political science students only, 23 Jul 2008
Having read just about the entire output of HST I can honestly say I'd rather gargle with pins than read this again.It all started off fine but soon dives off a cliff into a sea of political intrigue that I frankly found pretty dull in comparison to the rest of his works.OK so theres a few respites here and there but not enough to make it the classic people claim it to be.If you have a good understanding and interest in the American political system then it may appeal to you,if however you read this hoping for more gonzo type journalism then you'll probably be disappointed.

A Raw and Hilarious Account of U.S. Politics, 25 Jul 2006
'Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72' is a fantastic journey through a spectacle which grips the U.S. every four years. It is a journey which in the hands of other authors would be thoroughly boring. But Hunter S. Thompson (HST) succeeds in combining great intelligence and insightful commentary with shocking hilarity and the result is a great book.

'Campaign Trail '72' doesn't have the same constant flow of wacky, laugh-out-loud humour and outrageous anecdotes as some of HST's other works, but then HST wrote this book as part of a year-long assignment to cover the Presidential campaign, not a week-long bender at the Kentucky Derby. In some respects, the length of time over which Thompson was reporting helps reveal a more 'everyday' side to an author who at other times appears to lead a wholly surreal lifestyle. Even the Doctor of Gonzo has down-time and boring days.

HST undoubtedly achieves what he set out to do in December '71. He gives his readers an insider's account of what it's like to cover a Presidential campaign. He reveals some of the underhand and downright corrupt tactics of the candidates and their entourages, the fickle nature of the electorate's support, the decisive role of the media in an election, and the importance of 'perception'. Thompson reports in a way that no one else is capable of reporting. He goes with gut instinct and from page 1 refuses to write from within the journalistic confines of objectivity. He openly supports Democratic candidate George McGovern, and sees Richard Nixon as a great threat to the U.S.A. and the rest of the world. Indeed, on a few occasions, he openly likens Nixon to Hitler; something which no other journalist would dare write, no matter how strongly they felt it.

Rick Steadman's sketches provide another interesting angle on the campaign and complement HST's writing excellently. The author also offers up a few timeless maxims on the nature of politics, which will strike a chord with anyone who lives in a Western 'Democracy'. In all, despite the fact that some of the detail in this book may seem mundane and dated to a present-day reader, most of HST's writing is timeless and one gets an overall sense that U.S. politics don't appear to have changed much since '72. Post-election, Thompson considers running for the office of Senator in Colorado; after reading this book, he certainly would have had my vote.

Brilliant commentary on US politics in action, 31 Dec 2005
‘FALOTCT72’ is a series of articles originally written by Hunter Thompson for Rolling Stone magazine, in which he follows the race to elect a Democrat challenger to Richard Nixon in the 1972 presidential elections. It is a classic example of Gonzo journalism, the style that Thompson made his own, in which the journalist’s views and opinions are allowed to colour the reports, and in which the journalist plays an active part in the unfolding events, and is not just an observer. Thompson clearly favours the ‘no-hope’ left wing candidate George McGovern from the outset, both as an alternative to what he saw as malignant right wing influences within the Democrat party, and also to Nixon, who had begun, to Thompson, to represent everything that had gone wrong with the ideals America was founded with.
‘FALOTCT72’ is, to me, a savage account of the death of the ‘American Dream’ (as Thompson understood it), every bit as devastating as his classic novel ‘Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas’. As a journalist who is close to the election (especially to the McGovern campaign), but not actually within the approved cadre of accepted hacks, Thompson is in an excellent position to give a brutally honest account of the electoral process. Although we may accept that behind the scenes shenanigans are standard in elections, the book shows how far from the ideal of democracy modern politics has fallen, with dirty tricks abounding even within the Democrat party against its own candidates. A note of hope is provided as the idealistic, non-politico McGovern comes from nowhere to defeat the old party guard, threatening to usher in a new honesty in politics. Thompson sees hope for America in its support for McGovern until it is brutally swept away by the intrusion of old-style politics into the presidential campaign, heralding a crushing defeat to Nixon, a president almost universally recognised as untrustworthy.
This is a surprisingly touching book. Thompson still has hope for his country in ’72. Indeed that may have been the last year that he did. His feelings about an election that represented so much more than simply a win for Nixon are tragic. It is all told with his trademark savage humour, drug consumption and outrageous behaviour. It perhaps requires some knowledge of American politics to be fully appreciated, perhaps explaining its lower profile when compared to ‘Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas’. It is nevertheless very much in the same vein: funny and tragic and beautiful. An observation of American life that says so much more than the text simply describes. This is Hunter Thompson at his most poignant and, for me, the best book of his that I have read to date.

Possibly his best work, 07 Jun 2005
This is a truely fantastic book, I am an avid fan and have virtually all his books, this one is one of the top.

A very interesting take on the political process in America, funny, witty and incredibly clever.

Best and rawest account of electoral politics, 08 Dec 2004
This is a great book - I have never read a better or more raw account of the low politics of election campaigns. Hunter S Thompson has an unmatched understanding of the forces that drive American politics and, although some tactics have changed, the book remains remarkably fresh over thirty years on. The historical perspective we now have on the figures (Nixon, McGovern, Humphrey, Mayor Daley, Gary Hart etc) may even add to the appeal of the book.

