Good introduction, 17 Nov 2008
There is a difference between political philosophy, ideology and day to day politics.

Political philosophy asks question about the nature of democracy, the ideal state and the like. This subject is the most abstract and introduces ideas such as how should citizens be organsed and education (see Plato) or why do we need a sovereign (see Hobbes) or are we entitled to private property (see Locke).

Ideology (which is sometimes a dirty word) tends to refer to braod political ideas such as Conservatism, Liberalism, Socialism and Communism. Ideology tends to form a bridge between political philosophy (and other subjects such as history, economics and sociology) and day to day politics. Whatever they claim, most parties tend to draw on a broad 'ideology' which helps them in their formulation of an election manifesto which also tempers the party's ideology to meet practical needs and to stand a reasonable chance of getting elected.

Political philosophy is essentially an abstract subjects quite removed from day to day politics and concerned with debating the meaning of fundlemental political concepts and the nature of man and society.

This is a good but basic introduction.




Unsatisfying, 28 Feb 2008
This was a mildly interesting introduction to an interesting subject. I felt it rambled a little, and was disappointed that it did not introduce any key theorists and missed out some key concepts (sovereignty, for example). The book only really succeeds in raising some key questions, but does not introduce one to the multifarious attempts to answer these questions. Furthermore, Miller's own opinions (given heavy weighting in the final chapters) are not particularly interesting or radical, and given the nature of the medium (a 'very short introduction') would be better presented elsewhere.

If you want a very short introduction to the subject of political philosophy, a good alternative is the 'Politics: A Very Short Introduction', which I have found to be a much better read and much more thorough.

Gets my vote, 03 Dec 2007
Short, readable, crystal clear. Politics books are often a hard climb or at least a tedious trudge. This is a smooth glide by comparison.
Miller states at the start that he wants to avoid jargon and academic mumbo-jumbo and he does just that, taking us on a concise but enjoyable tour of political philosophy. He begins at first principles and gradually builds his arguments, with deftly chosen examples adding depth and colour to the text. The logical progression means that the focus is firmly on democracy (since that is the political system that makes most sense to most people nowadays). Although he presents (and knocks down) arguments for alternative systems, don't expect great forays into the pros and cons of ideologies like Communism or Fascism. Among the concepts he tackles are justice, social justice, freedom, multiculturalism, feminism and globalisation.
The thoughts of political philosophers such as Plato, Rousseau, Locke, Mill and Rawls are woven beautifully into the flow, compact nuggets that reinforce rather than halt the narrative. Anyone who has tried to trawl through Rawls in the original will whisper a quiet thankyou when they arrive at the digested wisdom of Miller's version.
Miller makes a promise at the outset and he sticks to it: to be scrupulously fair and present all sides of each argument, even if the reader doesn't share his own leanings (which I sensed were slightly leftward).
In sum, it would be hard to do better than this for a well-reasoned introduction to (or refresher course in) political philosophy.

perfectly pocket-sized political philosophy, 17 Jul 2007
This little book is a quick yet thoughtful work-through of some major areas of political philosophy. Whats great is that you can finish it in a single evening and know loads more than before. David Miller is a very good writer and his narrative style sweeps the reader along as he investigates political issues. Miller has refrained from cluttering his text with unnesscary jargon. Throughly enjoyable and refreshingly different to other introductions, this is simply a very good book. I loved the way in which Miller used a 14th century painting ('Allergory of Good and Bad Government' by Lorenzetti) to act as a discussion point for opening up political philosophy becuase it really added flavour to proceedings.

It should be warned, however, that this book is far from comprehensive even in an 'introduction' sense of the word. Instead of being written with a quick synopsis of all the major discussion, Miller instead opts for a continuous narrative that works through *some* of the major topics of the discipline. Interestingly, Miller's book is not so much an illustration of the debates as it is an argument for his personal conclusions through illustrating these debates. This is not neccessarily a bad thing, though, as it still serves to introudce the reader to the fundamentals and still allows the reader to come to their own opinons. In many ways, it is actually quite nice to see conclusions made for once rather than questions left unanswered as coming to conclusions is also a part of the philosophical discipline.

I have given this book five stars becuase its great, but it should be realised that other, more comprehensive introductions could prove better due to more depth. However, it undoubtedly introduces political philosophy in an excellent manner, especially considering its length (130 or so very small pages). It is, afterall, meant to be a very short introduction and it scores five stars when taken as such.

Life saver, 07 Dec 2003
I have always had my doubts about chosing to study political philosophy at university like i did. Although i enjoy the subject, i have never fully understood the principals...until now! David Miller uses great explanations of the ideas behind the subject so that everyone can understand. It is short, but he has used the space well and now i am well on course for a first!

Good introduction, 17 Nov 2008
There is a difference between political philosophy, ideology and day to day politics.

Political philosophy asks question about the nature of democracy, the ideal state and the like. This subject is the most abstract and introduces ideas such as how should citizens be organsed and education (see Plato) or why do we need a sovereign (see Hobbes) or are we entitled to private property (see Locke).

Ideology (which is sometimes a dirty word) tends to refer to braod political ideas such as Conservatism, Liberalism, Socialism and Communism. Ideology tends to form a bridge between political philosophy (and other subjects such as history, economics and sociology) and day to day politics. Whatever they claim, most parties tend to draw on a broad 'ideology' which helps them in their formulation of an election manifesto which also tempers the party's ideology to meet practical needs and to stand a reasonable chance of getting elected.

Political philosophy is essentially an abstract subjects quite removed from day to day politics and concerned with debating the meaning of fundlemental political concepts and the nature of man and society.

This is a good but basic introduction.




Unsatisfying, 28 Feb 2008
This was a mildly interesting introduction to an interesting subject. I felt it rambled a little, and was disappointed that it did not introduce any key theorists and missed out some key concepts (sovereignty, for example). The book only really succeeds in raising some key questions, but does not introduce one to the multifarious attempts to answer these questions. Furthermore, Miller's own opinions (given heavy weighting in the final chapters) are not particularly interesting or radical, and given the nature of the medium (a 'very short introduction') would be better presented elsewhere.

If you want a very short introduction to the subject of political philosophy, a good alternative is the 'Politics: A Very Short Introduction', which I have found to be a much better read and much more thorough.

Gets my vote, 03 Dec 2007
Short, readable, crystal clear. Politics books are often a hard climb or at least a tedious trudge. This is a smooth glide by comparison.
Miller states at the start that he wants to avoid jargon and academic mumbo-jumbo and he does just that, taking us on a concise but enjoyable tour of political philosophy. He begins at first principles and gradually builds his arguments, with deftly chosen examples adding depth and colour to the text. The logical progression means that the focus is firmly on democracy (since that is the political system that makes most sense to most people nowadays). Although he presents (and knocks down) arguments for alternative systems, don't expect great forays into the pros and cons of ideologies like Communism or Fascism. Among the concepts he tackles are justice, social justice, freedom, multiculturalism, feminism and globalisation.
The thoughts of political philosophers such as Plato, Rousseau, Locke, Mill and Rawls are woven beautifully into the flow, compact nuggets that reinforce rather than halt the narrative. Anyone who has tried to trawl through Rawls in the original will whisper a quiet thankyou when they arrive at the digested wisdom of Miller's version.
Miller makes a promise at the outset and he sticks to it: to be scrupulously fair and present all sides of each argument, even if the reader doesn't share his own leanings (which I sensed were slightly leftward).
In sum, it would be hard to do better than this for a well-reasoned introduction to (or refresher course in) political philosophy.

perfectly pocket-sized political philosophy, 17 Jul 2007
This little book is a quick yet thoughtful work-through of some major areas of political philosophy. Whats great is that you can finish it in a single evening and know loads more than before. David Miller is a very good writer and his narrative style sweeps the reader along as he investigates political issues. Miller has refrained from cluttering his text with unnesscary jargon. Throughly enjoyable and refreshingly different to other introductions, this is simply a very good book. I loved the way in which Miller used a 14th century painting ('Allergory of Good and Bad Government' by Lorenzetti) to act as a discussion point for opening up political philosophy becuase it really added flavour to proceedings.

It should be warned, however, that this book is far from comprehensive even in an 'introduction' sense of the word. Instead of being written with a quick synopsis of all the major discussion, Miller instead opts for a continuous narrative that works through *some* of the major topics of the discipline. Interestingly, Miller's book is not so much an illustration of the debates as it is an argument for his personal conclusions through illustrating these debates. This is not neccessarily a bad thing, though, as it still serves to introudce the reader to the fundamentals and still allows the reader to come to their own opinons. In many ways, it is actually quite nice to see conclusions made for once rather than questions left unanswered as coming to conclusions is also a part of the philosophical discipline.

I have given this book five stars becuase its great, but it should be realised that other, more comprehensive introductions could prove better due to more depth. However, it undoubtedly introduces political philosophy in an excellent manner, especially considering its length (130 or so very small pages). It is, afterall, meant to be a very short introduction and it scores five stars when taken as such.

