My Top Ten Non-Fiction Books

Posted by Joe Rivett on 09.08.2010

Last week Mark Radulich highlighted his 10 favorite non-fiction books. This week I'll do the same. Some authors include Ventura, D'Souza, and VI Lenin!

I was never much of a fan of American History because not much bad has occurred in this country whereas the Soviet Union was a cesspool of misery. I spent much of my Masters research studying genocide and trying to figure out how humans are supposedly more civilized yet the 20th century was the most bloody in human history. From a political perspective, I entered college as a bleeding heart education major, converted to Bushism, then converted to libertarianism and now that I'm working in the mental health field, married, and have a child, I'm Center-Left. These 10 books reflect my education and my passion.

10. Philip Caputo – Rumor of War

Caputo provides an extensive account of being a soldier during the Vietnam War. He makes it clear in his introduction that his book does not intend to discuss politics, foreign policy, power, or strategy. Instead, he wishes to focus on telling a story about war and the physical and mental anguish that it causes. Plenty of his stories of 100 degrees, malaria, and diarrhea made me realize war is hell. After reading his memoirs, one could argue that the "Glory" that Hollywood portrays does not exist in wars anymore. Modern wars are not about marching, muskets, and formations; they encompass high casualties, weapons of mass destruction, and guerrilla warfare. This book serves as a reminder that no matter who wins, war is ugly and if possible should be avoided.

9. Jesse Ventura – Do I Stand Alone

Ventura gives a great account of what it was like being an independent Governor in a Left vs. Right world. The only way it appears a third party can win like Jesse is to have the state allow people to register the day of an election. Without the disaffected voters showing up on Election Day, Jesse had no chance.

Jesse takes on the hot button issues and stakes out a libertarian viewpoint that for some reason does not come across as extreme. He also opened my eyes to the idea of a unicameral legislature. Why do states need a senate and an assembly? Nebraska doesn't and it seems to be fine. Here are my two favorite quotes from the book:

"You'll often hear candidates say they spend that money (campaign contributions) to reach the people, but how successfully are they reaching us if fewer of us vote each time there is an election?"

I think it's an atrocity that the first spouses are expected to work for free. It's sexist. It's ridiculous that you have someone who represents the state and works on behalf of it but doesn't get paid for her time. The real irony is that the first lady has an assistant who does get paid! How do you justify that?"

8. Michelle Joy Levine – I Wish I Were Thin, I Wish I Were Fat

Most fat people don't want to be fat so why can't they be thin? It is all in their head as this book is the psychological reason why we are fat. Michelle Levine uses Freud to explain why we overeat. As babies we are comforted by mommy and milk. However, when we get older, mommy may not even be there emotionally. Thus, we turn to food to feel better and cope with life.

Many people dispute this theory but I have to believe that there is something psychological keeping people from having the body they want. Clearly, some people must subconsciously want to be fat!

Not everyone is fat because they want to be closer to mommy. But if you noticed you gained a lot of weight when you moved out of the house, they may be something to it other than the fact you like food. When babies cry we shut them up with a bottle, when adults are crying on the inside, they turn to food.

7. John Dewey – Experience and Education

Dewey focuses primarily how education should be delivered in a pragmatic way that encourages developmentalism and problem solving. Dewey correctly sticks to the theme that every child has a curiosity to learn and it is the teacher's job to mediate the student's inquiry. Dewey argues that schools need to be more pragmatic and less essentialist. An essentialist would argue that children need to know facts and discipline administered by a teacher so it can be a competent worker and citizen. Dewey is arguing that children learn at home by inquiry, practice, and social situations; therefore, a school must follow suit.

When children are taught facts and tested primarily on understanding, I believe two things happen. Firstly, the majority of the facts are forgotten because they are irrelevant to a student's social situation. Secondly, if the facts change over time or the way the world works changes, then everything the individual has learned is useless. A teacher's or a school's job is not to impose its ideas and/or habits in a student but to assist the student in his/her investigation of the ideas. This investigation process allows students to not only remember better what they learned, but how to learn in any situation.

Dewey's most important argument is his belief that language is taught to us so that we can show off. For example, it may make me appear more intelligent to say the word ‘ameliorate' instead of ‘improve'. However, both words mean the same. This is why many including myself believe that the SATs do not always accurately determine intelligence. It is more important that students are able to use language that expresses their ideas and feelings to others. This causes me to wonder what Dewey would say about the use of Ebonics. Based on the aforementioned quote, I believe Dewey would not mind the use of Ebonics because it allows students to communicate in a way that fits their social setting. Fundamentally, the phrase "where are you" and "where you at", mean the same thing.

6. VI Lenin – State and Revolution

The book was written between August and September of 1917. At this time, Kamenev had control of a chaotic Bolshevik party. Kamenev differed with Lenin greatly, because Kamenev felt that revolution could be obtained through elections and public support. Lenin, on the other hand, believed revolution to be a violent struggle. Although Lenin never intended, State and Revolution was the de facto Bolshevik Party platform. What makes Lenin such a fascinating revolutionary was his impatience with waiting for communism to become popular. He was going to force it through despite Russia having no capitalist past and the Bolsheviks not being relatively popular.