One minor quibble and a little warning. First, the book is a collection of dispatches written for the Rolling Stone and this inevitably means some repetition and an occasional disjointed feeling. Secondly, the book will appeal most to people with an interest in electoral politics - those who simply liked the good Doctor's style in the Rum Diaries, Hell's Angels or F&L in Las Vegas will still enjoy it but get a bit less out of it.

political science students only, 23 Jul 2008
Having read just about the entire output of HST I can honestly say I'd rather gargle with pins than read this again.It all started off fine but soon dives off a cliff into a sea of political intrigue that I frankly found pretty dull in comparison to the rest of his works.OK so theres a few respites here and there but not enough to make it the classic people claim it to be.If you have a good understanding and interest in the American political system then it may appeal to you,if however you read this hoping for more gonzo type journalism then you'll probably be disappointed.

A Raw and Hilarious Account of U.S. Politics, 25 Jul 2006
'Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72' is a fantastic journey through a spectacle which grips the U.S. every four years. It is a journey which in the hands of other authors would be thoroughly boring. But Hunter S. Thompson (HST) succeeds in combining great intelligence and insightful commentary with shocking hilarity and the result is a great book.

'Campaign Trail '72' doesn't have the same constant flow of wacky, laugh-out-loud humour and outrageous anecdotes as some of HST's other works, but then HST wrote this book as part of a year-long assignment to cover the Presidential campaign, not a week-long bender at the Kentucky Derby. In some respects, the length of time over which Thompson was reporting helps reveal a more 'everyday' side to an author who at other times appears to lead a wholly surreal lifestyle. Even the Doctor of Gonzo has down-time and boring days.

HST undoubtedly achieves what he set out to do in December '71. He gives his readers an insider's account of what it's like to cover a Presidential campaign. He reveals some of the underhand and downright corrupt tactics of the candidates and their entourages, the fickle nature of the electorate's support, the decisive role of the media in an election, and the importance of 'perception'. Thompson reports in a way that no one else is capable of reporting. He goes with gut instinct and from page 1 refuses to write from within the journalistic confines of objectivity. He openly supports Democratic candidate George McGovern, and sees Richard Nixon as a great threat to the U.S.A. and the rest of the world. Indeed, on a few occasions, he openly likens Nixon to Hitler; something which no other journalist would dare write, no matter how strongly they felt it.

Rick Steadman's sketches provide another interesting angle on the campaign and complement HST's writing excellently. The author also offers up a few timeless maxims on the nature of politics, which will strike a chord with anyone who lives in a Western 'Democracy'. In all, despite the fact that some of the detail in this book may seem mundane and dated to a present-day reader, most of HST's writing is timeless and one gets an overall sense that U.S. politics don't appear to have changed much since '72. Post-election, Thompson considers running for the office of Senator in Colorado; after reading this book, he certainly would have had my vote.

Brilliant commentary on US politics in action, 31 Dec 2005
‘FALOTCT72’ is a series of articles originally written by Hunter Thompson for Rolling Stone magazine, in which he follows the race to elect a Democrat challenger to Richard Nixon in the 1972 presidential elections. It is a classic example of Gonzo journalism, the style that Thompson made his own, in which the journalist’s views and opinions are allowed to colour the reports, and in which the journalist plays an active part in the unfolding events, and is not just an observer. Thompson clearly favours the ‘no-hope’ left wing candidate George McGovern from the outset, both as an alternative to what he saw as malignant right wing influences within the Democrat party, and also to Nixon, who had begun, to Thompson, to represent everything that had gone wrong with the ideals America was founded with.
‘FALOTCT72’ is, to me, a savage account of the death of the ‘American Dream’ (as Thompson understood it), every bit as devastating as his classic novel ‘Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas’. As a journalist who is close to the election (especially to the McGovern campaign), but not actually within the approved cadre of accepted hacks, Thompson is in an excellent position to give a brutally honest account of the electoral process. Although we may accept that behind the scenes shenanigans are standard in elections, the book shows how far from the ideal of democracy modern politics has fallen, with dirty tricks abounding even within the Democrat party against its own candidates. A note of hope is provided as the idealistic, non-politico McGovern comes from nowhere to defeat the old party guard, threatening to usher in a new honesty in politics. Thompson sees hope for America in its support for McGovern until it is brutally swept away by the intrusion of old-style politics into the presidential campaign, heralding a crushing defeat to Nixon, a president almost universally recognised as untrustworthy.
This is a surprisingly touching book. Thompson still has hope for his country in ’72. Indeed that may have been the last year that he did. His feelings about an election that represented so much more than simply a win for Nixon are tragic. It is all told with his trademark savage humour, drug consumption and outrageous behaviour. It perhaps requires some knowledge of American politics to be fully appreciated, perhaps explaining its lower profile when compared to ‘Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas’. It is nevertheless very much in the same vein: funny and tragic and beautiful. An observation of American life that says so much more than the text simply describes. This is Hunter Thompson at his most poignant and, for me, the best book of his that I have read to date.

Possibly his best work, 07 Jun 2005
This is a truely fantastic book, I am an avid fan and have virtually all his books, this one is one of the top.

A very interesting take on the political process in America, funny, witty and incredibly clever.

