One does not, because one expects more humanity from humanity.
................
He mentions about women who did not marry due to listening to Steinem and are now left alone and forgotten. He blames it on her.
But isn't the idea in west that one marries for love, that love is all, that one should not marry except for love no matter what?
If those women had found love they would have never been alone, married or not; and if they did marry what guarantee did Schweitzer have that they were not divorced, left alone and forgotten after a few or even many years of a marriage? Has it not been happening in his culture, his nation? All too frequently, at that?
His words blaming Steinem indeed belie the notion that west marries for and only for love. While they do not have a system that takes care of a woman finding a home, a husband, security, and is not "left alone and forgotten", they also do not have any social system that would guarantee an equal opportunity to them of a life otherwise, whether socially or professionally. So they are left at the mercy of men who might or might not offer marriage and there are the Schweitzers of the world to blame them for letting go of "opportunities of marriage", in a twisted logic that forgets conveniently about love in blaming the women in every way.
Is love merely a convenient word for the husband of a few or several years divorcing the older wife for a younger toy trophy?
Or is it all just blame the women, blame even more the women who speak - and denounce marriages of any other cultures because they work, with no control by Schweitzer's capitalist system?
...........
Schweitzer would be doing fine if only he refrained from commenting or drawing conclusions, if he merely documented the gaps between practice and speech by various public figures, and it might help if he were not discriminatory in picking on the Streisands and Clintons and Steinems and so forth while leaving alone the paedophile bishops of Roman faith and other goons on the side he claims is honest if thugs.
November 6, 2014
These famous liberals sure have done an impressive job of being seen by their admirers as virtuous and above reproach. These fortunate souls were gifted with a big platform where they could loudly condemn consumerism, America, big business, the rich, capitalism, etc... and there by doing so gain so much fame, wealth and power. There guilt ridden liberal audience longs to hear it all, they lap it all up like a dog with a ravenous thirst. I suppose this is because they are taught in school, by media, pop-culture and TV that America and Capitalism are the cause of all the worlds ills. They know westerners after all should feel terrible shame for being so privileged, for surely the west prosperity could only have come about because it raped the developing countries of their resources and exploited the poor. So yes these Liberal prophets and preachers of righteousness are exactly what they want to hear, they don't seem to even think about seeing it their heroes live what they preach.
What is simply unreal and this book unveils, is how these big time Liberals manage to proclaim one thing and be perceived in a certain way, all the while living in obscene wealth and privilege; investing in the stock market, big corporations, avoiding taxes, escaping regulation, exploiting the poor and the environment, never hiring minorities, etc... One has to wonder if they really believe what they say, maybe they are extremely skilled at self-deception or gifted with enough creativity to justify living lives that are the antithesis of the principles they spew and work to get the government to force on others.
I almost wonder if these Liberals so hate Christianity and have such a strong lust for power, that following Machiavellian principles, they find ways to undermined Christian values, all the while gaining power and wealth they want and yet do it in such a way that the majority see them as saints, moral heroes, champions of the poor and needy.
From Paul Johnson's book Intellectuals, it sounds like the the whole slew of secular intellectuals have been of this lot; hypocritical scumbags, terrible pieces of humanity and yet they hashed out ideas that mysteriously are joyously embraced by the masses.
What is simply unreal and this book unveils, is how these big time Liberals manage to proclaim one thing and be perceived in a certain way, all the while living in obscene wealth and privilege; investing in the stock market, big corporations, avoiding taxes, escaping regulation, exploiting the poor and the environment, never hiring minorities, etc... One has to wonder if they really believe what they say, maybe they are extremely skilled at self-deception or gifted with enough creativity to justify living lives that are the antithesis of the principles they spew and work to get the government to force on others.
I almost wonder if these Liberals so hate Christianity and have such a strong lust for power, that following Machiavellian principles, they find ways to undermined Christian values, all the while gaining power and wealth they want and yet do it in such a way that the majority see them as saints, moral heroes, champions of the poor and needy.
