Next book

TENSION CITY

INSIDE THE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES, FROM KENNEDY-NIXON TO MCCAIN-OBAMA

A limited but entertaining peek at some of what goes on behind the curtain.

Award-winning NewsHour anchor Lehrer (Super, 2010, etc.) discusses the televised presidential election debates he and others have covered.

The author, who first moderated a debate between George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis in 1988, reports that most candidates believe that elections are not won because a candidate performed well in a debate. However, a campaign can certainly be pushed toward defeat by a poor performance before the cameras. In Lehrer’s experience, such effects are not often brought about by “gotcha” questions, bloopers or flubs; what counts is how the camera reveals body language in that particular moment and circumstance. In America’s first televised debate, between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon in 1960, the camera showed Nixon’s sweaty face and stubble, so different from Kennedy's healthy look—tanned and plumped up from his treatment for Addison’s disease. In 2008, as John McCain refused to respond or even look at his opponent, the hostility appeared almost palpable. In 2004, the camera caught images of an impatient-seeming George W. Bush, and in 2000 it focused on the condescending sighs of Al Gore. In 1992, George H.W. Bush was captured checking and rechecking his watch. Lehrer didn’t necessarily notice these defining moments as they were occurring, but rather looked at the debater as he answered the question. He was careful not to appear to fall into the trap of establishing rapport through eye contact. Though Lehrer’s recollections are nostalgic and often insightful, many readers may wish to learn more about how he puts his questions together and how that skill relates to other behind-the-scenes skills.

A limited but entertaining peek at some of what goes on behind the curtain.

Pub Date: Sept. 13, 2011

ISBN: 978-1-4000-6917-0

Page Count: 224

Publisher: Random House

Review Posted Online: June 6, 2011

Kirkus Reviews Issue: June 15, 2011

Next book

AN INDIGENOUS PEOPLES' HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES

A Churchill-ian view of native history—Ward, that is, not Winston—its facts filtered through a dense screen of ideology.

Custer died for your sins. And so, this book would seem to suggest, did every other native victim of colonialism.

Inducing guilt in non-native readers would seem to be the guiding idea behind Dunbar-Ortiz’s (Emerita, Ethnic Studies/California State Univ., Hayward; Blood on the Border: A Memoir of the Contra War, 2005, etc.) survey, which is hardly a new strategy. Indeed, the author says little that hasn’t been said before, but she packs a trove of ideological assumptions into nearly every page. For one thing, while “Indian” isn’t bad, since “[i]ndigenous individuals and peoples in North America on the whole do not consider ‘Indian’ a slur,” “American” is due to the fact that it’s “blatantly imperialistic.” Just so, indigenous peoples were overwhelmed by a “colonialist settler-state” (the very language broadly applied to Israelis vis-à-vis the Palestinians today) and then “displaced to fragmented reservations and economically decimated”—after, that is, having been forced to live in “concentration camps.” Were he around today, Vine Deloria Jr., the always-indignant champion of bias-puncturing in defense of native history, would disavow such tidily packaged, ready-made, reflexive language. As it is, the readers who are likely to come to this book—undergraduates, mostly, in survey courses—probably won’t question Dunbar-Ortiz’s inaccurate assertion that the military phrase “in country” derives from the military phrase “Indian country” or her insistence that all Spanish people in the New World were “gold-obsessed.” Furthermore, most readers won’t likely know that some Ancestral Pueblo (for whom Dunbar-Ortiz uses the long-abandoned term “Anasazi”) sites show evidence of cannibalism and torture, which in turn points to the inconvenient fact that North America wasn’t entirely an Eden before the arrival of Europe.

A Churchill-ian view of native history—Ward, that is, not Winston—its facts filtered through a dense screen of ideology.

Pub Date: Sept. 16, 2014

ISBN: 978-0-8070-0040-3

Page Count: 296

Publisher: Beacon Press

Review Posted Online: Aug. 17, 2014

Kirkus Reviews Issue: Sept. 15, 2014

Next book

GOOD ECONOMICS FOR HARD TIMES

Occasionally wonky but overall a good case for how the dismal science can make the world less—well, dismal.

“Quality of life means more than just consumption”: Two MIT economists urge that a smarter, more politically aware economics be brought to bear on social issues.

It’s no secret, write Banerjee and Duflo (co-authors: Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way To Fight Global Poverty, 2011), that “we seem to have fallen on hard times.” Immigration, trade, inequality, and taxation problems present themselves daily, and they seem to be intractable. Economics can be put to use in figuring out these big-issue questions. Data can be adduced, for example, to answer the question of whether immigration tends to suppress wages. The answer: “There is no evidence low-skilled migration to rich countries drives wage and employment down for the natives.” In fact, it opens up opportunities for those natives by freeing them to look for better work. The problem becomes thornier when it comes to the matter of free trade; as the authors observe, “left-behind people live in left-behind places,” which explains why regional poverty descended on Appalachia when so many manufacturing jobs left for China in the age of globalism, leaving behind not just left-behind people but also people ripe for exploitation by nationalist politicians. The authors add, interestingly, that the same thing occurred in parts of Germany, Spain, and Norway that fell victim to the “China shock.” In what they call a “slightly technical aside,” they build a case for addressing trade issues not with trade wars but with consumption taxes: “It makes no sense to ask agricultural workers to lose their jobs just so steelworkers can keep theirs, which is what tariffs accomplish.” Policymakers might want to consider such counsel, especially when it is coupled with the observation that free trade benefits workers in poor countries but punishes workers in rich ones.

Occasionally wonky but overall a good case for how the dismal science can make the world less—well, dismal.

Pub Date: Nov. 12, 2019

ISBN: 978-1-61039-950-0

Page Count: 432

Publisher: PublicAffairs

Review Posted Online: Aug. 28, 2019

Kirkus Reviews Issue: Sept. 15, 2019

Close Quickview