Best and rawest account of electoral politics, 08 Dec 2004
This is a great book - I have never read a better or more raw account of the low politics of election campaigns. Hunter S Thompson has an unmatched understanding of the forces that drive American politics and, although some tactics have changed, the book remains remarkably fresh over thirty years on. The historical perspective we now have on the figures (Nixon, McGovern, Humphrey, Mayor Daley, Gary Hart etc) may even add to the appeal of the book.

One minor quibble and a little warning. First, the book is a collection of dispatches written for the Rolling Stone and this inevitably means some repetition and an occasional disjointed feeling. Secondly, the book will appeal most to people with an interest in electoral politics - those who simply liked the good Doctor's style in the Rum Diaries, Hell's Angels or F&L in Las Vegas will still enjoy it but get a bit less out of it.

Perlstein Land, 19 Jul 2008
Perlstein is a scion of the 60s. Through reading a lot of newspapers and mining a lot of television, he has constructed an imaginary world called Nixonland. Nixonland, like Hobbitland, exists in the mind of the fabulist. Perlstein has also reconstructed, in this same manner, many of the events of the 50s and 60s in fascinating and often compelling narrative detail. As a popular history of these times, Nixonland is an exciting and sometimes fresh read. As a paradigm for understanding America in the postwar era, the concept of `Nixonland' is extremely limited. The limitations of the concept are readily apparent, for example, in the race narrative that Perlstein grapples with throughout the book.

To conclude, as Perlstein does, that Nixonland `has not ended yet' is true but meaningless. Nixonland does exist, but not in the way Perlstin imagines. It is in fact the place where the 60s go to die. It is the remote magic mountain nursing home for those unable or unwilling to recover from the past, where the patients live in the twilight of a rapidly fading era. Most of the kids today don't visit the nursing home, except occasionally on grandpa's birthday, when he tells them stories of cities burning, John and Yoko in bed for peace, and `radical' philosophy be-ins, but leaves out the part where he took acid and ran half-naked in the streets before becoming a lawyer and moving to the suburbs. Nixonland is the same kind of invented place as John Ford's American West.

Had Nixon never become president, the arc of his career would have still held some interest for historians, but he hardly invented the Orthogonians versus Franklins (Perlstein's rhubric) conflict, a theme that has been salient throughout American history. Nixon was one player in the postwar drama, and a fascinating one, skilled at exploiting social rifts for political gain, but hardly the master metallurgist forging a new social alloy. The subtitle of the book includes the phrase, `the fracturing of America'. It's hard to know what that means, especially after reading the book. Fractures, fissures, social conflict (think FDR and his `moneyed interests'), and violence have marked American life for centuries, driving the social dynamic of the country. Nixon is one variant of the venal, cynical, manipulative, and corrupt American politician. In this he has keen competition, including among those who achieved the presidency.

The book repays reading and one should anticipate with enthusiasm a further instalment where Perlstein will presumably draw out the picture of a fractured America.

political science students only, 23 Jul 2008
Having read just about the entire output of HST I can honestly say I'd rather gargle with pins than read this again.It all started off fine but soon dives off a cliff into a sea of political intrigue that I frankly found pretty dull in comparison to the rest of his works.OK so theres a few respites here and there but not enough to make it the classic people claim it to be.If you have a good understanding and interest in the American political system then it may appeal to you,if however you read this hoping for more gonzo type journalism then you'll probably be disappointed.

A Raw and Hilarious Account of U.S. Politics, 25 Jul 2006
'Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72' is a fantastic journey through a spectacle which grips the U.S. every four years. It is a journey which in the hands of other authors would be thoroughly boring. But Hunter S. Thompson (HST) succeeds in combining great intelligence and insightful commentary with shocking hilarity and the result is a great book.

'Campaign Trail '72' doesn't have the same constant flow of wacky, laugh-out-loud humour and outrageous anecdotes as some of HST's other works, but then HST wrote this book as part of a year-long assignment to cover the Presidential campaign, not a week-long bender at the Kentucky Derby. In some respects, the length of time over which Thompson was reporting helps reveal a more 'everyday' side to an author who at other times appears to lead a wholly surreal lifestyle. Even the Doctor of Gonzo has down-time and boring days.

HST undoubtedly achieves what he set out to do in December '71. He gives his readers an insider's account of what it's like to cover a Presidential campaign. He reveals some of the underhand and downright corrupt tactics of the candidates and their entourages, the fickle nature of the electorate's support, the decisive role of the media in an election, and the importance of 'perception'. Thompson reports in a way that no one else is capable of reporting. He goes with gut instinct and from page 1 refuses to write from within the journalistic confines of objectivity. He openly supports Democratic candidate George McGovern, and sees Richard Nixon as a great threat to the U.S.A. and the rest of the world. Indeed, on a few occasions, he openly likens Nixon to Hitler; something which no other journalist would dare write, no matter how strongly they felt it.

Rick Steadman's sketches provide another interesting angle on the campaign and complement HST's writing excellently. The author also offers up a few timeless maxims on the nature of politics, which will strike a chord with anyone who lives in a Western 'Democracy'. In all, despite the fact that some of the detail in this book may seem mundane and dated to a present-day reader, most of HST's writing is timeless and one gets an overall sense that U.S. politics don't appear to have changed much since '72. Post-election, Thompson considers running for the office of Senator in Colorado; after reading this book, he certainly would have had my vote.

