I almost stopped reading this book multiple times for a variety of reasons. The biggest issue I had was that the book does not contain a bibliography and only a handful of footnotes. The author mentions specific opinions and theories without any clarification of where that information came from. The author leaves out pertinent information (in the chapter about the word "caucus" there is no mention of the Iowa Caucus). Whenever the author invokes a religious quote he only uses western religions such as Christianity or Judaism. As another reviewer mentioned there is horrendous transphobic language used in the section about "utopia" which I found appalling. This book also already feels outdated. With the momentous results of the 2020 election not mentioned, not to mention the attempted coup at the Capitol a few weeks ago, this book needs to be updated in more than one way to be useful. ( )

I can deal with simplistic prose and lack of nuance, in the interest of clarity.

I can deal with the lack of a bibliography, in the interest (I assume) of not bogging down the text with lots of footnotes or endnotes.

I can deal with conservative framing and viewpoints. Being a liberal, I definitely take issue with some of the author's arguments and definitions (especially given the lack of a bibliography, which makes it seem like readers need to take the author's say-so as gospel), but I can approach it as an intellectual exercise meant to sharpen my own arguments.

I can even grit my teeth and roll my eyes at the author's general resistance to institutional change, along the lines of (to paraphrase a previous Early Reviewers offering) "The closer's the closer because he's the ****ing closer!"

What I won't accept is blatant transphobia inserted into, of all things, a definition of utopia. To imply that those who choose to do hormones or gender confirmation surgery are insisting on the world changing to suit them, because of not wanting to deal with things as they are, is at best oblivious. Having gotten to know actual transgender people and having read books and done my research, it's clear that the author is the one who's refusing to see reality. ( )

Id like to thank Rootstock Publishing and Librarything for sending this ARC for independent review.
More than just a political reference book, this is, also, a good source of history. This book includes 101 basic terms used in politics. It explains the meaning and usage of each term, as well as the political roots and history of the term.
Hagenstein has written a concise and interesting reference book that he hopes will help build a better understanding of politics and political terms, and traditions, that will help us understand each other better. He hopes this will help people "think more clearly and act more responsibly", by making political discussions easier, if everyone understands the words and terms.
This was well thought-out, well written and totally engaging. I learned so much from this book. This would be a great reference book for any library, and an engaging read for history and/or political book fans.
Essential reading. ( )

Interesting and informative, but as the sub-title states, it’s a glossary of historical/political terms...sooo not exactly a page turner, but a great reference ( )

A Survey of US Government and Politics Masquerading as a Glossary.

[Note: I received a Review Copy of this book because of my participation at LibraryThing.com.]

So the book covers many things from “Administrative State” to “Whip.” I started to read in alphabetical order. When I got to “Common Law,” I looked ahead for “Remedy,” and “Standing.” Neither was there.

When I pressed on and got to “Conservatism,” I wondered what the author would have to say about “Liberalism,” so I looked ahead again. Unlike many other terms where linguistic origins are discussed, these were omitted here. William F. Buckley was a classical liberal, and also a conservative, but the author would have these categories as opposites. So here etymology is ignored. And now “liberals” write opinion pieces in The New York Times.

When “Democracy” is discussed, the author writes, “Americans all love democracy.” Yet James Madison is supposed to have said, “Democracy is the most vile form of government. “ James Madison was an American.

The author seems to revere the notion of “checks and balances” to keep the government from trampling on us meager citizens. but he ignores or doesn't understand that Madison didn't think the government could do whatever it wants to do in the name of the “General Welfare,” even if all three branches of the government agreed it could. (See: Federalist No. 41)

He also seems to believe that the politicians who pass our laws are always acting in the best interests of the citizens they represent. I think this is EXTREMELY naïve.

By the way, one other term that is NOT included in the glossary is “Social Justice,” even though it is included via a quote in the entry for “Socialism.” My own guess is that it is only included in a quote because the author knows there is something disingenuous about the term.

I consider myself a conservative in the William F. Buckley mold, and that is probably why I reacted negatively to so many of the entries in this glossary. But in some ways, that is the beauty of this book. Each of the 101 topics discussed in two or three pages is an excellent jumping off point for a fuller discussion of that topic. ( )