Life saver, 07 Dec 2003
I have always had my doubts about chosing to study political philosophy at university like i did. Although i enjoy the subject, i have never fully understood the principals...until now! David Miller uses great explanations of the ideas behind the subject so that everyone can understand. It is short, but he has used the space well and now i am well on course for a first!

Interesting read but didn't tell me everything I wanted to know, 18 Nov 2008
I found this an interesting book but would have liked to have spent more time on certain topics that were barely touched on at all.

Politics isn't just about Democracy, 19 Dec 2002
Bernard Crick's Very Short Introduction to Democracy is the 75th in the ever-expanding range of OUP introductions (previously Past Masters). Best suited for A-level students, they nevertheless provide helpful introductory surveys or summaries of a range of topics. Kenneth Minogue's Politics came much earlier in the series (8th in fact), but this detailed examination of what is almost certainly the most widely used political concept in the modern world complements it well.

Despite its widespread use, democracy is what might be called "an essentially contested concept" (p.1). Crick makes the point that numerous dictatorial regimes, such as Franco's Spain and Nasser Egypt have claimed to be democracies in some sense. Democracy can be conceptualised as a principle of government, set of institutional arrangements or a type of behaviour (p.5); the three need not go together, and thus even advocates of democracy may have very different conceptions of that ideal. Many band around the term 'democracy' when they really mean good government, constitutionalism, respect for rights or liberty, but Crick is quick to point out the contingencies of these relationships and different understandings of democracy that may operate.

Engaging in an ambitious historical overview, Crick traces the Greek origins of democracy through the Roman civic republicanism, English Civil War, American independence and the French revolution, noting at each stage how the idea develops. In the course of his exegesis, he brings in the ideas of key thinkers, such as Rousseau, Hobbes and a chapter devoted to 'Comme disait M. de Tocqueville'. Discussion isn't wholly confined to the past, however. Unlike some other Very Short Introductions (recycled from earlier material), this is original to 2002. Crick's commentary is bang up to date, mentioning September 11th, New Labour spin-doctoring and, most entertainingly of all, devoting several pages to Big Brother under the heading of popularism.

It's a hugely ambitious project for such a small book, perhaps even over-optimistic. Far more could have been devoted to important issues and thinkers, particularly Aristotle, de Tocqueville and the French Revolution, all of course worthy of books in their own right. As Crick himself notes in his introduction "to write briefly and to try to simplify without distortion an overwhelmingly important but also highly complex matter is more difficult than to write at length" (p.3-5). For the most part, he succeeds admirably, and this book will no doubt serve many well as part of an introduction to politics.

Where he does stray, however, is in a propensity to, if not digress, bring in extraneous information but make little of the point. Too often an analogy or obscure reference is cited only to be almost instantly dropped. It is as if the author were trying to show off his breadth of knowledge, or perhaps more like listening to the rambling anecdotes of an aged lecturer - whose meanderings, while interesting and informative, sometimes obscure the point he is trying to make. The argument, it seems, follows Aristotle; holding democracy necessary but not sufficient for good government.

Overall, this is a useful and interesting book. Helpful for A-level political courses, and introductory university courses too. It's not the last word though - modern debates on such topics as deliberative democracy or e-democracy don't feature at all. Despite some minor pickings though, it's generally good in so far as it goes - a useful overview of the history of democracy - leaving the reader to turn to the future.

Good introduction, 17 Nov 2008
There is a difference between political philosophy, ideology and day to day politics.

Political philosophy asks question about the nature of democracy, the ideal state and the like. This subject is the most abstract and introduces ideas such as how should citizens be organsed and education (see Plato) or why do we need a sovereign (see Hobbes) or are we entitled to private property (see Locke).

Ideology (which is sometimes a dirty word) tends to refer to braod political ideas such as Conservatism, Liberalism, Socialism and Communism. Ideology tends to form a bridge between political philosophy (and other subjects such as history, economics and sociology) and day to day politics. Whatever they claim, most parties tend to draw on a broad 'ideology' which helps them in their formulation of an election manifesto which also tempers the party's ideology to meet practical needs and to stand a reasonable chance of getting elected.

Political philosophy is essentially an abstract subjects quite removed from day to day politics and concerned with debating the meaning of fundlemental political concepts and the nature of man and society.

This is a good but basic introduction.




Unsatisfying, 28 Feb 2008
This was a mildly interesting introduction to an interesting subject. I felt it rambled a little, and was disappointed that it did not introduce any key theorists and missed out some key concepts (sovereignty, for example). The book only really succeeds in raising some key questions, but does not introduce one to the multifarious attempts to answer these questions. Furthermore, Miller's own opinions (given heavy weighting in the final chapters) are not particularly interesting or radical, and given the nature of the medium (a 'very short introduction') would be better presented elsewhere.

If you want a very short introduction to the subject of political philosophy, a good alternative is the 'Politics: A Very Short Introduction', which I have found to be a much better read and much more thorough.

Gets my vote, 03 Dec 2007
Short, readable, crystal clear. Politics books are often a hard climb or at least a tedious trudge. This is a smooth glide by comparison.
Miller states at the start that he wants to avoid jargon and academic mumbo-jumbo and he does just that, taking us on a concise but enjoyable tour of political philosophy. He begins at first principles and gradually builds his arguments, with deftly chosen examples adding depth and colour to the text. The logical progression means that the focus is firmly on democracy (since that is the political system that makes most sense to most people nowadays). Although he presents (and knocks down) arguments for alternative systems, don't expect great forays into the pros and cons of ideologies like Communism or Fascism. Among the concepts he tackles are justice, social justice, freedom, multiculturalism, feminism and globalisation.
The thoughts of political philosophers such as Plato, Rousseau, Locke, Mill and Rawls are woven beautifully into the flow, compact nuggets that reinforce rather than halt the narrative. Anyone who has tried to trawl through Rawls in the original will whisper a quiet thankyou when they arrive at the digested wisdom of Miller's version.
Miller makes a promise at the outset and he sticks to it: to be scrupulously fair and present all sides of each argument, even if the reader doesn't share his own leanings (which I sensed were slightly leftward).
In sum, it would be hard to do better than this for a well-reasoned introduction to (or refresher course in) political philosophy.

perfectly pocket-sized political philosophy, 17 Jul 2007
This little book is a quick yet thoughtful work-through of some major areas of political philosophy. Whats great is that you can finish it in a single evening and know loads more than before. David Miller is a very good writer and his narrative style sweeps the reader along as he investigates political issues. Miller has refrained from cluttering his text with unnesscary jargon. Throughly enjoyable and refreshingly different to other introductions, this is simply a very good book. I loved the way in which Miller used a 14th century painting ('Allergory of Good and Bad Government' by Lorenzetti) to act as a discussion point for opening up political philosophy becuase it really added flavour to proceedings.

It should be warned, however, that this book is far from comprehensive even in an 'introduction' sense of the word. Instead of being written with a quick synopsis of all the major discussion, Miller instead opts for a continuous narrative that works through *some* of the major topics of the discipline. Interestingly, Miller's book is not so much an illustration of the debates as it is an argument for his personal conclusions through illustrating these debates. This is not neccessarily a bad thing, though, as it still serves to introudce the reader to the fundamentals and still allows the reader to come to their own opinons. In many ways, it is actually quite nice to see conclusions made for once rather than questions left unanswered as coming to conclusions is also a part of the philosophical discipline.

I have given this book five stars becuase its great, but it should be realised that other, more comprehensive introductions could prove better due to more depth. However, it undoubtedly introduces political philosophy in an excellent manner, especially considering its length (130 or so very small pages). It is, afterall, meant to be a very short introduction and it scores five stars when taken as such.

Life saver, 07 Dec 2003
I have always had my doubts about chosing to study political philosophy at university like i did. Although i enjoy the subject, i have never fully understood the principals...until now! David Miller uses great explanations of the ideas behind the subject so that everyone can understand. It is short, but he has used the space well and now i am well on course for a first!

Interesting read but didn't tell me everything I wanted to know, 18 Nov 2008
I found this an interesting book but would have liked to have spent more time on certain topics that were barely touched on at all.

Politics isn't just about Democracy, 19 Dec 2002
Bernard Crick's Very Short Introduction to Democracy is the 75th in the ever-expanding range of OUP introductions (previously Past Masters). Best suited for A-level students, they nevertheless provide helpful introductory surveys or summaries of a range of topics. Kenneth Minogue's Politics came much earlier in the series (8th in fact), but this detailed examination of what is almost certainly the most widely used political concept in the modern world complements it well.

Despite its widespread use, democracy is what might be called "an essentially contested concept" (p.1). Crick makes the point that numerous dictatorial regimes, such as Franco's Spain and Nasser Egypt have claimed to be democracies in some sense. Democracy can be conceptualised as a principle of government, set of institutional arrangements or a type of behaviour (p.5); the three need not go together, and thus even advocates of democracy may have very different conceptions of that ideal. Many band around the term 'democracy' when they really mean good government, constitutionalism, respect for rights or liberty, but Crick is quick to point out the contingencies of these relationships and different understandings of democracy that may operate.