From Paul Johnson's book Intellectuals, it sounds like the the whole slew of secular intellectuals have been of this lot; hypocritical scumbags, terrible pieces of humanity and yet they hashed out ideas that mysteriously are joyously embraced by the masses.
December 23, 2012
ppld.org: Using publicly-available real estate records, IRS returns, court depositions, and their own published statements, he sought to examine whether they lived by the principles they so forcefully advocate. What he found was a long list of contradictions. Many of these proponents of organized labor had developed various methods to sidestep paying union wages or avoid employing unions altogether. They were also adept at avoiding taxes; invested heavily in corporations they had denounced; took advantage of foreign tax credits to use non-American labor overseas; espoused environmental causes while opposing those that might affect their own property rights; hid their investments in trusts to avoid paying estate tax; denounced oil companies but quietly owned them. Schweizer’s conclusion is simple: liberalism in the end forces its adherents to become hypocrites. examples: Clintons, Nancy Pelosi, the Kennedys, Ralph Nader, Michael Moore, Al Franken, Noam Chomsky, Cornel West, Barbra Streisand and George Soros.
September 1, 2011
It's always amusing when self-righteous hypocrites are exposed for being exactly that. The Religious Right has taken a pounding from liberals for the sins of Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, and Ted Haggard. The problem is, when you condemn someone for their actions, you shouldn't be doing those same things yourself. That makes you a hypocrite.
Schweitzer's book exposes the hypocrisy of self-described liberals such as Michael Moore, Barbra Streisand, Nancy Pelosi, Al Franken, Noam Chomsky and, of course, Hillary Clinton. The information he includes regarding Whitewater was eye-opening and I'm glad I never voted for either of them in any election. At the very least, Swaggart and Bakker admitted that what they did was wrong, while liberals like Chomsky simply change the subject. If the liberals expect to be taken seriously by the voting public, then they need to practice what they preach.
Schweitzer's book exposes the hypocrisy of self-described liberals such as Michael Moore, Barbra Streisand, Nancy Pelosi, Al Franken, Noam Chomsky and, of course, Hillary Clinton. The information he includes regarding Whitewater was eye-opening and I'm glad I never voted for either of them in any election. At the very least, Swaggart and Bakker admitted that what they did was wrong, while liberals like Chomsky simply change the subject. If the liberals expect to be taken seriously by the voting public, then they need to practice what they preach.
February 13, 2010
The only thing wrong with this book is there is no chapter on Al Gore.
It is amazing to me that these individuals have no problem preaching a certain idealistic way of life that they have no intention of following themselves. That the mainstream media allows them to get away with it is even more disturbing than there behavior.
It is amazing to me that these individuals have no problem preaching a certain idealistic way of life that they have no intention of following themselves. That the mainstream media allows them to get away with it is even more disturbing than there behavior.
November 24, 2010
This book was fascintating. Of course, it has its share of conservative hyperbole which, in my opinion, does a disseservice to the conservative principles, however, it clearly points out the incredible hypocrisy that the elistist liberal establishment continue to demonstrate. I highly recommend the book.
June 30, 2016
Read this book for some political insight, but got political spin or is it more like politicking attack to the other side instead. Hypocrisy is almost universal. We are all guilty of it. I just want more political understanding toward the next elections. Too many of these books fail badly.
June 14, 2015
A quick read. Shows examples of prominent liberals who preach liberal policies, but fail to live them. In fact, their personal lives seem to line up with conservative values. Well documented.
