Highgate Cemetary

Perhaps it’s morbid, but historical cemeteries are fascinating.  Highgate Cemetary puts anything we have in America to shame. The barely contained wilderness is trevassed by paths and streets that meander through the elaborate tombs and vaults.  It can only be described as a gothic fantasy land and couldn’t exist outside of London.

Built at the height of Victorian drama and ritual in the 1830s, Highgate was one of the first commercial cemeteries in London and catered to the Victorians desire for pomp and class structure even death. After it fell in disrepair, a group of local residents bought it and only mildly attempted to control the underbrush, which heightens the surreal aspects.

This eerie wonderland is the backdrop of Niffenegger’s novel, which I can only describe as a trippy ghost story/tragedy.

Julia and Valentina are 20-year-old mirror twins. Not only are they are identical, but all of Valentina’s features are reversed. Her heart and organs are also on the opposite of her body causing a number of health issues. She serves as the “weaker” twin.

Julia is healthy and the “strong” twin but has an odd co-dependency on her sister. They share every waking moment and even sleep together. While Julia is described as the extrovert, it’s Valentina who actually wants to forge a life for herself independent of her twin. This provides much of the tension of the novel.

Julia and Valentina’s mother and aunt, Edie and Elspeth respectively, are also identical twins but are estranged. Julia and Valentina never meet their aunt. When Elspeth dies in her early 40s, she leaves her estate to the twins on two conditions: they live in her flat overlooking Highgate Cemetary for one year, and their parents can never set foot in the flat.

Highgate Cemetary

The twins move to London and basically spend their time being professional tourists. Valentina wants to be a clothing designer and go back to school, but Julia is hellbent on doing nothing. She bullies her weaker twin every time the idea of school emerges in order to keep them together. Even at 20, the two are still dressing alike.

They soon meet the colorful cast of characters that Elspeth knew and loved. A character can’t have a name like Elspeth and live in a fabulous flat overlooking one of the most famous cemetaries in the world and have boring neighbors. In real life, this would likely be the case, but in fiction world, no writer can resist creating memorable supporting characters.

Before long the twins meet Robert, Elspeths much younger grieving lover and neighbor. Elspeth was apparently something of a refined couger who owned a rare book business. Robert is taking the 20-year approach to grad school and has been writing a dissertation on Highgate Cemetary for 13 years. He knows almost everything there is to know about it and also works as a guide for Friends of Highgate. He serves as the executor of Elspeth’s estate, and eventually helps the twins settle into London.

Not suprisingly, he falls in love with Valentina, who is miserably stuck in a creepy relationship with her controlling sister. Soon after moving into the flat, Valentina discovers that Elspeth is haunting the place. Using Robert’s knowledge of Victorian spiritualism, they communicate with her, and Valentina spends long hours getting to know her aunt. Julia takes an automatic dislike to Elspeth and avoids talking to the ghost.

Valentina adopts a kitten that they find wandering through Highgate. While playing with the kitten and Valentina one day, Elspeth realizes she can snatch the soul of the kitten out of its body and effectively kill it. She returns the soul and the kitten comes back to life.

Valentina uses this information to devise a way to permanently escape her twin and run off with Robert.

In true Niffenegger form, nothing ever turns out as it should, and several bizarre twists occur to make the story even more…disconcerting. While I enjoy her writing and tight plots, her books are unsettling. These aren’t happy escape books or beach reads. These are strange, twisted works of art.

Detail of a tomb in Highgate

The ghost element was strange. Niffenegger found a way to write about ghosts without involving any type of spirituality. You never wonder about the afterlife or God. The story is too intriguing.

Niffenegger also bases much of her plot on the tension of relationships. Why is Julia the strong one, yet the one who refuses to let go of her twin-ness. Why is that her only identity? How does Elspeth feel about having her niece start a relationship with her lover of 13 years while she’s still “present?” Why did Edie and Elspeth stop speaking to each other. What happened before the twins birth that drove the sisters apart?

If you like unsettling books that will stay with you for days, I recommend this. It’s an interesting take on an modern gothic tale and has the perfect setting. Niffenegger obviously spent a tremendous amount of time researching Highgate and captures it well.