Engaging in an ambitious historical overview, Crick traces the Greek origins of democracy through the Roman civic republicanism, English Civil War, American independence and the French revolution, noting at each stage how the idea develops. In the course of his exegesis, he brings in the ideas of key thinkers, such as Rousseau, Hobbes and a chapter devoted to 'Comme disait M. de Tocqueville'. Discussion isn't wholly confined to the past, however. Unlike some other Very Short Introductions (recycled from earlier material), this is original to 2002. Crick's commentary is bang up to date, mentioning September 11th, New Labour spin-doctoring and, most entertainingly of all, devoting several pages to Big Brother under the heading of popularism.

It's a hugely ambitious project for such a small book, perhaps even over-optimistic. Far more could have been devoted to important issues and thinkers, particularly Aristotle, de Tocqueville and the French Revolution, all of course worthy of books in their own right. As Crick himself notes in his introduction "to write briefly and to try to simplify without distortion an overwhelmingly important but also highly complex matter is more difficult than to write at length" (p.3-5). For the most part, he succeeds admirably, and this book will no doubt serve many well as part of an introduction to politics.

Where he does stray, however, is in a propensity to, if not digress, bring in extraneous information but make little of the point. Too often an analogy or obscure reference is cited only to be almost instantly dropped. It is as if the author were trying to show off his breadth of knowledge, or perhaps more like listening to the rambling anecdotes of an aged lecturer - whose meanderings, while interesting and informative, sometimes obscure the point he is trying to make. The argument, it seems, follows Aristotle; holding democracy necessary but not sufficient for good government.

Overall, this is a useful and interesting book. Helpful for A-level political courses, and introductory university courses too. It's not the last word though - modern debates on such topics as deliberative democracy or e-democracy don't feature at all. Despite some minor pickings though, it's generally good in so far as it goes - a useful overview of the history of democracy - leaving the reader to turn to the future.

A systematic study of voter irrationality , 01 Jan 2009
the first 1/3 of the book presents the result of various studies and is quiet boring. The rest is funny and very enlightening.

It is the first time that someone takes the figures from various studies and tries to explain why economic policy is what it is.

For example that politicians will not be held accountable for their acts or that people vote more with their heart than their head. Many people can vote against their best interest if they have the feeling that it is the right thing to do.

When I affirm such things I do it out of conviction. In this book it is underlain with the results of a study or poll.

If you're an economist it'll confirm that you are as smart as you think. Interesting read., 12 Feb 2008
Very much a book for economists and academics. Caplan has done his homework and is a well-educated and deep but clear thinker. There is indeed controversy in this book but nothing that would shudder your faith. It occasionally borders on arrogance, elevating the righteousness of economists' doctrine to infallible papacy. There is the sense of padding at the end of the second chapter regarding metadata, although it can be lightly skipped through to maintain the good earlier pace set by the author.
Perhaps most impressive is the theory of rational irrationality and the quantifying of voter ignorance as a non-tradable personal commodity. Very interesting and enriching, although slightly pessimistic in its tone and taste. Nonetheless Caplan leaves you with hope. He is there after all to think for you!


a bit of a dud, 03 Nov 2007
This book is very badly described; the general presentation gives the impression that the book would be amusing as well as controversial. The reality is a book written for the university educated and the class of society who never have to fear unemployment. The university style of writing makes it difficult to understand what he is going on about, since you have to keep looking up a dictionary. It is also rather boring, which makes it difficult to hold your concentration. The basic theme of the book is that economists think that the ordinary voter is irrational when it comes to politics and voting. The economist argues that because the economy keeps getting stronger; they are always right, and the public always wrong. Trade protectionism, mass immigration of cheap labour, downsizing which causes mass unemployment are all supported by the economist and not supported by the voter. It is easy to support the economic argument when you don't have to cope with unemployment for the rest of your life. Here and there you will find the odd bit of humour and some interesting points of discussion and argument. There is also a section which looks at the way politicians exploit the votering behaviour of the voter. If you read the first chapter and then the last two; you will probably get the general flow of the book. A bit of a dud.


Pithy critique of economic ignorance , 06 Aug 2007
Economists on the right and the left agree on a surprisingly large number of policy issues. They believe free trade is good, the U.S. budget deficit is not a problem and most human beings are better off now than in the past. Yet the democratic public doesn't agree. It fears trade and foreigners, thinks the budget deficit is a big problem and is pessimistic about the economy even during periods of record economic growth. But the worst part, says economics professor Bryan Caplan, is that the public votes. Drawing on empirical research about voter attitudes, Caplan describes how voters are mistaken about many policy issues and - more importantly - why they are wrong. His account is frighteningly plausible, but so is his solution: more economic education. We recommend this pithy volume to anyone concerned about voters' ostensibly self-defeating behavior. Democracy may be better than the alternatives, but no one said it was easy.

Good introduction, 17 Nov 2008
There is a difference between political philosophy, ideology and day to day politics.

Political philosophy asks question about the nature of democracy, the ideal state and the like. This subject is the most abstract and introduces ideas such as how should citizens be organsed and education (see Plato) or why do we need a sovereign (see Hobbes) or are we entitled to private property (see Locke).

Ideology (which is sometimes a dirty word) tends to refer to braod political ideas such as Conservatism, Liberalism, Socialism and Communism. Ideology tends to form a bridge between political philosophy (and other subjects such as history, economics and sociology) and day to day politics. Whatever they claim, most parties tend to draw on a broad 'ideology' which helps them in their formulation of an election manifesto which also tempers the party's ideology to meet practical needs and to stand a reasonable chance of getting elected.

Political philosophy is essentially an abstract subjects quite removed from day to day politics and concerned with debating the meaning of fundlemental political concepts and the nature of man and society.

This is a good but basic introduction.




Unsatisfying, 28 Feb 2008
This was a mildly interesting introduction to an interesting subject. I felt it rambled a little, and was disappointed that it did not introduce any key theorists and missed out some key concepts (sovereignty, for example). The book only really succeeds in raising some key questions, but does not introduce one to the multifarious attempts to answer these questions. Furthermore, Miller's own opinions (given heavy weighting in the final chapters) are not particularly interesting or radical, and given the nature of the medium (a 'very short introduction') would be better presented elsewhere.

If you want a very short introduction to the subject of political philosophy, a good alternative is the 'Politics: A Very Short Introduction', which I have found to be a much better read and much more thorough.

Gets my vote, 03 Dec 2007
Short, readable, crystal clear. Politics books are often a hard climb or at least a tedious trudge. This is a smooth glide by comparison.
Miller states at the start that he wants to avoid jargon and academic mumbo-jumbo and he does just that, taking us on a concise but enjoyable tour of political philosophy. He begins at first principles and gradually builds his arguments, with deftly chosen examples adding depth and colour to the text. The logical progression means that the focus is firmly on democracy (since that is the political system that makes most sense to most people nowadays). Although he presents (and knocks down) arguments for alternative systems, don't expect great forays into the pros and cons of ideologies like Communism or Fascism. Among the concepts he tackles are justice, social justice, freedom, multiculturalism, feminism and globalisation.
The thoughts of political philosophers such as Plato, Rousseau, Locke, Mill and Rawls are woven beautifully into the flow, compact nuggets that reinforce rather than halt the narrative. Anyone who has tried to trawl through Rawls in the original will whisper a quiet thankyou when they arrive at the digested wisdom of Miller's version.
Miller makes a promise at the outset and he sticks to it: to be scrupulously fair and present all sides of each argument, even if the reader doesn't share his own leanings (which I sensed were slightly leftward).
In sum, it would be hard to do better than this for a well-reasoned introduction to (or refresher course in) political philosophy.

perfectly pocket-sized political philosophy, 17 Jul 2007
This little book is a quick yet thoughtful work-through of some major areas of political philosophy. Whats great is that you can finish it in a single evening and know loads more than before. David Miller is a very good writer and his narrative style sweeps the reader along as he investigates political issues. Miller has refrained from cluttering his text with unnesscary jargon. Throughly enjoyable and refreshingly different to other introductions, this is simply a very good book. I loved the way in which Miller used a 14th century painting ('Allergory of Good and Bad Government' by Lorenzetti) to act as a discussion point for opening up political philosophy becuase it really added flavour to proceedings.

It should be warned, however, that this book is far from comprehensive even in an 'introduction' sense of the word. Instead of being written with a quick synopsis of all the major discussion, Miller instead opts for a continuous narrative that works through *some* of the major topics of the discipline. Interestingly, Miller's book is not so much an illustration of the debates as it is an argument for his personal conclusions through illustrating these debates. This is not neccessarily a bad thing, though, as it still serves to introudce the reader to the fundamentals and still allows the reader to come to their own opinons. In many ways, it is actually quite nice to see conclusions made for once rather than questions left unanswered as coming to conclusions is also a part of the philosophical discipline.

I have given this book five stars becuase its great, but it should be realised that other, more comprehensive introductions could prove better due to more depth. However, it undoubtedly introduces political philosophy in an excellent manner, especially considering its length (130 or so very small pages). It is, afterall, meant to be a very short introduction and it scores five stars when taken as such.

Life saver, 07 Dec 2003
I have always had my doubts about chosing to study political philosophy at university like i did. Although i enjoy the subject, i have never fully understood the principals...until now! David Miller uses great explanations of the ideas behind the subject so that everyone can understand. It is short, but he has used the space well and now i am well on course for a first!