September 30, 2020
It's a moral progressivism myth. Classical philosophers knew they couldn‘t find wisdom, and therefore offered to love and search for answers. Meanwhile liberal philosophers believe that wisdom is the same as liberalism. It‘s a dogmatic belief based solely on their own belief, transforming their philosophy into political belief and theology. Liberal philosophers realize that the theories they develop do not refer to what classical philosophers called wisdom, but still continue to portray it as the search for truth. The political philosophy of liberalism is based on the assumption of historical philosophy about the sameness of progress and liberalism. This means that liberals want not only to teach people to tolerate the beliefs of people who already tolerate each other on a specific level, but also create a new society of progress. In Hegel's words, "the history of the world is the development of the perception of freedom". However, this assumption of the liberal philosophy of history contradicts their political philosophy. They avoid statements claiming absoluteness, but at the same time they say they know even the direction of world‘s history. In the first case, they are skeptics, in the second, dogmatics. The philosophy of liberal history is not philosophy, but a political belief. Liberals believe that the progress of liberalism means the progress of humanity. Doubting everything, but at the same time believing in the dogma of political and moral progress - without this belief, it would be impossible to link the individual statements of liberalism as a whole. Only such belief can explain such loose doctrine transformation into a practical action. It‘s obvious that liberals operate on the principle of credo quia absurdum. Applying Samuel Beckett’s metaphor, they are waiting for Godot, this really weird character. The main characters of the story not only don‘t know Godot, but also don‘t know whether they have arranged to meet him. Liberals say they are searching for the truth, but have no criteria for saying whether it‘s true. Liberal political philosophy is imprisoned in the questionable reputation assumptions about philosophy of history. Such truths are injustifiably based solely on civic belief and perceived as doctrine for political, social, and cultural progress. While they don‘t like talking about the importance of history for an individual’s moral identity, their political philosophy is based on belief in the progress of history and believing that history is making progress in the direction set by the ideas of liberalism. If it‘s possible to deviate in any way from the established direction of liberal progress, it‘s only for the sake of bigger liberalism. This kind of doctrine is the truest substitute for religion. While publicly showing respect for freedom of thought, modern liberals are the creators of civic belief. Liberalism is based on belief in a certain conception of man, society and the world. The individual changes God, freedom changes morality, until finally they are both replaced by an endless pursuit of novelty. In Schmitt's words: „stat pro ratione Libertas et Novitas pro Libertate�. Liberals believe that the future must necessarily bring more freedom and good than the past. It is only belief, not knowledge based on scientific arguments, which paradoxically they cheer for. Unable to philosophically prove the superiority of liberalism, its proponents corrects this deficiency by belief. While novelty never means progress in itself, the philosophy of liberalism is based on the belief that freedom for new and unusual things is the most important goal of human‘s life. Since John Stuart Mill‘s times liberal philosophers have spoken about the meaning of moral eccentricity. In that regard they use „anything goes� principle, formulated by Paul Feyerabend, which was formulated on a completely different grounds. Interestingly enough, this „anything goes� principle creates identity problem for liberalism as such. Acknowledging that anything is right, it can be said that denial of liberalism is also right. Even distancing oneself from the doctrine of liberalism can begin to be interpreted as liberalism. Liberals can criticize any belief, but at the same time that criticism cannot be so strong that would destroy their own identity basis. Their own criticism they must stop at the line of familiar political dogmas. Carl Schmitt thought that liberals have no conception of their politics and live only in its critique told by others. He saw only one problematic side of liberalism. He didn‘t notice that political liberalism equates liberal and illiberal political views. This is hampered by the tendency of liberals to emphasize the uniqueness of their views. However, liberal philosophers have never found and won‘t find unshakable foundations for their doctrine. This task can only be solved by belief in the doctrine itself. To describe it, a phrase of Tristan Tzara‘s, the author of the famous Dadaist manifesto, could be applied: „I‘m against systems, the most acceptible system is on principle to have none�. Liberals and Dadaists