What if the book every conservative needs to read was published fifty years ago?

At only 100 pages, The Conscience of a Conservative has inspired conservatives for decades, yet there has been no revival of this book in the recent groundswell of conservative thought in the United States.

Written by Barry Goldwater in 1960, The Conscience of a Conservative built momentum for his unsuccessful 1964 presidential election. He may have lost that election, but the influence of his legacy continues to shape the conservative movement.

This classic political book should be required reading for anyone who attends a Tea Party. Goldwater’s slim manifesto still accurately explains our philosophy and political movement.

Far too many conservatives struggle to articulate why he or she identifies with the movement. It’s easy to express what we’re against: higher taxes, big government programs, the welfare state, and intrusion into our private lives. But what do we support? What does it mean to be a conservative?

Writing in a similar era when Republicans were also painted as the “party of no,” Goldwater opens his book by defining conservatism. He writes:

…the Conservative looks upon politics as the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.

He also explains the difference between conservatives and liberals:

The root difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals of today is that Conservatives take account of the whole man, while the Liberals tend to look only at the material side of man’s nature. The conservative believes that man is, in part, an economic, an animal creature; but that he is also a spiritual creature with spiritual need spiritual desires. What is more, these needs and desires reflect the superior side of man’s nature, and thus take precedence over his economic wants. Conservatism therefore looks upon the enhancement of man’s spiritual nature as the primary concern of political philosophy. Liberals, on the other hand—in the name of a concern for “human beings” –regard the satisfaction of economic wants as the dominant mission of society. They are moreover, in a hurry. So that their characteristic approach is to harness the society’s political and economic forces into a collective effort to compel “progress.” In this approach, I believe they fight against Nature.

Goldwater outlines the three aspects of what a conservative believes. All three should be memorized and understood by anyone claiming the label of conservative.

1. Every person is a unique member of human species.

“The Conservative knows that to regard man as part of an undifferentiated mass is to consign him to ultimate slavery.”

2. The economic and spiritual are “inextricably intertwined.

“He cannot be economically free, or even economically efficient, if he is enslaved politically; conversely, man’s political freedom is illusory if he is dependent for his economic needs on the State.”

3. Each individual is responsible for his or her own material and spiritual development.

“The choices that govern his life are choices that he must make; they cannot be made by any other human being, or by a collectivity of human beings.”

The Conscience of a Conservative continues to cover the dangers of big government, states’ rights, civil rights, labor, education, taxes and spending, and education.

If busy conservatives only took the time to read the first chapter, “The Perils of Power,” “States’ Rights,” “Taxes and Spending,” and “The Welfare State,” the Tea Party movement would be much better off.

Again, if you’re searching for a book on the path that conservatives should take to restore our nation to the vision that the Founders intended, The Conscious of a Conservative is a smart place to start.

While Goldwater grew more libertarian and antagonistic towards social conservatives towards the end of his life, The Conscious of a Conservative is a fast read that articulately lays out the timeless case for conservative values.

Over the last fifty years, our goal still remains the same. The charge Goldwater wrote in 1960 still applies today:

Thus, for the American Conservative, there is no difficulty in identifying the day’s overriding political challenge: it is to preserve and extend freedom.

In a time when millions of Americans are seeking alternatives to the Big Government, Chicago-style tactics of the Obama Administration, conservatives should read Goldwater’s classic.

Cross-posted at Smart Girl Nation.

While he does devote a few chapters to the his ideas towards a conservative ascendancy, Tyrrell writes a part history, part memoirs of observing and participating in the conservative movement since the 1960s.

Having grown up in the conservative movement, I know my history loosely, but only lately have I focused on the philosophical roots and history of the movement. Tyrrell’s book aligns more closely with Levin’s Liberty and Tyranny and Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism.

As a colleague of William F. Buckley, Tyrrell has spent the last few decades at the center of the vast right-wing conspiracy. His tightly written book with the occasional snarky comment is a fascinating read. He details the difference between a liberal and modern-day progressive Liberal, and a conservatives as the modern version of a classical liberal.