Interesting read but didn't tell me everything I wanted to know, 18 Nov 2008
I found this an interesting book but would have liked to have spent more time on certain topics that were barely touched on at all.

Politics isn't just about Democracy, 19 Dec 2002
Bernard Crick's Very Short Introduction to Democracy is the 75th in the ever-expanding range of OUP introductions (previously Past Masters). Best suited for A-level students, they nevertheless provide helpful introductory surveys or summaries of a range of topics. Kenneth Minogue's Politics came much earlier in the series (8th in fact), but this detailed examination of what is almost certainly the most widely used political concept in the modern world complements it well.

Despite its widespread use, democracy is what might be called "an essentially contested concept" (p.1). Crick makes the point that numerous dictatorial regimes, such as Franco's Spain and Nasser Egypt have claimed to be democracies in some sense. Democracy can be conceptualised as a principle of government, set of institutional arrangements or a type of behaviour (p.5); the three need not go together, and thus even advocates of democracy may have very different conceptions of that ideal. Many band around the term 'democracy' when they really mean good government, constitutionalism, respect for rights or liberty, but Crick is quick to point out the contingencies of these relationships and different understandings of democracy that may operate.

Engaging in an ambitious historical overview, Crick traces the Greek origins of democracy through the Roman civic republicanism, English Civil War, American independence and the French revolution, noting at each stage how the idea develops. In the course of his exegesis, he brings in the ideas of key thinkers, such as Rousseau, Hobbes and a chapter devoted to 'Comme disait M. de Tocqueville'. Discussion isn't wholly confined to the past, however. Unlike some other Very Short Introductions (recycled from earlier material), this is original to 2002. Crick's commentary is bang up to date, mentioning September 11th, New Labour spin-doctoring and, most entertainingly of all, devoting several pages to Big Brother under the heading of popularism.

It's a hugely ambitious project for such a small book, perhaps even over-optimistic. Far more could have been devoted to important issues and thinkers, particularly Aristotle, de Tocqueville and the French Revolution, all of course worthy of books in their own right. As Crick himself notes in his introduction "to write briefly and to try to simplify without distortion an overwhelmingly important but also highly complex matter is more difficult than to write at length" (p.3-5). For the most part, he succeeds admirably, and this book will no doubt serve many well as part of an introduction to politics.

Where he does stray, however, is in a propensity to, if not digress, bring in extraneous information but make little of the point. Too often an analogy or obscure reference is cited only to be almost instantly dropped. It is as if the author were trying to show off his breadth of knowledge, or perhaps more like listening to the rambling anecdotes of an aged lecturer - whose meanderings, while interesting and informative, sometimes obscure the point he is trying to make. The argument, it seems, follows Aristotle; holding democracy necessary but not sufficient for good government.

Overall, this is a useful and interesting book. Helpful for A-level political courses, and introductory university courses too. It's not the last word though - modern debates on such topics as deliberative democracy or e-democracy don't feature at all. Despite some minor pickings though, it's generally good in so far as it goes - a useful overview of the history of democracy - leaving the reader to turn to the future.

A systematic study of voter irrationality , 01 Jan 2009
the first 1/3 of the book presents the result of various studies and is quiet boring. The rest is funny and very enlightening.

It is the first time that someone takes the figures from various studies and tries to explain why economic policy is what it is.

For example that politicians will not be held accountable for their acts or that people vote more with their heart than their head. Many people can vote against their best interest if they have the feeling that it is the right thing to do.

When I affirm such things I do it out of conviction. In this book it is underlain with the results of a study or poll.

If you're an economist it'll confirm that you are as smart as you think. Interesting read., 12 Feb 2008
Very much a book for economists and academics. Caplan has done his homework and is a well-educated and deep but clear thinker. There is indeed controversy in this book but nothing that would shudder your faith. It occasionally borders on arrogance, elevating the righteousness of economists' doctrine to infallible papacy. There is the sense of padding at the end of the second chapter regarding metadata, although it can be lightly skipped through to maintain the good earlier pace set by the author.
Perhaps most impressive is the theory of rational irrationality and the quantifying of voter ignorance as a non-tradable personal commodity. Very interesting and enriching, although slightly pessimistic in its tone and taste. Nonetheless Caplan leaves you with hope. He is there after all to think for you!


a bit of a dud, 03 Nov 2007
This book is very badly described; the general presentation gives the impression that the book would be amusing as well as controversial. The reality is a book written for the university educated and the class of society who never have to fear unemployment. The university style of writing makes it difficult to understand what he is going on about, since you have to keep looking up a dictionary. It is also rather boring, which makes it difficult to hold your concentration. The basic theme of the book is that economists think that the ordinary voter is irrational when it comes to politics and voting. The economist argues that because the economy keeps getting stronger; they are always right, and the public always wrong. Trade protectionism, mass immigration of cheap labour, downsizing which causes mass unemployment are all supported by the economist and not supported by the voter. It is easy to support the economic argument when you don't have to cope with unemployment for the rest of your life. Here and there you will find the odd bit of humour and some interesting points of discussion and argument. There is also a section which looks at the way politicians exploit the votering behaviour of the voter. If you read the first chapter and then the last two; you will probably get the general flow of the book. A bit of a dud.


Pithy critique of economic ignorance , 06 Aug 2007
Economists on the right and the left agree on a surprisingly large number of policy issues. They believe free trade is good, the U.S. budget deficit is not a problem and most human beings are better off now than in the past. Yet the democratic public doesn't agree. It fears trade and foreigners, thinks the budget deficit is a big problem and is pessimistic about the economy even during periods of record economic growth. But the worst part, says economics professor Bryan Caplan, is that the public votes. Drawing on empirical research about voter attitudes, Caplan describes how voters are mistaken about many policy issues and - more importantly - why they are wrong. His account is frighteningly plausible, but so is his solution: more economic education. We recommend this pithy volume to anyone concerned about voters' ostensibly self-defeating behavior. Democracy may be better than the alternatives, but no one said it was easy.


"Aristotle's Politics" for everyone and for our times, 04 Aug 1999
Tremendous breadth and perspective on the major political dilemmas of our time from a wise scholar of the academy and citizen of the world. Everyone from experts to laypersons can enjoy, understand, and gain from Dahl's insights and characterizations regarding the fundamental political dilemmas of our time. Rarely, does such a combination of scholarly erudition and simple prose ever come along. I am greatful to Robert Dahl for contributing and elevating political discourse here and around the world with this book. Please read it if you are remotely interested in the politics of any country and the politics of the world. You can probably read it in one long sitting.

On another level, this book will forever remain the textual staple of the "Introduction to Comparative Government Courses" I teach.

This review does not mean that I agree with Dahl on all his positions it just means that I think his book is important.

This book is a provocative, informative, prudent, understated, and insightful explanation of the world's post-Soviet political era. (In this respect, Dahl's book is much better than Francis Fukuyama's ridiculously overstated, criminially impractical, triumphantly-and-arrogantly-toned treatise on "the end of the history." And guess what? Dahl's book is much shorter.)

Worthy of My Bookcase, 08 Mar 1999
Simple and clean; a great review after years away from school. A great start for that child who has a paper due for school. This essay left me curious and wanting to learn more about the different forms of democracy used around the world. If there is one drawback, it is that some of the best further reading suggestions are no longer available in print, or were not published in the U. S.

Good introduction, 17 Nov 2008
There is a difference between political philosophy, ideology and day to day politics.

Political philosophy asks question about the nature of democracy, the ideal state and the like. This subject is the most abstract and introduces ideas such as how should citizens be organsed and education (see Plato) or why do we need a sovereign (see Hobbes) or are we entitled to private property (see Locke).

Ideology (which is sometimes a dirty word) tends to refer to braod political ideas such as Conservatism, Liberalism, Socialism and Communism. Ideology tends to form a bridge between political philosophy (and other subjects such as history, economics and sociology) and day to day politics. Whatever they claim, most parties tend to draw on a broad 'ideology' which helps them in their formulation of an election manifesto which also tempers the party's ideology to meet practical needs and to stand a reasonable chance of getting elected.

Political philosophy is essentially an abstract subjects quite removed from day to day politics and concerned with debating the meaning of fundlemental political concepts and the nature of man and society.

This is a good but basic introduction.




Unsatisfying, 28 Feb 2008
This was a mildly interesting introduction to an interesting subject. I felt it rambled a little, and was disappointed that it did not introduce any key theorists and missed out some key concepts (sovereignty, for example). The book only really succeeds in raising some key questions, but does not introduce one to the multifarious attempts to answer these questions. Furthermore, Miller's own opinions (given heavy weighting in the final chapters) are not particularly interesting or radical, and given the nature of the medium (a 'very short introduction') would be better presented elsewhere.

If you want a very short introduction to the subject of political philosophy, a good alternative is the 'Politics: A Very Short Introduction', which I have found to be a much better read and much more thorough.