Brilliant commentary on US politics in action, 31 Dec 2005
‘FALOTCT72’ is a series of articles originally written by Hunter Thompson for Rolling Stone magazine, in which he follows the race to elect a Democrat challenger to Richard Nixon in the 1972 presidential elections. It is a classic example of Gonzo journalism, the style that Thompson made his own, in which the journalist’s views and opinions are allowed to colour the reports, and in which the journalist plays an active part in the unfolding events, and is not just an observer. Thompson clearly favours the ‘no-hope’ left wing candidate George McGovern from the outset, both as an alternative to what he saw as malignant right wing influences within the Democrat party, and also to Nixon, who had begun, to Thompson, to represent everything that had gone wrong with the ideals America was founded with.
‘FALOTCT72’ is, to me, a savage account of the death of the ‘American Dream’ (as Thompson understood it), every bit as devastating as his classic novel ‘Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas’. As a journalist who is close to the election (especially to the McGovern campaign), but not actually within the approved cadre of accepted hacks, Thompson is in an excellent position to give a brutally honest account of the electoral process. Although we may accept that behind the scenes shenanigans are standard in elections, the book shows how far from the ideal of democracy modern politics has fallen, with dirty tricks abounding even within the Democrat party against its own candidates. A note of hope is provided as the idealistic, non-politico McGovern comes from nowhere to defeat the old party guard, threatening to usher in a new honesty in politics. Thompson sees hope for America in its support for McGovern until it is brutally swept away by the intrusion of old-style politics into the presidential campaign, heralding a crushing defeat to Nixon, a president almost universally recognised as untrustworthy.
This is a surprisingly touching book. Thompson still has hope for his country in ’72. Indeed that may have been the last year that he did. His feelings about an election that represented so much more than simply a win for Nixon are tragic. It is all told with his trademark savage humour, drug consumption and outrageous behaviour. It perhaps requires some knowledge of American politics to be fully appreciated, perhaps explaining its lower profile when compared to ‘Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas’. It is nevertheless very much in the same vein: funny and tragic and beautiful. An observation of American life that says so much more than the text simply describes. This is Hunter Thompson at his most poignant and, for me, the best book of his that I have read to date.

Possibly his best work, 07 Jun 2005
This is a truely fantastic book, I am an avid fan and have virtually all his books, this one is one of the top.

A very interesting take on the political process in America, funny, witty and incredibly clever.

Best and rawest account of electoral politics, 08 Dec 2004
This is a great book - I have never read a better or more raw account of the low politics of election campaigns. Hunter S Thompson has an unmatched understanding of the forces that drive American politics and, although some tactics have changed, the book remains remarkably fresh over thirty years on. The historical perspective we now have on the figures (Nixon, McGovern, Humphrey, Mayor Daley, Gary Hart etc) may even add to the appeal of the book.

One minor quibble and a little warning. First, the book is a collection of dispatches written for the Rolling Stone and this inevitably means some repetition and an occasional disjointed feeling. Secondly, the book will appeal most to people with an interest in electoral politics - those who simply liked the good Doctor's style in the Rum Diaries, Hell's Angels or F&L in Las Vegas will still enjoy it but get a bit less out of it.

Perlstein Land, 19 Jul 2008
Perlstein is a scion of the 60s. Through reading a lot of newspapers and mining a lot of television, he has constructed an imaginary world called Nixonland. Nixonland, like Hobbitland, exists in the mind of the fabulist. Perlstein has also reconstructed, in this same manner, many of the events of the 50s and 60s in fascinating and often compelling narrative detail. As a popular history of these times, Nixonland is an exciting and sometimes fresh read. As a paradigm for understanding America in the postwar era, the concept of `Nixonland' is extremely limited. The limitations of the concept are readily apparent, for example, in the race narrative that Perlstein grapples with throughout the book.

To conclude, as Perlstein does, that Nixonland `has not ended yet' is true but meaningless. Nixonland does exist, but not in the way Perlstin imagines. It is in fact the place where the 60s go to die. It is the remote magic mountain nursing home for those unable or unwilling to recover from the past, where the patients live in the twilight of a rapidly fading era. Most of the kids today don't visit the nursing home, except occasionally on grandpa's birthday, when he tells them stories of cities burning, John and Yoko in bed for peace, and `radical' philosophy be-ins, but leaves out the part where he took acid and ran half-naked in the streets before becoming a lawyer and moving to the suburbs. Nixonland is the same kind of invented place as John Ford's American West.

Had Nixon never become president, the arc of his career would have still held some interest for historians, but he hardly invented the Orthogonians versus Franklins (Perlstein's rhubric) conflict, a theme that has been salient throughout American history. Nixon was one player in the postwar drama, and a fascinating one, skilled at exploiting social rifts for political gain, but hardly the master metallurgist forging a new social alloy. The subtitle of the book includes the phrase, `the fracturing of America'. It's hard to know what that means, especially after reading the book. Fractures, fissures, social conflict (think FDR and his `moneyed interests'), and violence have marked American life for centuries, driving the social dynamic of the country. Nixon is one variant of the venal, cynical, manipulative, and corrupt American politician. In this he has keen competition, including among those who achieved the presidency.