Having worked in the philanthropy field for a number of years, I appreciated his focus on the development of think tanks in the movement. Since I’ve worked with a number of these in the past, it was fascinating to see how they were developed.

Tyrrell doesn’t mince words when he dislikes someone or something. He correctly asserts repeatedly that conservatism worked in the past because conservatives worked together. Now, writers, pundits, personalities, bloggers, journalists, etc. are willing to attack friends and colleagues to get ahead. In order to make the current groundswell last, we need to collaborate not fight.

Not surprisingly, Tyrrell goes after what he calls “RCs” (reformed conservatives). The ones who jumped ship in 2008 and are now slowly crawling back. At the top of his list: David Frum and David Brooks (whom he calls the Davidians), Christopher Buckley and Ross Douthat.

My favorite part of After the Hangover was Tyrrell’s focus on the engaging in the culture war. As he describes, Democrats have greater political libido and will wage a war on all fronts. Conservatives have completely disengaged in popular culture. While counter-culture movements are emerging thanks to the web, the right purposely chose not to take action.

Tyrrell describes how President Reagan was warned that movement conservatives needed to get beyond politics to win the hearts and minds of Americans, but the Reagan White House and conservative leaders decided not to pursue cultural outreach.

This has led to a stranglehold of culture by the left, which is why Hollywood, music, books, entertainment and the news media are all left-wing. Conservatives missed their shot to get involved.

I’d highly recommend this entertaining and informative book. It fills the niches of memoirs, history and political analysis.

Per compliance with the FTC, I agreed to review this book for Thomas Nelson Publishing through BookSneeze. In return, they provided a complimentary copy.

JACK stands, with an unlit cigarette, in a crowded moving train. He looks at the faces, MEN and WOMEN. He sees PEOPLE reading books. He looks at the TITLES: Romantic fiction, Classics, Business Management, Thrillers, Self-Help, Cooking….

JACK’S VOICE
Jack imagined people reading his book. One day he would enter their heads, play with their imaginations, test their feelings…

Writing to advocate for a cause or political writing is perhaps the height of playing with readers’ emotions and imaginations. Mary Pipher makes an interesting argument that writing can invoke social change in her book, Writing to Change the World. While the written word won’t feed hungry people or stop bullets, it can alter behaviors that make those changes. She writes from a solidly liberal perspective, but her book was informative and offered practical guidelines and suggestions on become a better advocacy writer. If you write for advocacy or political causes, professionally or not, I’d recommend it.

However, her book prompted more questions than answers for me, particularly about bias and perspective.

Even in her quest to be unbiased, Pipher’s liberal attitude showed through her writing. In one story, she shares how a friend from a writer’s group revealed that she was a Republican after the group had met for more than a year. Rather than just accept that her friend arrived at different political opinions than she did, Pipher had to justify the friend’s political persuasion by extraneous forces: the friend came from a “military family” and married a “very conservative man.” It wasn’t enough to simply accept that this woman had a different worldview.

Even Pipher’s examples show her inherent bias. Early on, she acknowledges that she’s tried to not be partisan, but her examples and sources reveal her preferences. She frequently rallies against the Patriot Act (which I agree with but wonder how she felt when that was reauthorized under a Democratic majority?) and uses environmental advocacy examples.

Her examples made me wonder how readers react when reading my blog.

My blog and Pipher’s book are two different mediums. By the title, you can tell what my opinions are going to be, and I never couch them under neutrality. Pipher’s book suggests a neutral tone. Is it possible to be neutral and objective? I used to think that it was, but I’m not so sure anymore.

So much feeds into our biases. The source of our news, our backgrounds, education, friends, interests and religious views. Dan Lehr, a blogger at the ABC-affiliate in Chattanooga, is constantly encouraging conservatives to be more open-minded and regularly sends me links via Twitter to David Frum columns. I usually laugh and tell him that only liberals take Frum seriously (as Red State explains, he’s a Polite Company Conservative. The worse kind. I used to be one and couldn’t handle it any longer.), but I understand his goal. In our media-saturated environment, liberals primarily use liberal sources (as evidenced by Pipher’s book), and conservatives only read conservative sources.