Gets my vote, 03 Dec 2007
Short, readable, crystal clear. Politics books are often a hard climb or at least a tedious trudge. This is a smooth glide by comparison.
Miller states at the start that he wants to avoid jargon and academic mumbo-jumbo and he does just that, taking us on a concise but enjoyable tour of political philosophy. He begins at first principles and gradually builds his arguments, with deftly chosen examples adding depth and colour to the text. The logical progression means that the focus is firmly on democracy (since that is the political system that makes most sense to most people nowadays). Although he presents (and knocks down) arguments for alternative systems, don't expect great forays into the pros and cons of ideologies like Communism or Fascism. Among the concepts he tackles are justice, social justice, freedom, multiculturalism, feminism and globalisation.
The thoughts of political philosophers such as Plato, Rousseau, Locke, Mill and Rawls are woven beautifully into the flow, compact nuggets that reinforce rather than halt the narrative. Anyone who has tried to trawl through Rawls in the original will whisper a quiet thankyou when they arrive at the digested wisdom of Miller's version.
Miller makes a promise at the outset and he sticks to it: to be scrupulously fair and present all sides of each argument, even if the reader doesn't share his own leanings (which I sensed were slightly leftward).
In sum, it would be hard to do better than this for a well-reasoned introduction to (or refresher course in) political philosophy.

perfectly pocket-sized political philosophy, 17 Jul 2007
This little book is a quick yet thoughtful work-through of some major areas of political philosophy. Whats great is that you can finish it in a single evening and know loads more than before. David Miller is a very good writer and his narrative style sweeps the reader along as he investigates political issues. Miller has refrained from cluttering his text with unnesscary jargon. Throughly enjoyable and refreshingly different to other introductions, this is simply a very good book. I loved the way in which Miller used a 14th century painting ('Allergory of Good and Bad Government' by Lorenzetti) to act as a discussion point for opening up political philosophy becuase it really added flavour to proceedings.

It should be warned, however, that this book is far from comprehensive even in an 'introduction' sense of the word. Instead of being written with a quick synopsis of all the major discussion, Miller instead opts for a continuous narrative that works through *some* of the major topics of the discipline. Interestingly, Miller's book is not so much an illustration of the debates as it is an argument for his personal conclusions through illustrating these debates. This is not neccessarily a bad thing, though, as it still serves to introudce the reader to the fundamentals and still allows the reader to come to their own opinons. In many ways, it is actually quite nice to see conclusions made for once rather than questions left unanswered as coming to conclusions is also a part of the philosophical discipline.

I have given this book five stars becuase its great, but it should be realised that other, more comprehensive introductions could prove better due to more depth. However, it undoubtedly introduces political philosophy in an excellent manner, especially considering its length (130 or so very small pages). It is, afterall, meant to be a very short introduction and it scores five stars when taken as such.

Life saver, 07 Dec 2003
I have always had my doubts about chosing to study political philosophy at university like i did. Although i enjoy the subject, i have never fully understood the principals...until now! David Miller uses great explanations of the ideas behind the subject so that everyone can understand. It is short, but he has used the space well and now i am well on course for a first!

Interesting read but didn't tell me everything I wanted to know, 18 Nov 2008
I found this an interesting book but would have liked to have spent more time on certain topics that were barely touched on at all.

Politics isn't just about Democracy, 19 Dec 2002
Bernard Crick's Very Short Introduction to Democracy is the 75th in the ever-expanding range of OUP introductions (previously Past Masters). Best suited for A-level students, they nevertheless provide helpful introductory surveys or summaries of a range of topics. Kenneth Minogue's Politics came much earlier in the series (8th in fact), but this detailed examination of what is almost certainly the most widely used political concept in the modern world complements it well.

Despite its widespread use, democracy is what might be called "an essentially contested concept" (p.1). Crick makes the point that numerous dictatorial regimes, such as Franco's Spain and Nasser Egypt have claimed to be democracies in some sense. Democracy can be conceptualised as a principle of government, set of institutional arrangements or a type of behaviour (p.5); the three need not go together, and thus even advocates of democracy may have very different conceptions of that ideal. Many band around the term 'democracy' when they really mean good government, constitutionalism, respect for rights or liberty, but Crick is quick to point out the contingencies of these relationships and different understandings of democracy that may operate.

Engaging in an ambitious historical overview, Crick traces the Greek origins of democracy through the Roman civic republicanism, English Civil War, American independence and the French revolution, noting at each stage how the idea develops. In the course of his exegesis, he brings in the ideas of key thinkers, such as Rousseau, Hobbes and a chapter devoted to 'Comme disait M. de Tocqueville'. Discussion isn't wholly confined to the past, however. Unlike some other Very Short Introductions (recycled from earlier material), this is original to 2002. Crick's commentary is bang up to date, mentioning September 11th, New Labour spin-doctoring and, most entertainingly of all, devoting several pages to Big Brother under the heading of popularism.

It's a hugely ambitious project for such a small book, perhaps even over-optimistic. Far more could have been devoted to important issues and thinkers, particularly Aristotle, de Tocqueville and the French Revolution, all of course worthy of books in their own right. As Crick himself notes in his introduction "to write briefly and to try to simplify without distortion an overwhelmingly important but also highly complex matter is more difficult than to write at length" (p.3-5). For the most part, he succeeds admirably, and this book will no doubt serve many well as part of an introduction to politics.

Where he does stray, however, is in a propensity to, if not digress, bring in extraneous information but make little of the point. Too often an analogy or obscure reference is cited only to be almost instantly dropped. It is as if the author were trying to show off his breadth of knowledge, or perhaps more like listening to the rambling anecdotes of an aged lecturer - whose meanderings, while interesting and informative, sometimes obscure the point he is trying to make. The argument, it seems, follows Aristotle; holding democracy necessary but not sufficient for good government.

Overall, this is a useful and interesting book. Helpful for A-level political courses, and introductory university courses too. It's not the last word though - modern debates on such topics as deliberative democracy or e-democracy don't feature at all. Despite some minor pickings though, it's generally good in so far as it goes - a useful overview of the history of democracy - leaving the reader to turn to the future.

A systematic study of voter irrationality , 01 Jan 2009
the first 1/3 of the book presents the result of various studies and is quiet boring. The rest is funny and very enlightening.

It is the first time that someone takes the figures from various studies and tries to explain why economic policy is what it is.

For example that politicians will not be held accountable for their acts or that people vote more with their heart than their head. Many people can vote against their best interest if they have the feeling that it is the right thing to do.

When I affirm such things I do it out of conviction. In this book it is underlain with the results of a study or poll.

If you're an economist it'll confirm that you are as smart as you think. Interesting read., 12 Feb 2008
Very much a book for economists and academics. Caplan has done his homework and is a well-educated and deep but clear thinker. There is indeed controversy in this book but nothing that would shudder your faith. It occasionally borders on arrogance, elevating the righteousness of economists' doctrine to infallible papacy. There is the sense of padding at the end of the second chapter regarding metadata, although it can be lightly skipped through to maintain the good earlier pace set by the author.
Perhaps most impressive is the theory of rational irrationality and the quantifying of voter ignorance as a non-tradable personal commodity. Very interesting and enriching, although slightly pessimistic in its tone and taste. Nonetheless Caplan leaves you with hope. He is there after all to think for you!


a bit of a dud, 03 Nov 2007
This book is very badly described; the general presentation gives the impression that the book would be amusing as well as controversial. The reality is a book written for the university educated and the class of society who never have to fear unemployment. The university style of writing makes it difficult to understand what he is going on about, since you have to keep looking up a dictionary. It is also rather boring, which makes it difficult to hold your concentration. The basic theme of the book is that economists think that the ordinary voter is irrational when it comes to politics and voting. The economist argues that because the economy keeps getting stronger; they are always right, and the public always wrong. Trade protectionism, mass immigration of cheap labour, downsizing which causes mass unemployment are all supported by the economist and not supported by the voter. It is easy to support the economic argument when you don't have to cope with unemployment for the rest of your life. Here and there you will find the odd bit of humour and some interesting points of discussion and argument. There is also a section which looks at the way politicians exploit the votering behaviour of the voter. If you read the first chapter and then the last two; you will probably get the general flow of the book. A bit of a dud.


Pithy critique of economic ignorance , 06 Aug 2007
Economists on the right and the left agree on a surprisingly large number of policy issues. They believe free trade is good, the U.S. budget deficit is not a problem and most human beings are better off now than in the past. Yet the democratic public doesn't agree. It fears trade and foreigners, thinks the budget deficit is a big problem and is pessimistic about the economy even during periods of record economic growth. But the worst part, says economics professor Bryan Caplan, is that the public votes. Drawing on empirical research about voter attitudes, Caplan describes how voters are mistaken about many policy issues and - more importantly - why they are wrong. His account is frighteningly plausible, but so is his solution: more economic education. We recommend this pithy volume to anyone concerned about voters' ostensibly self-defeating behavior. Democracy may be better than the alternatives, but no one said it was easy.