The book repays reading and one should anticipate with enthusiasm a further instalment where Perlstein will presumably draw out the picture of a fractured America.


Enlightening, 22 Oct 2008
I'll never see a political advert in the same light again; Professor Westen uses his experience in the field of clinical psychology to dissect how the campaign ad and the political speech affects the average Jane Winebox. Westen makes some important points relating to how elections can be won or lost on the language used in and delivery of these two mediums.

It's a compelling read, and a crucial one at that - given the impending US elections. Even if you're not usually one for political non-fiction, I would recommend you give this book a go.

political science students only, 23 Jul 2008
Having read just about the entire output of HST I can honestly say I'd rather gargle with pins than read this again.It all started off fine but soon dives off a cliff into a sea of political intrigue that I frankly found pretty dull in comparison to the rest of his works.OK so theres a few respites here and there but not enough to make it the classic people claim it to be.If you have a good understanding and interest in the American political system then it may appeal to you,if however you read this hoping for more gonzo type journalism then you'll probably be disappointed.

A Raw and Hilarious Account of U.S. Politics, 25 Jul 2006
'Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72' is a fantastic journey through a spectacle which grips the U.S. every four years. It is a journey which in the hands of other authors would be thoroughly boring. But Hunter S. Thompson (HST) succeeds in combining great intelligence and insightful commentary with shocking hilarity and the result is a great book.

'Campaign Trail '72' doesn't have the same constant flow of wacky, laugh-out-loud humour and outrageous anecdotes as some of HST's other works, but then HST wrote this book as part of a year-long assignment to cover the Presidential campaign, not a week-long bender at the Kentucky Derby. In some respects, the length of time over which Thompson was reporting helps reveal a more 'everyday' side to an author who at other times appears to lead a wholly surreal lifestyle. Even the Doctor of Gonzo has down-time and boring days.

HST undoubtedly achieves what he set out to do in December '71. He gives his readers an insider's account of what it's like to cover a Presidential campaign. He reveals some of the underhand and downright corrupt tactics of the candidates and their entourages, the fickle nature of the electorate's support, the decisive role of the media in an election, and the importance of 'perception'. Thompson reports in a way that no one else is capable of reporting. He goes with gut instinct and from page 1 refuses to write from within the journalistic confines of objectivity. He openly supports Democratic candidate George McGovern, and sees Richard Nixon as a great threat to the U.S.A. and the rest of the world. Indeed, on a few occasions, he openly likens Nixon to Hitler; something which no other journalist would dare write, no matter how strongly they felt it.

Rick Steadman's sketches provide another interesting angle on the campaign and complement HST's writing excellently. The author also offers up a few timeless maxims on the nature of politics, which will strike a chord with anyone who lives in a Western 'Democracy'. In all, despite the fact that some of the detail in this book may seem mundane and dated to a present-day reader, most of HST's writing is timeless and one gets an overall sense that U.S. politics don't appear to have changed much since '72. Post-election, Thompson considers running for the office of Senator in Colorado; after reading this book, he certainly would have had my vote.

Brilliant commentary on US politics in action, 31 Dec 2005
‘FALOTCT72’ is a series of articles originally written by Hunter Thompson for Rolling Stone magazine, in which he follows the race to elect a Democrat challenger to Richard Nixon in the 1972 presidential elections. It is a classic example of Gonzo journalism, the style that Thompson made his own, in which the journalist’s views and opinions are allowed to colour the reports, and in which the journalist plays an active part in the unfolding events, and is not just an observer. Thompson clearly favours the ‘no-hope’ left wing candidate George McGovern from the outset, both as an alternative to what he saw as malignant right wing influences within the Democrat party, and also to Nixon, who had begun, to Thompson, to represent everything that had gone wrong with the ideals America was founded with.
‘FALOTCT72’ is, to me, a savage account of the death of the ‘American Dream’ (as Thompson understood it), every bit as devastating as his classic novel ‘Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas’. As a journalist who is close to the election (especially to the McGovern campaign), but not actually within the approved cadre of accepted hacks, Thompson is in an excellent position to give a brutally honest account of the electoral process. Although we may accept that behind the scenes shenanigans are standard in elections, the book shows how far from the ideal of democracy modern politics has fallen, with dirty tricks abounding even within the Democrat party against its own candidates. A note of hope is provided as the idealistic, non-politico McGovern comes from nowhere to defeat the old party guard, threatening to usher in a new honesty in politics. Thompson sees hope for America in its support for McGovern until it is brutally swept away by the intrusion of old-style politics into the presidential campaign, heralding a crushing defeat to Nixon, a president almost universally recognised as untrustworthy.
This is a surprisingly touching book. Thompson still has hope for his country in ’72. Indeed that may have been the last year that he did. His feelings about an election that represented so much more than simply a win for Nixon are tragic. It is all told with his trademark savage humour, drug consumption and outrageous behaviour. It perhaps requires some knowledge of American politics to be fully appreciated, perhaps explaining its lower profile when compared to ‘Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas’. It is nevertheless very much in the same vein: funny and tragic and beautiful. An observation of American life that says so much more than the text simply describes. This is Hunter Thompson at his most poignant and, for me, the best book of his that I have read to date.

Possibly his best work, 07 Jun 2005
This is a truely fantastic book, I am an avid fan and have virtually all his books, this one is one of the top.