5. Frank Wu – Yellow

What I love about this book is that it focuses on race from the eyes of an Asian-American. The toughest stereotype Asians encounter is the assumption people have that they were all born in China. While blacks may face more discrimination, people at least assume they are American. The strongest and most informative part of Wu's book is the second chapter entitled: "The Model Minority Myth." Currently, Asian Americans are sometimes called the "new Jews" which for the most part means that they have superseded whites in wealth and education. Wu rejects this characterization as a "gross oversimplification". He uses statistics to point out that not only do whites make more money but even importantly, they have more wealth. This is a critical distinction because it is wealth that puts people into colleges and establishes good job contacts. While Chinese and Japanese Americans are doing well, Filipino and Vietnamese American incomes are in the range of African Americans. Surprisingly, foreign born Asians make more money than native Asian Americans. Additionally, Asians frequently pool wages in extended families, live in well off economic states (California, New York, and Hawaii) and have a higher poverty rate than whites.

4. Richard Pipes – Communism: A History

This is the definitive book on the History of Communism if you want to know its history in less than 200 pages. The book starts at the beginning of the Agricultural Revolution where humans went from being wandering nomads to farmers and thus needed private property. This following quote explains why Communism can never succeed:

"Marxism's basic contention that private property, which it strives to abolish, is a transient historical phenomenon-an interlude between primitive and advanced Communism-is plainly false. All evidence indicates that land, the main source of wealth in premodern times, unless monopolized by monarchs, had always belonged to tribes, families, or individuals. Livestock as well as commerce and the capital to which it gives rise were always and everywhere in private hands. From which it follows that private property is not a transient phenomenon but a permanent feature of social life and, as such, indestructible… Even if the immense pressures exerted by Communist regimes to this end were to succeed, their success would at best be ephemeral: as animal trainers have discovered, after being subjected to intensive drilling to perform tricks, animals, freed from training, after a while forget what they have learned and revert to their instinctive behavior. Furthermore, given that acquired characteristics are not heritable, each new generation will bring into the world non-Communist attitudes, among which acquisitiveness is certainly not the least powerful. Communism ultimately was defeated by its inability to refashion human nature."

3. Jones and Williams - Politics of Bad Ideas

This book statistically argues against the idea that tax cuts create revenue and are always good. In the past 60 years, when taxes were increased, the deficit went down. If raising taxes crush the economy then why did it do so well during the Clinton years? Revenue increases when GDP increases. Revenue increases when wages increase. Revenue increases when the stock market does well.

The book also takes on the "Starve the Beast" mentality by interviewing Republicans in the Bush administration that believed in it. There are some Republicans who believe that if government has less money as a result of less taxes, then it will get rid of benefits like Social Security and Medicare. However, Republicans expanded Medicare which made the deficit worse.

One interesting statistic the authors make is that when taxes are high Republicans win and when takes are low the Democrats win. This may be why Obama won so easily. Quite honestly, federal taxes are very low unless you are making great money. I pay more in state taxes than I do in federal taxes.

If you want the statistical critique of supply side voodoo economics then this is the book for you.

2. RJ Rummel – Death by Government

For some reason I do not own this book but I have used it in several history papers throughout college. Rummel profiles governments that murder people and he coins the term "demicide" for this practice. The governments that killed the most were (in this order):
1. USSR (Lenin and Stalin)
2. People's Republic of China (Mao)
3. Nazi Germany (Hitler)
4. Nationalist China (Chang Kai-Shek)

Not surprisingly communist and fascist governments were the most lethal. If you want to find out how 174,000,000 people in the 1900s died from governments and not war, this is the book.

1. Dinesh D'Souza – End of Racism

This is the conservative explanation of why there is racism and it boldly critiques liberal policies that have not ended racism or improved black achievement. He does not suggest blacks are inherently deficient like the Bell Curve and he does not believe racial discrimination is the main problem. Instead, he focuses on the black culture which was an adaptation to historical oppression but yet is still dysfunctional today. The two best chapters are "The Race Merchants" which brings up the point if there was no racism, what would Jesse Jackson do for a day job? Therefore, Jackson must create racism largely when none exists. The other chapter is on "Rational Discrimination" where he talks about how even blacks discriminate against each other. Here is my favorite paragraph in the book written by Gregory Wright from the Washington Post about this topic:

"As an African American, I am fed up with Washington taxicabs, fed up with having to flag down five cabs before finding one that will take me home, fed up with feeling anger, embarrassment and frustration when cabdrivers swear they are off-duty and then pick up a white customer before I can get around the corner. Taxidrivers, many of whom come from Africa, the Caribbean and the Middle East, say they don't want to pick up African American passengers because they are afraid of being robbed, assaulted or murdered. One Nigerian cabdriver told me he only picks up African Americans who are dressed like businessmen. For African Americans, this discrimination can be inconvenient and downright humiliating."

D'Souza also interviews a white cab driver in Chicago:

Cabdriver "No Exceptions, pal. I never pick up n*ggers."
D'Souza "You don't like blacks?"
Cabdriver "Not blacks. N*ggers."
D'Souza "That sounds like racism to me."
Cabdriver "Hey, that's crap. I pick up older blacks al the time. I have no problem with giving black women a ride. My black buddies won't pick up no n*ggers. I ain't no more racist than they are.

I find it interesting that the Jesse Jackson's of the world would find this cabdriver racist yet he makes the same point Chris Rock made in his breakthrough album.