"Aristotle's Politics" for everyone and for our times, 04 Aug 1999
Tremendous breadth and perspective on the major political dilemmas of our time from a wise scholar of the academy and citizen of the world. Everyone from experts to laypersons can enjoy, understand, and gain from Dahl's insights and characterizations regarding the fundamental political dilemmas of our time. Rarely, does such a combination of scholarly erudition and simple prose ever come along. I am greatful to Robert Dahl for contributing and elevating political discourse here and around the world with this book. Please read it if you are remotely interested in the politics of any country and the politics of the world. You can probably read it in one long sitting.

On another level, this book will forever remain the textual staple of the "Introduction to Comparative Government Courses" I teach.

This review does not mean that I agree with Dahl on all his positions it just means that I think his book is important.

This book is a provocative, informative, prudent, understated, and insightful explanation of the world's post-Soviet political era. (In this respect, Dahl's book is much better than Francis Fukuyama's ridiculously overstated, criminially impractical, triumphantly-and-arrogantly-toned treatise on "the end of the history." And guess what? Dahl's book is much shorter.)

Worthy of My Bookcase, 08 Mar 1999
Simple and clean; a great review after years away from school. A great start for that child who has a paper due for school. This essay left me curious and wanting to learn more about the different forms of democracy used around the world. If there is one drawback, it is that some of the best further reading suggestions are no longer available in print, or were not published in the U. S.

He does it again, 13 Aug 2001
I became involved in a lengthy argument about Chomsky the other day, and found myself sticking up for him against accusations that he was either a dangerous subversive, or (at least) so hopelessly biased against the United States that his views could be of marginal relevance only in the "real world".

The experience reinforced my impression that those who seek to criticise Chomsky's analysis almost always seem to be playing the man rather than the ball, i.e. to be taking issue not with what he says, but why he says it, and/or what the consequences of it might be.

To me, one of the most (seemingly) overlooked aspects of what Chomsky says is that it is largely independent of any particular political perspective. He often refers (with some scorn) to those now referred to as "conservatives" (a travesty of usage), which I think underlines the point that one could be a small "c" conservative in the true sense of the term and still agree with the central tenets of Chomsky's analysis. For example, acceptance of the "propoganda model" as a reasonable fit for the known facts about the performance of the US mainstream media does not require any broader political accommodation on the part of the reader. Nor does it demand any particular conclusions. A statist reactionary could accept the model, and approve of the picture it presents, or even argue that state/corporate influence over the media does not go far enough. An anarchist could accept the model, and condemn the resulting picture as a depressing illustration of the inability of most human beings to think and act outside of constraints set and reinforced by self-interested power.

"Necessary Illusions" is well up to the standard of Chomsky's other work, and enlarges upon the themes of propoganda and indoctrination developed in "Manufacturing Consent". The examples are, as usual, extremely well-chosen, and meticulously set out.

We are extremely fortunate to have him. If only more people in positions of power would take what he says seriously.

Good introduction, 17 Nov 2008
There is a difference between political philosophy, ideology and day to day politics.

Political philosophy asks question about the nature of democracy, the ideal state and the like. This subject is the most abstract and introduces ideas such as how should citizens be organsed and education (see Plato) or why do we need a sovereign (see Hobbes) or are we entitled to private property (see Locke).

Ideology (which is sometimes a dirty word) tends to refer to braod political ideas such as Conservatism, Liberalism, Socialism and Communism. Ideology tends to form a bridge between political philosophy (and other subjects such as history, economics and sociology) and day to day politics. Whatever they claim, most parties tend to draw on a broad 'ideology' which helps them in their formulation of an election manifesto which also tempers the party's ideology to meet practical needs and to stand a reasonable chance of getting elected.

Political philosophy is essentially an abstract subjects quite removed from day to day politics and concerned with debating the meaning of fundlemental political concepts and the nature of man and society.

This is a good but basic introduction.




Unsatisfying, 28 Feb 2008
This was a mildly interesting introduction to an interesting subject. I felt it rambled a little, and was disappointed that it did not introduce any key theorists and missed out some key concepts (sovereignty, for example). The book only really succeeds in raising some key questions, but does not introduce one to the multifarious attempts to answer these questions. Furthermore, Miller's own opinions (given heavy weighting in the final chapters) are not particularly interesting or radical, and given the nature of the medium (a 'very short introduction') would be better presented elsewhere.

If you want a very short introduction to the subject of political philosophy, a good alternative is the 'Politics: A Very Short Introduction', which I have found to be a much better read and much more thorough.

Gets my vote, 03 Dec 2007
Short, readable, crystal clear. Politics books are often a hard climb or at least a tedious trudge. This is a smooth glide by comparison.
Miller states at the start that he wants to avoid jargon and academic mumbo-jumbo and he does just that, taking us on a concise but enjoyable tour of political philosophy. He begins at first principles and gradually builds his arguments, with deftly chosen examples adding depth and colour to the text. The logical progression means that the focus is firmly on democracy (since that is the political system that makes most sense to most people nowadays). Although he presents (and knocks down) arguments for alternative systems, don't expect great forays into the pros and cons of ideologies like Communism or Fascism. Among the concepts he tackles are justice, social justice, freedom, multiculturalism, feminism and globalisation.
The thoughts of political philosophers such as Plato, Rousseau, Locke, Mill and Rawls are woven beautifully into the flow, compact nuggets that reinforce rather than halt the narrative. Anyone who has tried to trawl through Rawls in the original will whisper a quiet thankyou when they arrive at the digested wisdom of Miller's version.
Miller makes a promise at the outset and he sticks to it: to be scrupulously fair and present all sides of each argument, even if the reader doesn't share his own leanings (which I sensed were slightly leftward).
In sum, it would be hard to do better than this for a well-reasoned introduction to (or refresher course in) political philosophy.

perfectly pocket-sized political philosophy, 17 Jul 2007
This little book is a quick yet thoughtful work-through of some major areas of political philosophy. Whats great is that you can finish it in a single evening and know loads more than before. David Miller is a very good writer and his narrative style sweeps the reader along as he investigates political issues. Miller has refrained from cluttering his text with unnesscary jargon. Throughly enjoyable and refreshingly different to other introductions, this is simply a very good book. I loved the way in which Miller used a 14th century painting ('Allergory of Good and Bad Government' by Lorenzetti) to act as a discussion point for opening up political philosophy becuase it really added flavour to proceedings.

It should be warned, however, that this book is far from comprehensive even in an 'introduction' sense of the word. Instead of being written with a quick synopsis of all the major discussion, Miller instead opts for a continuous narrative that works through *some* of the major topics of the discipline. Interestingly, Miller's book is not so much an illustration of the debates as it is an argument for his personal conclusions through illustrating these debates. This is not neccessarily a bad thing, though, as it still serves to introudce the reader to the fundamentals and still allows the reader to come to their own opinons. In many ways, it is actually quite nice to see conclusions made for once rather than questions left unanswered as coming to conclusions is also a part of the philosophical discipline.

I have given this book five stars becuase its great, but it should be realised that other, more comprehensive introductions could prove better due to more depth. However, it undoubtedly introduces political philosophy in an excellent manner, especially considering its length (130 or so very small pages). It is, afterall, meant to be a very short introduction and it scores five stars when taken as such.

Life saver, 07 Dec 2003
I have always had my doubts about chosing to study political philosophy at university like i did. Although i enjoy the subject, i have never fully understood the principals...until now! David Miller uses great explanations of the ideas behind the subject so that everyone can understand. It is short, but he has used the space well and now i am well on course for a first!

Interesting read but didn't tell me everything I wanted to know, 18 Nov 2008
I found this an interesting book but would have liked to have spent more time on certain topics that were barely touched on at all.

Politics isn't just about Democracy, 19 Dec 2002
Bernard Crick's Very Short Introduction to Democracy is the 75th in the ever-expanding range of OUP introductions (previously Past Masters). Best suited for A-level students, they nevertheless provide helpful introductory surveys or summaries of a range of topics. Kenneth Minogue's Politics came much earlier in the series (8th in fact), but this detailed examination of what is almost certainly the most widely used political concept in the modern world complements it well.

Despite its widespread use, democracy is what might be called "an essentially contested concept" (p.1). Crick makes the point that numerous dictatorial regimes, such as Franco's Spain and Nasser Egypt have claimed to be democracies in some sense. Democracy can be conceptualised as a principle of government, set of institutional arrangements or a type of behaviour (p.5); the three need not go together, and thus even advocates of democracy may have very different conceptions of that ideal. Many band around the term 'democracy' when they really mean good government, constitutionalism, respect for rights or liberty, but Crick is quick to point out the contingencies of these relationships and different understandings of democracy that may operate.

Engaging in an ambitious historical overview, Crick traces the Greek origins of democracy through the Roman civic republicanism, English Civil War, American independence and the French revolution, noting at each stage how the idea develops. In the course of his exegesis, he brings in the ideas of key thinkers, such as Rousseau, Hobbes and a chapter devoted to 'Comme disait M. de Tocqueville'. Discussion isn't wholly confined to the past, however. Unlike some other Very Short Introductions (recycled from earlier material), this is original to 2002. Crick's commentary is bang up to date, mentioning September 11th, New Labour spin-doctoring and, most entertainingly of all, devoting several pages to Big Brother under the heading of popularism.