However, many of the comments I get from readers are ones telling me to not be so opinionated or self-assured. One of my favorite comments came when Washingtonian.com profiled me. A person commented, “Adrienne Royer has decided opinions and knows how to express them.”

For some reason that rankled me. As a 28-year-old woman, I grew up in a society that encouraged me to have decided opinions and find ways to express them. Just because my opinions differ from the accepted norm of the average 28-year-old woman, I’m not wrong or odd. I’m just acting on my Constitutional rights.  Had the Washingtonian.com profiled a liberal female blogger of the same age and demographic as me, would that person have felt the need to make such a statement?

Writing from the perspective of the persecuted minority often makes liberals uneasy. I accept that those ensconced in the advocacy or academic worlds rarely come across individuals like me, but I still have every right to articulate my opinions and argue for causes that are important.

Sometimes I do cross over the line. Reading the unintended bias in Pipher’s book made that realization much stronger. How easy it is for all of us to become lost in our little communities and lose perspective!

A while back, Shannon, a DC blogger, wrote that I was rude. Looking back, I agree with her. This year has been tough combination of seeing the Constitution shredded and witnessing Congress steamroll over the voices of the American people. Working for conservative causes and spending time with others in similar fields rarely gives you perspective. I didn’t realize how badly it had gotten until one of my former bosses sent a thoughtful email on a blog post I wrote about Al Gore.

This former boss regularly reads my blog and emails me his thoughts, and I always take note. He’s a liberal, but one of the few who has my utmost respect. Since he taught me advocacy writing, I pay attention when he critiques a blog post. He wrote:

Now, I do read your blog and I’ve been working on an e-mail for a number of days about your blog.  I think you should be proud of it and the recognition you’ve received for it and I recognize the value of a bit of red meat in building and holding an audience.  But from my perspective you sometimes veer too much into the trite and unimportant (Al Gore) and forget to focus on the conservative mission.  When you write serious columns about serious issues your writing really sings.  It may not be as acerbic nor as entertaining but it is really good stuff.  The e-mail I was working on was one in which I wanted to encourage you to focus more on promoting what you support than simply reacting to what you oppose.  You can be very persuasive when you take the time to write thoughtful pieces about what you believe.

My former boss was right. I had lost perspective and was reactive. While I still disagree with my alma mater’s decision, that email spawned contemplation on my writing.  Coming off of the health care issue, I was far too close to it and wired for attack. In the following weeks, I made an effort to read more news from outside of the conservative bubble, step away from the computer at a reasonable hour each night, read more books and pick up interests outside of the political world. To the enjoyment of my co-workers, I took a cake decorating class. While I’ll probably never call upon my skills with a pastry bag in a professional setting, the class forced me to use another part of my brain. I also tried to spend time with friends with opposing views or non-political circles, which can be hard in DC.

How many people who write, professionally or otherwise, on politics take a breather from the political world? How many people have friends and colleagues willing to call them out when they cross a line? After reading Pipher’s book, I wonder if she’s shut herself off completely into liberal-land? If a revelation that a friend is Republican shocks her, how fair can Pipher’s work be?

Pipher does offer extremely solid advice to the experienced and novice writer, and I would encourage aspiring writers or bloggers to read her book. After reading the email from my former boss, I preemptively  took up her charge to rest before hitting publish or send. Now, I try to wait at least a couple of hours before publishing a post. It sharpens my writing, gives me a better perspective on editing and forces me to ask, “Do I really want to enter this into the permanent archives of the interwebs?”

With the ability to instantly publish, far too many posts are written in seething rage. While this can sometimes be helpful, how many of us have written tweets, emails or comments that we later regret? I recently ran into trouble with the repercussions of sarcasm when a couple of snarky tweets were taken seriously.

While perspective is important, in order to be a strong writer, you must stick to your convictions. I shudder at the thought of being a Frum-esque blogger. I don’t want to be the token conservative that makes liberals feel open-minded. That’s why suggestions like Lehr’s always bother me. How often does Arianna Huffington, Al Gore, Markos Moulitsas or Matthew Yglesias think, “Am I being fair to conservatives? They also have valid points and are just as patriotic as me in expressing them.”