A very interesting take on the political process in America, funny, witty and incredibly clever.

Best and rawest account of electoral politics, 08 Dec 2004
This is a great book - I have never read a better or more raw account of the low politics of election campaigns. Hunter S Thompson has an unmatched understanding of the forces that drive American politics and, although some tactics have changed, the book remains remarkably fresh over thirty years on. The historical perspective we now have on the figures (Nixon, McGovern, Humphrey, Mayor Daley, Gary Hart etc) may even add to the appeal of the book.

One minor quibble and a little warning. First, the book is a collection of dispatches written for the Rolling Stone and this inevitably means some repetition and an occasional disjointed feeling. Secondly, the book will appeal most to people with an interest in electoral politics - those who simply liked the good Doctor's style in the Rum Diaries, Hell's Angels or F&L in Las Vegas will still enjoy it but get a bit less out of it.

Perlstein Land, 19 Jul 2008
Perlstein is a scion of the 60s. Through reading a lot of newspapers and mining a lot of television, he has constructed an imaginary world called Nixonland. Nixonland, like Hobbitland, exists in the mind of the fabulist. Perlstein has also reconstructed, in this same manner, many of the events of the 50s and 60s in fascinating and often compelling narrative detail. As a popular history of these times, Nixonland is an exciting and sometimes fresh read. As a paradigm for understanding America in the postwar era, the concept of `Nixonland' is extremely limited. The limitations of the concept are readily apparent, for example, in the race narrative that Perlstein grapples with throughout the book.

To conclude, as Perlstein does, that Nixonland `has not ended yet' is true but meaningless. Nixonland does exist, but not in the way Perlstin imagines. It is in fact the place where the 60s go to die. It is the remote magic mountain nursing home for those unable or unwilling to recover from the past, where the patients live in the twilight of a rapidly fading era. Most of the kids today don't visit the nursing home, except occasionally on grandpa's birthday, when he tells them stories of cities burning, John and Yoko in bed for peace, and `radical' philosophy be-ins, but leaves out the part where he took acid and ran half-naked in the streets before becoming a lawyer and moving to the suburbs. Nixonland is the same kind of invented place as John Ford's American West.

Had Nixon never become president, the arc of his career would have still held some interest for historians, but he hardly invented the Orthogonians versus Franklins (Perlstein's rhubric) conflict, a theme that has been salient throughout American history. Nixon was one player in the postwar drama, and a fascinating one, skilled at exploiting social rifts for political gain, but hardly the master metallurgist forging a new social alloy. The subtitle of the book includes the phrase, `the fracturing of America'. It's hard to know what that means, especially after reading the book. Fractures, fissures, social conflict (think FDR and his `moneyed interests'), and violence have marked American life for centuries, driving the social dynamic of the country. Nixon is one variant of the venal, cynical, manipulative, and corrupt American politician. In this he has keen competition, including among those who achieved the presidency.

The book repays reading and one should anticipate with enthusiasm a further instalment where Perlstein will presumably draw out the picture of a fractured America.


Enlightening, 22 Oct 2008
I'll never see a political advert in the same light again; Professor Westen uses his experience in the field of clinical psychology to dissect how the campaign ad and the political speech affects the average Jane Winebox. Westen makes some important points relating to how elections can be won or lost on the language used in and delivery of these two mediums.

It's a compelling read, and a crucial one at that - given the impending US elections. Even if you're not usually one for political non-fiction, I would recommend you give this book a go.

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.

political science students only, 23 Jul 2008
Having read just about the entire output of HST I can honestly say I'd rather gargle with pins than read this again.It all started off fine but soon dives off a cliff into a sea of political intrigue that I frankly found pretty dull in comparison to the rest of his works.OK so theres a few respites here and there but not enough to make it the classic people claim it to be.If you have a good understanding and interest in the American political system then it may appeal to you,if however you read this hoping for more gonzo type journalism then you'll probably be disappointed.

A Raw and Hilarious Account of U.S. Politics, 25 Jul 2006
'Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72' is a fantastic journey through a spectacle which grips the U.S. every four years. It is a journey which in the hands of other authors would be thoroughly boring. But Hunter S. Thompson (HST) succeeds in combining great intelligence and insightful commentary with shocking hilarity and the result is a great book.

'Campaign Trail '72' doesn't have the same constant flow of wacky, laugh-out-loud humour and outrageous anecdotes as some of HST's other works, but then HST wrote this book as part of a year-long assignment to cover the Presidential campaign, not a week-long bender at the Kentucky Derby. In some respects, the length of time over which Thompson was reporting helps reveal a more 'everyday' side to an author who at other times appears to lead a wholly surreal lifestyle. Even the Doctor of Gonzo has down-time and boring days.

HST undoubtedly achieves what he set out to do in December '71. He gives his readers an insider's account of what it's like to cover a Presidential campaign. He reveals some of the underhand and downright corrupt tactics of the candidates and their entourages, the fickle nature of the electorate's support, the decisive role of the media in an election, and the importance of 'perception'. Thompson reports in a way that no one else is capable of reporting. He goes with gut instinct and from page 1 refuses to write from within the journalistic confines of objectivity. He openly supports Democratic candidate George McGovern, and sees Richard Nixon as a great threat to the U.S.A. and the rest of the world. Indeed, on a few occasions, he openly likens Nixon to Hitler; something which no other journalist would dare write, no matter how strongly they felt it.