are related by systemic unsystematicism. Political liberals have strong political principles, but their concept of morality is based on a lack of principles. Paradoxically, a liberal moral subject can simultaneously recognize two moral principles that contradicts with each other. This is possible only a priori by believing in the superiority of its doctrine and the progress of history. The philosophy of liberal morality cannot be imagined without the progress of beliefs and only this makes it possible to reject the idea of the objectivity and immutability of the separation of good and evil. The concept of liberal progress is based on the belief that the person of the future will be superior to the person of the present. Using this type of logic it means that the person of the future may have a completely different conception of good than the current liberals too. In this regard, modern liberals stand side by side with other utopians eager to create a new man and society. The fact that liberalism is not a legit philosophy can be explained by words of Alan Badiou on democracy. You just need to replace word "democracy" with word "liberalism": „democracy is not, cannot be regarded as a category of philosophy. Why? Because democracy is a form of the State; let philosophy assess politics� final goals; and let this end be as well the end of the State, thus the end of all relevance to the word "democracy." Paraphrasing the title of one article written by Ronald Dworkin, it can be said that liberals cannot philosophically prove the superiority of their doctrine, so they always end the discussion with the suggestion "better believe it". All the paradoxes of the political philosophy of liberalism are resolved on the basis of belief. As soon as they face contradictions and inconsistencies, liberals turn to their beliefs. This is the only basis on which they can talk about the superiority of their doctrine. The philosophy of liberalism faces major problems of identity not because liberalism is the main key player in democracies today, but only because from the very beggining this doctrine was created as a word of praise for inconsistency. Even the precisely formulated Rawls philosophy is based on paradoxes and inconsistencies. In the case of political liberalism, liberals are forced to agree with people of illiberal beliefs, meanwhile in the case of moral liberalism, they cannot say what constitutes their own morality. The moral subject postulated by liberals can choose both - Mammon and God. The strangest thing is that even after choosing Mammon, he can still feel worthy of respect. Liberals say they are looking for consensus, but their philosophical works show the opposite - they are really looking for disagreements. „A new progressive movement� in this liberal language game is perceived as free thought, which means a sign of liberalism.
After Rawls' Political liberalism, liberals have only one reliable way of forming their ideological identity - moral liberalism, which means that disagreeing is equal to being insensible. Such strategy of shaping the identity is also doomed to failure. Moral liberalism cannot provide a solid basis for the identity of liberal philosophy, as it‘s based on the same matrix as political liberalism. It means that neither political nor moral liberalism can create an identity of liberalism. In both cases, the liberals need something more. The biggest problems of liberalism are related to the lack of an independent concept of morality. A liberal is both a "yes" and a "no" moral subject. It means it defend both - promiscuity or dissociation from it by creating its identity by allowing one to choose between the two. When it‘s necessary to state clearly what the attitude towards someothing is, it turns out that there is none. Liberals can disagree with the idea that being promiscious, sell yourself is bad and believe that it‘s a person‘s choice, but in reality face a legal approach that is different from their view of morality. Political liberalism equates the liberal with the illiberal, and it becomes impossible to explain why it can still be called liberalism. Proponents of moral liberalism cannot explain the difference between the conceptions of liberal and non-liberal morality. As it has been already said, at the political and moral level, liberals cannot prove their identity. It‘s not them who came up with the idea that society must be based on a concept of political justice that is recognized by all people of different beliefs. Just like it‘s no them who came up with the idea that people are forbidden to kill, steal, lie, and desire the property of others. These are the moral convictions of people of illiberal epochs, which liberals undoubtedly make part of their moral philosophy. Although even in this case the liberals lack more consistency as always. They may show respect for the virtues of universal consensus - mercy, kindness, or fidelity, however, don‘t contribute to its public education because, in their view, no virtue can be said to follow. Even moral education is perceived as a potential source of violence and enslavement.