Somehow, I doubt that this happens, yet Lehr and other liberals expect conservatives to respond this way. It is possible be fair and write with conviction, and that’s the balance that I attempt to reach. Admittedly, conservatives use the crutch of “biased liberal media” far too often, which cheapens our writing.

Writing is difficult. No one ever arrives at a point of perfection in their work. Political writing is particularly tough because it always involves a precarious balance of short-term issues and alliances. You never know when something might change that casts a previously strong conviction into question.

Pipher’s book emphasizes what happens when you become too trapped in one side of the political spectrum. She took a great book and weakened it through her examples and sources. It wasn’t intentional, but it ultimately hurt her writing. It’s a good lesson for all of us.

Liberal Fascism, Jonah Goldberg
This is the best book that I’ve read in a while. I love studying political movements. I’m determined to finish this book quickly. I appreciate Goldberg’s sarcastic writing style. Sarcasm is under-appreciated in our society. It’s not dense, but it’s long. There’s a lot of material in each chapter, and most of it is completely unfamiliar. Having attended a Christian elementary and high school, I’m familiar with many of these concepts since history was taught with a Judeo-Christian worldview. However, Goldberg’s book shocks because it exposes so many different perspectives.

The Road to Serfdom, F.A. Hayek
There might be an impromptu book club around this. It’s on Read to Lead and is a conservative classic.

After the Hangover, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.
A few weeks ago, I discovered BookSneeze through Thomas Nelson Publishing. They give bloggers free copies of books in exchange for reviews. The only problem is that you can only get one book at a time. I’ve also seen numerous reviews of this book lately, so I’m excited to read it.
Completed May 17, 2010

Spoken from the Heart, Laura Bush
I’ve been waiting for the release of this book. Reading the reviews, it should be good.

Sign Me Up! A Marketer’s Guide To Email Newsletters that Build Relationships and Boost Sales, Blumberg, et al. &
The Truth About Email Marketing, Simms Jenkins
These are a priority this month. In a previous post Mr. Jenkins was nice enough to comment here, so I look forward to reading his book!
Sign Me Up! Completed: May 9, 2010

Writing to Change the World, Mary Pipher
I keep wanting to start this, but other things happen. I will read this book in May.
Completed: May 16, 2010

Conscious of a Conservative, Barry Goldwater
This is another conservative classic that’s been on my reading list for a while. It’s also on Read to Lead. Today, Goldwater’s classic was on clearance at Barnes & Noble. Clearance stickers and books make a dangerous combination.
Completed: May 8, 2010

Were I already not overwhelmed with books, I would have picked up Carrie Fisher’s biography because it looks hilarious, and the new biography on Anne Boleyn by Alison Weir. Boleyn is a fascinating character, and biographers have only recently given her attention. Last year, I read a biography from the 70s that essentially chronicled her through the spin that Henry VIII created during her trial and death. I’ve also read newer biographies of Elizabeth I that have been much more sympathetic to her mother. Weir’s perspective looks interesting.

If anyone ever gets the impression that I’m a stuffy high-brow conservative, who only reads biographies and political books, rest assured that my taste is also middle America plebeian. Earlier, I penciled in the release of Dead in the Family, the latest Sookie Stackhouse novel by Charlaine Harris, on my calendar. I ran to Target when it was released on Tuesday and bought it. I only have about 30 more pages to read. I try to feed the brain with more “smart books,” but who can resist the occasional fun novel?
Completed May 7, 2010

I obviously disagree with her on abortion and economic issues, but Myers mostly includes common-sense solutions to our problems. She acknowledges the we don’t have to reach parity in every. single. job. field. to achieve balance in the working world as the recent Shriver Report recommends. Myers also approaches the issue as a woman who appears to have actually worked in the real world and likes men (unlike many of her peers in this field). I actually agreed with her on some points, such as her chapter on “The Confidence Gap.”