Rick Steadman's sketches provide another interesting angle on the campaign and complement HST's writing excellently. The author also offers up a few timeless maxims on the nature of politics, which will strike a chord with anyone who lives in a Western 'Democracy'. In all, despite the fact that some of the detail in this book may seem mundane and dated to a present-day reader, most of HST's writing is timeless and one gets an overall sense that U.S. politics don't appear to have changed much since '72. Post-election, Thompson considers running for the office of Senator in Colorado; after reading this book, he certainly would have had my vote.

Brilliant commentary on US politics in action, 31 Dec 2005
‘FALOTCT72’ is a series of articles originally written by Hunter Thompson for Rolling Stone magazine, in which he follows the race to elect a Democrat challenger to Richard Nixon in the 1972 presidential elections. It is a classic example of Gonzo journalism, the style that Thompson made his own, in which the journalist’s views and opinions are allowed to colour the reports, and in which the journalist plays an active part in the unfolding events, and is not just an observer. Thompson clearly favours the ‘no-hope’ left wing candidate George McGovern from the outset, both as an alternative to what he saw as malignant right wing influences within the Democrat party, and also to Nixon, who had begun, to Thompson, to represent everything that had gone wrong with the ideals America was founded with.
‘FALOTCT72’ is, to me, a savage account of the death of the ‘American Dream’ (as Thompson understood it), every bit as devastating as his classic novel ‘Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas’. As a journalist who is close to the election (especially to the McGovern campaign), but not actually within the approved cadre of accepted hacks, Thompson is in an excellent position to give a brutally honest account of the electoral process. Although we may accept that behind the scenes shenanigans are standard in elections, the book shows how far from the ideal of democracy modern politics has fallen, with dirty tricks abounding even within the Democrat party against its own candidates. A note of hope is provided as the idealistic, non-politico McGovern comes from nowhere to defeat the old party guard, threatening to usher in a new honesty in politics. Thompson sees hope for America in its support for McGovern until it is brutally swept away by the intrusion of old-style politics into the presidential campaign, heralding a crushing defeat to Nixon, a president almost universally recognised as untrustworthy.
This is a surprisingly touching book. Thompson still has hope for his country in ’72. Indeed that may have been the last year that he did. His feelings about an election that represented so much more than simply a win for Nixon are tragic. It is all told with his trademark savage humour, drug consumption and outrageous behaviour. It perhaps requires some knowledge of American politics to be fully appreciated, perhaps explaining its lower profile when compared to ‘Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas’. It is nevertheless very much in the same vein: funny and tragic and beautiful. An observation of American life that says so much more than the text simply describes. This is Hunter Thompson at his most poignant and, for me, the best book of his that I have read to date.

Possibly his best work, 07 Jun 2005
This is a truely fantastic book, I am an avid fan and have virtually all his books, this one is one of the top.

A very interesting take on the political process in America, funny, witty and incredibly clever.

Best and rawest account of electoral politics, 08 Dec 2004
This is a great book - I have never read a better or more raw account of the low politics of election campaigns. Hunter S Thompson has an unmatched understanding of the forces that drive American politics and, although some tactics have changed, the book remains remarkably fresh over thirty years on. The historical perspective we now have on the figures (Nixon, McGovern, Humphrey, Mayor Daley, Gary Hart etc) may even add to the appeal of the book.

One minor quibble and a little warning. First, the book is a collection of dispatches written for the Rolling Stone and this inevitably means some repetition and an occasional disjointed feeling. Secondly, the book will appeal most to people with an interest in electoral politics - those who simply liked the good Doctor's style in the Rum Diaries, Hell's Angels or F&L in Las Vegas will still enjoy it but get a bit less out of it.

Perlstein Land, 19 Jul 2008
Perlstein is a scion of the 60s. Through reading a lot of newspapers and mining a lot of television, he has constructed an imaginary world called Nixonland. Nixonland, like Hobbitland, exists in the mind of the fabulist. Perlstein has also reconstructed, in this same manner, many of the events of the 50s and 60s in fascinating and often compelling narrative detail. As a popular history of these times, Nixonland is an exciting and sometimes fresh read. As a paradigm for understanding America in the postwar era, the concept of `Nixonland' is extremely limited. The limitations of the concept are readily apparent, for example, in the race narrative that Perlstein grapples with throughout the book.

To conclude, as Perlstein does, that Nixonland `has not ended yet' is true but meaningless. Nixonland does exist, but not in the way Perlstin imagines. It is in fact the place where the 60s go to die. It is the remote magic mountain nursing home for those unable or unwilling to recover from the past, where the patients live in the twilight of a rapidly fading era. Most of the kids today don't visit the nursing home, except occasionally on grandpa's birthday, when he tells them stories of cities burning, John and Yoko in bed for peace, and `radical' philosophy be-ins, but leaves out the part where he took acid and ran half-naked in the streets before becoming a lawyer and moving to the suburbs. Nixonland is the same kind of invented place as John Ford's American West.