Non-liberals are no less critical than liberals. The difference is that non-liberal critique never ends with a clear answer about good. A liberal can choose between abortion, and its prohibition, prositution and its prohibition without clearly stating what an individual should perceive as a good. Liberals don’t think euthanasia is a good thing, they’re just fighting for its ban removal. Their moral critique is without clear guidelines for good and evil. It‘s believed that the most important thing is to allow anything without thinking about good and evil. Liberals leave the individual in ignorance. By overemphasizing a choice, they renounce substantive moral beliefs. The "morality" of the liberals is strange, because in reality they are defending freedom, not morality itself. If people solved moral problems only by thinking about free choice, they would have no morality, because it‘s not only freedom, but also a reference to good. The concept of liberal morality is based on the belief that the best solution is to adhere to the principles of political justice and not interfere in the choices of individuals. This belief inevitably means underestimating the idea of the common good. The majority of liberals are supporters of traditional ethics and differ from Christians in only one aspect: they place the demands of political justice above morality. By easily agreeing with Christians about some universally recognized virtues, liberals don‘t agree that the individual must obey it. By agreeing with the non-liberals on the virtues, they disagree on the approach to the nature of their obligation. This is a metaethics level disagreement, because in acknowledging the Christian view of virtue liberals show their distinctiveness not by agreeing with it, but by reserving the right to disagree at any time. Liberals who are prone to atheism and agnosticism have an element of theological thinking - a doctrine of world salvation. Their political doctrine of world salvation is belief in some kind of progress. Only in the case of liberalism, the society as whole can be saved including the people who doesn‘t even think about it. It‘s difficult to imagine a doctrine of salvation without a accompanying code of ethics. In the case of liberalism, salvation must follow the model of a spontaneous market order. Everyone has to do their job and not think about the salvation of their own soul, the salvation must come by itself as a consequence of the actions of individuals. This can be described as the secularization of the Christian idea of salvation. Liberals believe that the world can achieve its best shape without citizens� concern about their morality. It is a mystical belief. Economic liberalism has a criterion for progress - an increase in the well-being of citizens. This criterion helps to describe the progress of progress. However, the economic criterion is completely unsuitable for morality, the progress, which does not match with the progress of economic prosperity. Faced with this economic and moral mismatch, liberals have only one explanation for the progress of belief - belief. It does not reject the importance of cognition, but the cognition must now follow the footsteps of beliefs. In this way morality stems not from alignment with its pre-existing standard, but from belief and that belief is what liberals call morality. Although morality is a topic for discussion, in reality it‘s only about scientific, technical, and economic progress. The fact is, that the progress of society is possible only in the presence of moral evaluation. Liberals are less consistent than even Soviet communists. They knew they wanted to create a communist society, and the congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union had approved the moral code to build it. Meanwhile liberals don’t say they want to create liberalism and don’t have their own moral code. Knowing their concept of political justice, it would be an unacceptable pursuit. On the other hand, they believe in their superiority and are trying to create liberalism just as much as the communists were trying to create communism. These people have a strong belief in the triumph of liberalism. This is a mystical aspect of modern liberalism, because no one can explain why world history should end with the victory of this philosophy. The best test of the liberal approach to morality is the concept of the ties between morality and politics. While many different views can be found on this issue, the common denominator of all of them is the concept of Rawls-style political justice. This is one of the most important principles of liberal political thinking.