Myers does a good job of demonstrating that a third way is possible in the mommywars. After leaving the White House, she was able to carve out a career of public speaking, punditry and writing. Now that isn’t available to most women, but technology has dramatically altered the way that we view work. I truly believe that much of the hyped mommywars will be insignificant within the next decade. Offices are much more flexible for men and women, and working from home, telecommuting, flex time and alternative schedules will be the norm in the coming years.

She also devotes time to explore ways to stop the gap in science, technology, engineering and math fields. (In a previous job, I worked extensively on this issue, so I follow it closely.) Myers presents interesting facts that I had not seen.

Myers shares that people who think with both spheres of their brain are overwhelmingly likely to go into liberal arts. Since the majority of women think with both sides of the brain, they are more drawn to psychology, history, art, English, etc.

There’s also research that women are drawn to “people-focused” careers because our brains are wired for discussion and empathy. Because science is presented to kids as stark, boring and lonely, women aren’t drawn to it. Meyer’s shares an idea that would feasibly work:

…much of math is now theoretical, and physics doesn’t require as many “people” skills as, say, medicine. Which may mean fewer girls will be interested. Or it may mean we need to find new ways to make disciplines like physics and engineering more appealing to women’s more diverse interests. Maybe if the field’s most visible leaders talked about the practical, “people-oriented” benefits of the physical sciences–like how rural villages in Africa might get clean water and affordable energy–more girls might be interested.

On gender roles:

The hardcore ideologues on the left flank of feminist thinking insist that gender roles are not just artificial, but designed to hold women back. So until their desroyed, women will continue to be victims of a patriarchy, virtual slaves in their own homes. But most women–even many who call themselves feminists–don’t want to be “the same” as men. Nor do they believe that equality demands it. That’s not to say that questions about what equality means or how it might be achieved have been resolved. Far from it. But the vision of a one-size-fits-all world simply denies too many women’s experiences–and their aspiration.

On equality in the workforce:

For starters,  I think we have to abandon the idea that even if all the obstacles were eliminated, there would be an equal number of men and women in virtually every profession. We don’t need gender parity among elementary school teachers or bond traders before we can declare victory. We don’t even need it among physicists. That’s not to say that it won’t happen. It could. But isn’t it more likely that even if we eliminate the conflict between having a high-powered job and having a family, unravel the mysteries of innate aptitude and interest, and root out discrimination, there will still be more women in social psychology and more men in engineering? And isn’t that okay? I think it is.

Is this a book that will dramatically alter the landscape of gender politics? No. But is refreshing to remember that there are common sense Democrats out there.

With those preferences in mind, I thought that I would love The Mermaid Chair by Sue Monk Kidd. Not so much.

I enjoyed the quirky characters. Every book about the South has quirky characters. (FYI: normal, boring people do exist in the South. Just not many of them.) The rich theme of female friendship is also authentic. However, the book seemed too shallow to be dealing with so many heavy issues. It was as though the author tried to combine the deep issues that Gibbons always masterfully tackles with the light-hearted capers of Mary Kay Andrews. Rebecca Wells is the only author that I’ve read who is capable of handling both levels of sadness and laughter.

The Mermaid Chair shares a middle-aged woman’s journey during a miserable mid-life crisis. She grew up on a fictional island off the coast of South Carolina, which is extremely similar to Cumberland Island, Georgia where my family used to camp when I was growing up. Stuck and bored in her marriage as a new empty nester, Jessie is called back to the island to deal with her apparently insane mother. Her mother works as a cook in a nearby monastery, and mystical Catholicism is woven throughout the novel.

Many of Jessie’s problems stem from her father’s mysterious death when she was seven. Soon after she arrives to take care of her mother, she finds clues that the story she was told isn’t accurate. Through the process, she’s tempted to fall in love with a monk, explore her own life and depression through her artwork and work through through her mother’s mental problems.

If you want a heavy beach or gym read, I’d recommend it. If you like books that leave you unsettled and disturbed, this is also for you.

Since I got enthusiastic feedback on that post, I decided to continue it. At the beginning of the month, I’ll post my upcoming reading list.