It's a hugely ambitious project for such a small book, perhaps even over-optimistic. Far more could have been devoted to important issues and thinkers, particularly Aristotle, de Tocqueville and the French Revolution, all of course worthy of books in their own right. As Crick himself notes in his introduction "to write briefly and to try to simplify without distortion an overwhelmingly important but also highly complex matter is more difficult than to write at length" (p.3-5). For the most part, he succeeds admirably, and this book will no doubt serve many well as part of an introduction to politics.

Where he does stray, however, is in a propensity to, if not digress, bring in extraneous information but make little of the point. Too often an analogy or obscure reference is cited only to be almost instantly dropped. It is as if the author were trying to show off his breadth of knowledge, or perhaps more like listening to the rambling anecdotes of an aged lecturer - whose meanderings, while interesting and informative, sometimes obscure the point he is trying to make. The argument, it seems, follows Aristotle; holding democracy necessary but not sufficient for good government.

Overall, this is a useful and interesting book. Helpful for A-level political courses, and introductory university courses too. It's not the last word though - modern debates on such topics as deliberative democracy or e-democracy don't feature at all. Despite some minor pickings though, it's generally good in so far as it goes - a useful overview of the history of democracy - leaving the reader to turn to the future.

A systematic study of voter irrationality , 01 Jan 2009
the first 1/3 of the book presents the result of various studies and is quiet boring. The rest is funny and very enlightening.

It is the first time that someone takes the figures from various studies and tries to explain why economic policy is what it is.

For example that politicians will not be held accountable for their acts or that people vote more with their heart than their head. Many people can vote against their best interest if they have the feeling that it is the right thing to do.

When I affirm such things I do it out of conviction. In this book it is underlain with the results of a study or poll.

If you're an economist it'll confirm that you are as smart as you think. Interesting read., 12 Feb 2008
Very much a book for economists and academics. Caplan has done his homework and is a well-educated and deep but clear thinker. There is indeed controversy in this book but nothing that would shudder your faith. It occasionally borders on arrogance, elevating the righteousness of economists' doctrine to infallible papacy. There is the sense of padding at the end of the second chapter regarding metadata, although it can be lightly skipped through to maintain the good earlier pace set by the author.
Perhaps most impressive is the theory of rational irrationality and the quantifying of voter ignorance as a non-tradable personal commodity. Very interesting and enriching, although slightly pessimistic in its tone and taste. Nonetheless Caplan leaves you with hope. He is there after all to think for you!


a bit of a dud, 03 Nov 2007
This book is very badly described; the general presentation gives the impression that the book would be amusing as well as controversial. The reality is a book written for the university educated and the class of society who never have to fear unemployment. The university style of writing makes it difficult to understand what he is going on about, since you have to keep looking up a dictionary. It is also rather boring, which makes it difficult to hold your concentration. The basic theme of the book is that economists think that the ordinary voter is irrational when it comes to politics and voting. The economist argues that because the economy keeps getting stronger; they are always right, and the public always wrong. Trade protectionism, mass immigration of cheap labour, downsizing which causes mass unemployment are all supported by the economist and not supported by the voter. It is easy to support the economic argument when you don't have to cope with unemployment for the rest of your life. Here and there you will find the odd bit of humour and some interesting points of discussion and argument. There is also a section which looks at the way politicians exploit the votering behaviour of the voter. If you read the first chapter and then the last two; you will probably get the general flow of the book. A bit of a dud.


Pithy critique of economic ignorance , 06 Aug 2007
Economists on the right and the left agree on a surprisingly large number of policy issues. They believe free trade is good, the U.S. budget deficit is not a problem and most human beings are better off now than in the past. Yet the democratic public doesn't agree. It fears trade and foreigners, thinks the budget deficit is a big problem and is pessimistic about the economy even during periods of record economic growth. But the worst part, says economics professor Bryan Caplan, is that the public votes. Drawing on empirical research about voter attitudes, Caplan describes how voters are mistaken about many policy issues and - more importantly - why they are wrong. His account is frighteningly plausible, but so is his solution: more economic education. We recommend this pithy volume to anyone concerned about voters' ostensibly self-defeating behavior. Democracy may be better than the alternatives, but no one said it was easy.


"Aristotle's Politics" for everyone and for our times, 04 Aug 1999
Tremendous breadth and perspective on the major political dilemmas of our time from a wise scholar of the academy and citizen of the world. Everyone from experts to laypersons can enjoy, understand, and gain from Dahl's insights and characterizations regarding the fundamental political dilemmas of our time. Rarely, does such a combination of scholarly erudition and simple prose ever come along. I am greatful to Robert Dahl for contributing and elevating political discourse here and around the world with this book. Please read it if you are remotely interested in the politics of any country and the politics of the world. You can probably read it in one long sitting.

On another level, this book will forever remain the textual staple of the "Introduction to Comparative Government Courses" I teach.

This review does not mean that I agree with Dahl on all his positions it just means that I think his book is important.

This book is a provocative, informative, prudent, understated, and insightful explanation of the world's post-Soviet political era. (In this respect, Dahl's book is much better than Francis Fukuyama's ridiculously overstated, criminially impractical, triumphantly-and-arrogantly-toned treatise on "the end of the history." And guess what? Dahl's book is much shorter.)

Worthy of My Bookcase, 08 Mar 1999
Simple and clean; a great review after years away from school. A great start for that child who has a paper due for school. This essay left me curious and wanting to learn more about the different forms of democracy used around the world. If there is one drawback, it is that some of the best further reading suggestions are no longer available in print, or were not published in the U. S.

He does it again, 13 Aug 2001
I became involved in a lengthy argument about Chomsky the other day, and found myself sticking up for him against accusations that he was either a dangerous subversive, or (at least) so hopelessly biased against the United States that his views could be of marginal relevance only in the "real world".

The experience reinforced my impression that those who seek to criticise Chomsky's analysis almost always seem to be playing the man rather than the ball, i.e. to be taking issue not with what he says, but why he says it, and/or what the consequences of it might be.

To me, one of the most (seemingly) overlooked aspects of what Chomsky says is that it is largely independent of any particular political perspective. He often refers (with some scorn) to those now referred to as "conservatives" (a travesty of usage), which I think underlines the point that one could be a small "c" conservative in the true sense of the term and still agree with the central tenets of Chomsky's analysis. For example, acceptance of the "propoganda model" as a reasonable fit for the known facts about the performance of the US mainstream media does not require any broader political accommodation on the part of the reader. Nor does it demand any particular conclusions. A statist reactionary could accept the model, and approve of the picture it presents, or even argue that state/corporate influence over the media does not go far enough. An anarchist could accept the model, and condemn the resulting picture as a depressing illustration of the inability of most human beings to think and act outside of constraints set and reinforced by self-interested power.

"Necessary Illusions" is well up to the standard of Chomsky's other work, and enlarges upon the themes of propoganda and indoctrination developed in "Manufacturing Consent". The examples are, as usual, extremely well-chosen, and meticulously set out.

We are extremely fortunate to have him. If only more people in positions of power would take what he says seriously.

A good book if your very keen, 10 Dec 2008
Overall a useful book, i did actually absorb a lot of the infoRmation. Especially as it was clearly written, focuses a lot of political science and mostly analyses the different democracies instead of telling you about them.

Good introduction, 17 Nov 2008
There is a difference between political philosophy, ideology and day to day politics.

Political philosophy asks question about the nature of democracy, the ideal state and the like. This subject is the most abstract and introduces ideas such as how should citizens be organsed and education (see Plato) or why do we need a sovereign (see Hobbes) or are we entitled to private property (see Locke).

Ideology (which is sometimes a dirty word) tends to refer to braod political ideas such as Conservatism, Liberalism, Socialism and Communism. Ideology tends to form a bridge between political philosophy (and other subjects such as history, economics and sociology) and day to day politics. Whatever they claim, most parties tend to draw on a broad 'ideology' which helps them in their formulation of an election manifesto which also tempers the party's ideology to meet practical needs and to stand a reasonable chance of getting elected.

Political philosophy is essentially an abstract subjects quite removed from day to day politics and concerned with debating the meaning of fundlemental political concepts and the nature of man and society.

This is a good but basic introduction.




Unsatisfying, 28 Feb 2008
This was a mildly interesting introduction to an interesting subject. I felt it rambled a little, and was disappointed that it did not introduce any key theorists and missed out some key concepts (sovereignty, for example). The book only really succeeds in raising some key questions, but does not introduce one to the multifarious attempts to answer these questions. Furthermore, Miller's own opinions (given heavy weighting in the final chapters) are not particularly interesting or radical, and given the nature of the medium (a 'very short introduction') would be better presented elsewhere.

If you want a very short introduction to the subject of political philosophy, a good alternative is the 'Politics: A Very Short Introduction', which I have found to be a much better read and much more thorough.