After Rawls' Political liberalism, liberals have only one reliable way of forming their ideological identity - moral liberalism, which means that disagreeing is equal to being insensible. Such strategy of shaping the identity is also doomed to failure. Moral liberalism cannot provide a solid basis for the identity of liberal philosophy, as it‘s based on the same matrix as political liberalism. It means that neither political nor moral liberalism can create an identity of liberalism. In both cases, the liberals need something more. The biggest problems of liberalism are related to the lack of an independent concept of morality. A liberal is both a "yes" and a "no" moral subject. It means it defend both - promiscuity or dissociation from it by creating its identity by allowing one to choose between the two. When it‘s necessary to state clearly what the attitude towards someothing is, it turns out that there is none. Liberals can disagree with the idea that being promiscious, sell yourself is bad and believe that it‘s a person‘s choice, but in reality face a legal approach that is different from their view of morality. Political liberalism equates the liberal with the illiberal, and it becomes impossible to explain why it can still be called liberalism. Proponents of moral liberalism cannot explain the difference between the conceptions of liberal and non-liberal morality. As it has been already said, at the political and moral level, liberals cannot prove their identity. It‘s not them who came up with the idea that society must be based on a concept of political justice that is recognized by all people of different beliefs. Just like it‘s no them who came up with the idea that people are forbidden to kill, steal, lie, and desire the property of others. These are the moral convictions of people of illiberal epochs, which liberals undoubtedly make part of their moral philosophy. Although even in this case the liberals lack more consistency as always. They may show respect for the virtues of universal consensus - mercy, kindness, or fidelity, however, don‘t contribute to its public education because, in their view, no virtue can be said to follow. Even moral education is perceived as a potential source of violence and enslavement.
Non-liberals are no less critical than liberals. The difference is that non-liberal critique never ends with a clear answer about good. A liberal can choose between abortion, and its prohibition, prositution and its prohibition without clearly stating what an individual should perceive as a good. Liberals don’t think euthanasia is a good thing, they’re just fighting for its ban removal. Their moral critique is without clear guidelines for good and evil. It‘s believed that the most important thing is to allow anything without thinking about good and evil. Liberals leave the individual in ignorance. By overemphasizing a choice, they renounce substantive moral beliefs. The "morality" of the liberals is strange, because in reality they are defending freedom, not morality itself. If people solved moral problems only by thinking about free choice, they would have no morality, because it‘s not only freedom, but also a reference to good. The concept of liberal morality is based on the belief that the best solution is to adhere to the principles of political justice and not interfere in the choices of individuals. This belief inevitably means underestimating the idea of the common good. The majority of liberals are supporters of traditional ethics and differ from Christians in only one aspect: they place the demands of political justice above morality. By easily agreeing with Christians about some universally recognized virtues, liberals don‘t agree that the individual must obey it. By agreeing with the non-liberals on the virtues, they disagree on the approach to the nature of their obligation. This is a metaethics level disagreement, because in acknowledging the Christian view of virtue liberals show their distinctiveness not by agreeing with it, but by reserving the right to disagree at any time. Liberals who are prone to atheism and agnosticism have an element of theological thinking - a doctrine of world salvation. Their political doctrine of world salvation is belief in some kind of progress. Only in the case of liberalism, the society as whole can be saved including the people who doesn‘t even think about it. It‘s difficult to imagine a doctrine of salvation without a accompanying code of ethics. In the case of liberalism, salvation must follow the model of a spontaneous market order. Everyone has to do their job and not think about the salvation of their own soul, the salvation must come by itself as a consequence of the actions of individuals. This can be described as the secularization of the Christian idea of salvation. Liberals believe that the world can achieve its best shape without citizens� concern about their morality. It is a mystical belief. Economic liberalism has a criterion for progress - an increase in the well-being of citizens. This criterion helps to describe the progress of progress. However, the economic criterion is completely unsuitable for morality, the progress, which does not match with the progress of economic prosperity. Faced with this economic and moral mismatch, liberals have only one explanation for the progress of belief - belief. It does not reject the importance of cognition, but the cognition must now follow the footsteps of beliefs. In this way morality stems not from alignment with its pre-existing standard, but from belief and that belief is what liberals call morality. Although morality is a topic for discussion, in reality it‘s only about scientific, technical, and economic progress. The fact is, that the progress of society is possible only in the presence of moral evaluation. Liberals are less consistent than even Soviet communists. They knew they wanted to create a communist society, and the congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union had approved the moral code to build it. Meanwhile liberals don’t say they want to create liberalism and don’t have their own moral code. Knowing their concept of political justice, it would be an unacceptable pursuit. On the other hand, they believe in their superiority and are trying to create liberalism just as much as the communists were trying to create communism. These people have a strong belief in the triumph of liberalism. This is a mystical aspect of modern liberalism, because no one can explain why world history should end with the victory of this philosophy. The best test of the liberal approach to morality is the concept of the ties between morality and politics. While many different views can be found on this issue, the common denominator of all of them is the concept of Rawls-style political justice. This is one of the most important principles of liberal political thinking.