April was a bad month to attempt to read 19 books. Between a family visit, a cake decorating class and volunteering, I didn’t have very much free time to read. I did finish all but one of my half-way read books and polished off a few more. I even brought Liberal Fascism with me to the Tax Day Rally! In addition to my planned reads, I found my lost copy of The Last Battle, the final book in the Chronicles of Narnia. Somehow it ended up in my mom’s car, and I found it when they visited. It was a nice treat between all of the political books.

April Book Successes

• Why Women Should Rule the World, Dee Dee Myers
• Marketing in the Groundswell, Charlene Li & Josh Bernoff
• Letters to an American Lady, CS Lewis
• The Mermaid Chair, Sue Monk Kidd
• Primal, Mark Batterson
• Last Night in Paradise, Katie Roiphe
• Conservative Victory, Sean Hannity (Read my review)
• Letters to an American Lady, C.S. Lewis
• The Last Battle, C.S. Lewis
• Liberty & Tyranny, Mark Levin

April Incompletes

• Liberal Fascism, Jonah Goldberg*
• Elizabeth & Mary, Jane Dunn*
• Sign Me Up! A Marketer’s Guide To Email Newsletters that Build Relationships and Boost Sales
• The Truth About Email Marketing, Simms Jenkins
• Unhooked, Laura Sessions Stepp
• Courage and Consequence, Karl Rove
• Game Change, Heilemann & Halperin
• Unleashing the Idea Virus, Seth Godin
• Meltdown, Tom Woods
• Blink, Malcolm Gladwell
• Torn In My Heart, Liz Curtis Higgs*

*Partially read

Then I read some favorable reviews of Conservative Victory: Defeating Obama’s Radical Agenda and put the book on my April reading list. Since the book was around 200 pages and only $8.16 at Sam’s Club, I bought it.

I was pleasantly surprised.

What Hannity did was brilliant. He took very philosophical and wonkish ideas and put them into paperback form. He purposely kept the cost of the book low and made it short. He didn’t dumb down conservatism. Rather, he packaged it in an accessible way.

Hannity splits the book into two parts. The first part builds the case against Barack Obama. For most people, this is old news, and only serves to make you angry. I read it mostly at the gym and could funnel my anger into the treadmill. Otherwise, I was quite likely to call and email every Obama voter that I know and yell at him and her.

The second half focuses on the path to conservative victory. Hannity does good job of explaining the history and rationale behind conservative politics. He goes in depth into the legacy of President Reagan and why pundits like David Frum are harmful.

The biggest surprise is that Hannity correctly blames Bush for causing most of the problems that we face today. Big Government Republicanism only caused huge divisions in the party and created distrust among American voters. Unless we get a crop of true fiscal conservatives in office this November, I don’t know if that trust can ever be restored.

I do wish that Hannity had included history of the conservative movement prior to Reagan. For example, Goldwater was mentioned twice in passing. Without the early work of Goldwater, Reagan may not have been so successful.

With the exception of national security, I agree with his 11 points. If someone is upset by the actions of Washington but doesn’t quite want to be brandished with the tea party label or called a wing nut, I’d recommend this book. It concisely explains conservative objections to Barack Obama and displays that we’re not the Party of No, just the “Party of Not These Ideas.”

From the letter dated 6/12/55:

For it is a dreadful truth that the state of (as you say) “having to depend solely on God” is what we all dread most. And of course that just shows how very much, how almost exclusively, we have been depending on things. But trouble goes so far back in our lives and is now so deeply ingrained, we’ll will not turn to Him as long as He leaves us anything else to turn to. I suppose all one can say is that it was bound to come. In the hour of death and the day of judgment, what else shall we have? Perhaps when those moments come, they will feel happiest who have been forced (however unwittingly) to begin practicing it here on earth. It is good of Him to force us; but dear me, how hard to feel that it is good at the time.

This isn’t in relation to anything nor is there a political or cultural angle. This passage just struck me as the honest truth about how difficult it is to be a Christian. It’s not always praise music and warm fuzzies, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. The darkest moments, the ones when we want to do anything but trust in God, are the ones that teach us the most.