Gets my vote, 03 Dec 2007
Short, readable, crystal clear. Politics books are often a hard climb or at least a tedious trudge. This is a smooth glide by comparison.
Miller states at the start that he wants to avoid jargon and academic mumbo-jumbo and he does just that, taking us on a concise but enjoyable tour of political philosophy. He begins at first principles and gradually builds his arguments, with deftly chosen examples adding depth and colour to the text. The logical progression means that the focus is firmly on democracy (since that is the political system that makes most sense to most people nowadays). Although he presents (and knocks down) arguments for alternative systems, don't expect great forays into the pros and cons of ideologies like Communism or Fascism. Among the concepts he tackles are justice, social justice, freedom, multiculturalism, feminism and globalisation.
The thoughts of political philosophers such as Plato, Rousseau, Locke, Mill and Rawls are woven beautifully into the flow, compact nuggets that reinforce rather than halt the narrative. Anyone who has tried to trawl through Rawls in the original will whisper a quiet thankyou when they arrive at the digested wisdom of Miller's version.
Miller makes a promise at the outset and he sticks to it: to be scrupulously fair and present all sides of each argument, even if the reader doesn't share his own leanings (which I sensed were slightly leftward).
In sum, it would be hard to do better than this for a well-reasoned introduction to (or refresher course in) political philosophy.

perfectly pocket-sized political philosophy, 17 Jul 2007
This little book is a quick yet thoughtful work-through of some major areas of political philosophy. Whats great is that you can finish it in a single evening and know loads more than before. David Miller is a very good writer and his narrative style sweeps the reader along as he investigates political issues. Miller has refrained from cluttering his text with unnesscary jargon. Throughly enjoyable and refreshingly different to other introductions, this is simply a very good book. I loved the way in which Miller used a 14th century painting ('Allergory of Good and Bad Government' by Lorenzetti) to act as a discussion point for opening up political philosophy becuase it really added flavour to proceedings.

It should be warned, however, that this book is far from comprehensive even in an 'introduction' sense of the word. Instead of being written with a quick synopsis of all the major discussion, Miller instead opts for a continuous narrative that works through *some* of the major topics of the discipline. Interestingly, Miller's book is not so much an illustration of the debates as it is an argument for his personal conclusions through illustrating these debates. This is not neccessarily a bad thing, though, as it still serves to introudce the reader to the fundamentals and still allows the reader to come to their own opinons. In many ways, it is actually quite nice to see conclusions made for once rather than questions left unanswered as coming to conclusions is also a part of the philosophical discipline.

I have given this book five stars becuase its great, but it should be realised that other, more comprehensive introductions could prove better due to more depth. However, it undoubtedly introduces political philosophy in an excellent manner, especially considering its length (130 or so very small pages). It is, afterall, meant to be a very short introduction and it scores five stars when taken as such.

Life saver, 07 Dec 2003
I have always had my doubts about chosing to study political philosophy at university like i did. Although i enjoy the subject, i have never fully understood the principals...until now! David Miller uses great explanations of the ideas behind the subject so that everyone can understand. It is short, but he has used the space well and now i am well on course for a first!

Interesting read but didn't tell me everything I wanted to know, 18 Nov 2008
I found this an interesting book but would have liked to have spent more time on certain topics that were barely touched on at all.

Politics isn't just about Democracy, 19 Dec 2002
Bernard Crick's Very Short Introduction to Democracy is the 75th in the ever-expanding range of OUP introductions (previously Past Masters). Best suited for A-level students, they nevertheless provide helpful introductory surveys or summaries of a range of topics. Kenneth Minogue's Politics came much earlier in the series (8th in fact), but this detailed examination of what is almost certainly the most widely used political concept in the modern world complements it well.

Despite its widespread use, democracy is what might be called "an essentially contested concept" (p.1). Crick makes the point that numerous dictatorial regimes, such as Franco's Spain and Nasser Egypt have claimed to be democracies in some sense. Democracy can be conceptualised as a principle of government, set of institutional arrangements or a type of behaviour (p.5); the three need not go together, and thus even advocates of democracy may have very different conceptions of that ideal. Many band around the term 'democracy' when they really mean good government, constitutionalism, respect for rights or liberty, but Crick is quick to point out the contingencies of these relationships and different understandings of democracy that may operate.

Engaging in an ambitious historical overview, Crick traces the Greek origins of democracy through the Roman civic republicanism, English Civil War, American independence and the French revolution, noting at each stage how the idea develops. In the course of his exegesis, he brings in the ideas of key thinkers, such as Rousseau, Hobbes and a chapter devoted to 'Comme disait M. de Tocqueville'. Discussion isn't wholly confined to the past, however. Unlike some other Very Short Introductions (recycled from earlier material), this is original to 2002. Crick's commentary is bang up to date, mentioning September 11th, New Labour spin-doctoring and, most entertainingly of all, devoting several pages to Big Brother under the heading of popularism.

It's a hugely ambitious project for such a small book, perhaps even over-optimistic. Far more could have been devoted to important issues and thinkers, particularly Aristotle, de Tocqueville and the French Revolution, all of course worthy of books in their own right. As Crick himself notes in his introduction "to write briefly and to try to simplify without distortion an overwhelmingly important but also highly complex matter is more difficult than to write at length" (p.3-5). For the most part, he succeeds admirably, and this book will no doubt serve many well as part of an introduction to politics.

Where he does stray, however, is in a propensity to, if not digress, bring in extraneous information but make little of the point. Too often an analogy or obscure reference is cited only to be almost instantly dropped. It is as if the author were trying to show off his breadth of knowledge, or perhaps more like listening to the rambling anecdotes of an aged lecturer - whose meanderings, while interesting and informative, sometimes obscure the point he is trying to make. The argument, it seems, follows Aristotle; holding democracy necessary but not sufficient for good government.

Overall, this is a useful and interesting book. Helpful for A-level political courses, and introductory university courses too. It's not the last word though - modern debates on such topics as deliberative democracy or e-democracy don't feature at all. Despite some minor pickings though, it's generally good in so far as it goes - a useful overview of the history of democracy - leaving the reader to turn to the future.

A systematic study of voter irrationality , 01 Jan 2009
the first 1/3 of the book presents the result of various studies and is quiet boring. The rest is funny and very enlightening.

It is the first time that someone takes the figures from various studies and tries to explain why economic policy is what it is.

For example that politicians will not be held accountable for their acts or that people vote more with their heart than their head. Many people can vote against their best interest if they have the feeling that it is the right thing to do.

When I affirm such things I do it out of conviction. In this book it is underlain with the results of a study or poll.

If you're an economist it'll confirm that you are as smart as you think. Interesting read., 12 Feb 2008
Very much a book for economists and academics. Caplan has done his homework and is a well-educated and deep but clear thinker. There is indeed controversy in this book but nothing that would shudder your faith. It occasionally borders on arrogance, elevating the righteousness of economists' doctrine to infallible papacy. There is the sense of padding at the end of the second chapter regarding metadata, although it can be lightly skipped through to maintain the good earlier pace set by the author.
Perhaps most impressive is the theory of rational irrationality and the quantifying of voter ignorance as a non-tradable personal commodity. Very interesting and enriching, although slightly pessimistic in its tone and taste. Nonetheless Caplan leaves you with hope. He is there after all to think for you!


a bit of a dud, 03 Nov 2007
This book is very badly described; the general presentation gives the impression that the book would be amusing as well as controversial. The reality is a book written for the university educated and the class of society who never have to fear unemployment. The university style of writing makes it difficult to understand what he is going on about, since you have to keep looking up a dictionary. It is also rather boring, which makes it difficult to hold your concentration. The basic theme of the book is that economists think that the ordinary voter is irrational when it comes to politics and voting. The economist argues that because the economy keeps getting stronger; they are always right, and the public always wrong. Trade protectionism, mass immigration of cheap labour, downsizing which causes mass unemployment are all supported by the economist and not supported by the voter. It is easy to support the economic argument when you don't have to cope with unemployment for the rest of your life. Here and there you will find the odd bit of humour and some interesting points of discussion and argument. There is also a section which looks at the way politicians exploit the votering behaviour of the voter. If you read the first chapter and then the last two; you will probably get the general flow of the book. A bit of a dud.


Pithy critique of economic ignorance , 06 Aug 2007
Economists on the right and the left agree on a surprisingly large number of policy issues. They believe free trade is good, the U.S. budget deficit is not a problem and most human beings are better off now than in the past. Yet the democratic public doesn't agree. It fears trade and foreigners, thinks the budget deficit is a big problem and is pessimistic about the economy even during periods of record economic growth. But the worst part, says economics professor Bryan Caplan, is that the public votes. Drawing on empirical research about voter attitudes, Caplan describes how voters are mistaken about many policy issues and - more importantly - why they are wrong. His account is frighteningly plausible, but so is his solution: more economic education. We recommend this pithy volume to anyone concerned about voters' ostensibly self-defeating behavior. Democracy may be better than the alternatives, but no one said it was easy.


"Aristotle's Politics" for everyone and for our times, 04 Aug 1999
Tremendous breadth and perspective on the major political dilemmas of our time from a wise scholar of the academy and citizen of the world. Everyone from experts to laypersons can enjoy, understand, and gain from Dahl's insights and characterizations regarding the fundamental political dilemmas of our time. Rarely, does such a combination of scholarly erudition and simple prose ever come along. I am greatful to Robert Dahl for contributing and elevating political discourse here and around the world with this book. Ple