April 2, 2008
Catching a hypocrite is always fun and is especially satisfying if one views themselves as progressive. I found this book satisfying. The section on Michael Moore, supported by research, was completely compelling. I'm beginning to realize that most high profile individuals, regardless of affiliation, lack the character and convictions to actually be different and have ideals. "Do As I Say" helped call out liberals lip service for what it really is....rubbish. It is rubbish that is just as smelly is its conservative counterpart.
May 5, 2016
For someone as clueless as I am about politics, this book was a wonderfully enjoyable and frustrating read. I couldn't wrap my head around the dichotomy between the action and speech of some of these people. The information was presented in a very easy, understandable manner but the topic? Ugh. These people are both infuriating and baffling.
Edit: OH GOD. WHO LET ME READ THIS BOOK. WHY DIDN'T ANYONE SAVE ME FROM THIS SOONER?
Edit: OH GOD. WHO LET ME READ THIS BOOK. WHY DIDN'T ANYONE SAVE ME FROM THIS SOONER?
June 9, 2010
Boy, was this interesting...
My wife picked it up for me and thought it would be a good romp through ye old Liberal Washington. What it turned out to be was one of the most over-the-top, one-sided, and entertaining books I have read in a while.
Once you distill the b.s. from the facts you can have a better appreciation for this book. Some of the facts were absolutely dumbfounding--which I did verify through independent research.
My wife picked it up for me and thought it would be a good romp through ye old Liberal Washington. What it turned out to be was one of the most over-the-top, one-sided, and entertaining books I have read in a while.
Once you distill the b.s. from the facts you can have a better appreciation for this book. Some of the facts were absolutely dumbfounding--which I did verify through independent research.
March 6, 2013
No idea how this ended up on my reading list, but I'm glad it did! It presented a very eye-opening examination of the professional lives of some outspoken liberal leaders. Short chapters on each individual make for quick reading and start with a summary of their convictions followed by an examination of how they manipulate their portfolio or run their business(es). Easy accessible reading for any layperson, and definitely information worth sharing.
December 18, 2008
While I was amazed a the lack of consistency in the lives of the people that Mr. Schweizer presented, the book left me with a feeling of hopelessness that didn't seem to be solved in the book...the biggest question I was left with was, "So now what??? We now know, so what do we as ordinary Americans do about it?"
January 13, 2009
This book was really interesting. Just goes to show that actions speak louder than words. In all fairness, though, I'd like to see the flip side of the coin demonstrating how some choice conservatives are equally hypocritical.
November 27, 2009
This book was awesome. The people in this book have done a lot to tear our great nation apart, and it was refreshing to have someone shed light on their absolute hypocrisy. Have someone you know who is a Michael Moore fan? Hand them this book.
July 9, 2010
I had higher hopes for this one than were realized. Sure, the information about the massive hypocrisy amongst some of the more vocal liberals was more than useful, but it works better as a reference guide than a book, and I ended up skimming a lot of the people I didn't care much about.
August 11, 2011
Complete examination of the hypocrisy of many big-name liberals. Very interesting reading. It's too bad more people don't know many of the facts Schweizer uncovers here. Another must-read for any conservative!
August 21, 2007
This book is hilarious.*
*Please note I read this for work.
*Please note I read this for work.
August 27, 2007
Truly an eye-opener. Every American needs to read this book.
February 7, 2008
Michael Moore owns Halliburton stock? How the elite left has two sets of rules.
May 18, 2008
A look at the contradictions between the words and actions of Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, Al Franken, Ted Kennedy, etc.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 55 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.