Had Nixon never become president, the arc of his career would have still held some interest for historians, but he hardly invented the Orthogonians versus Franklins (Perlstein's rhubric) conflict, a theme that has been salient throughout American history. Nixon was one player in the postwar drama, and a fascinating one, skilled at exploiting social rifts for political gain, but hardly the master metallurgist forging a new social alloy. The subtitle of the book includes the phrase, `the fracturing of America'. It's hard to know what that means, especially after reading the book. Fractures, fissures, social conflict (think FDR and his `moneyed interests'), and violence have marked American life for centuries, driving the social dynamic of the country. Nixon is one variant of the venal, cynical, manipulative, and corrupt American politician. In this he has keen competition, including among those who achieved the presidency.

The book repays reading and one should anticipate with enthusiasm a further instalment where Perlstein will presumably draw out the picture of a fractured America.


Enlightening, 22 Oct 2008
I'll never see a political advert in the same light again; Professor Westen uses his experience in the field of clinical psychology to dissect how the campaign ad and the political speech affects the average Jane Winebox. Westen makes some important points relating to how elections can be won or lost on the language used in and delivery of these two mediums.

It's a compelling read, and a crucial one at that - given the impending US elections. Even if you're not usually one for political non-fiction, I would recommend you give this book a go.

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.


Excellent narrative history of Boris beating the incumbent, 10 Sep 2008
This book is a very quick read and doesn't break much new ground for anyone who took more than a passing interest in the 2008 London Mayoral Election. It is, however, the first book to bring the whole story into one volume and in that sense is pretty exhaustive yet entertainingly written (Isaby's gossip column skills help on this front). Perhaps another book will be written with more analysis of events or in depth accounts of one or other campaign, but for now this is a pretty definitve history lf the election.

Definitive analysis of the London elections 2008, 11 Jul 2008
The perfect pairing of Giles Edwards and Jonathan Isaby has made this book the definitive analysis of the race between Boris and Ken. It's pacy, astute and informative. Labour strategists who want to understand where their campaign went wrong should have this down as holiday reading.

Blond Torygraph Boy versus Red Ken, 30 Jun 2008
Excellent read tells the story of how Boris applied himself to defeat the man who survived Thatcher , Kinnock , Blair and Brown ! Isaby is a remarkable journo who even in his twenties was consulted by Tory MP's on who would be elected Tory leader in 2001 and 2005.

superb insiders guide to the great upset of 2008, 04 Jun 2008
A top quality read by 2 insiders in British politics. Giles and Jonathan really seem to know their way around the london political scene. This book tells the full story of boris, his tactics, his persona and his victory. It is insightful, witty and the not to miss political book of 2008!

political science students only, 23 Jul 2008
Having read just about the entire output of HST I can honestly say I'd rather gargle with pins than read this again.It all started off fine but soon dives off a cliff into a sea of political intrigue that I frankly found pretty dull in comparison to the rest of his works.OK so theres a few respites here and there but not enough to make it the classic people claim it to be.If you have a good understanding and interest in the American political system then it may appeal to you,if however you read this hoping for more gonzo type journalism then you'll probably be disappointed.

A Raw and Hilarious Account of U.S. Politics, 25 Jul 2006
'Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72' is a fantastic journey through a spectacle which grips the U.S. every four years. It is a journey which in the hands of other authors would be thoroughly boring. But Hunter S. Thompson (HST) succeeds in combining great intelligence and insightful commentary with shocking hilarity and the result is a great book.

'Campaign Trail '72' doesn't have the same constant flow of wacky, laugh-out-loud humour and outrageous anecdotes as some of HST's other works, but then HST wrote this book as part of a year-long assignment to cover the Presidential campaign, not a week-long bender at the Kentucky Derby. In some respects, the length of time over which Thompson was reporting helps reveal a more 'everyday' side to an author who at other times appears to lead a wholly surreal lifestyle. Even the Doctor of Gonzo has down-time and boring days.

HST undoubtedly achieves what he set out to do in December '71. He gives his readers an insider's account of what it's like to cover a Presidential campaign. He reveals some of the underhand and downright corrupt tactics of the candidates and their entourages, the fickle nature of the electorate's support, the decisive role of the media in an election, and the importance of 'perception'. Thompson reports in a way that no one else is capable of reporting. He goes with gut instinct and from page 1 refuses to write from within the journalistic confines of objectivity. He openly supports Democratic candidate George McGovern, and sees Richard Nixon as a great threat to the U.S.A. and the rest of the world. Indeed, on a few occasions, he openly likens Nixon to Hitler; something which no other journalist would dare write, no matter how strongly they felt it.

Rick Steadman's sketches provide another interesting angle on the campaign and complement HST's writing excellently. The author also offers up a few timeless maxims on the nature of politics, which will strike a chord with anyone who lives in a Western 'Democracy'. In all, despite the fact that some of the detail in this book may seem mundane and dated to a present-day reader, most of HST's writing is timeless and one gets an overall sense that U.S. politics don't appear to have changed much since '72. Post-election, Thompson considers running for the office of Senator in Colorado; after reading this book, he certainly would have had my vote.

Brilliant commentary on US politics in action, 31 Dec 2005
‘FALOTCT72’ is a series of articles originally written by Hunter Thompson for Rolling Stone magazine, in which he follows the race to elect a Democrat challenger to Richard Nixon in the 1972 presidential elections. It is a classic example of Gonzo journalism, the style that Thompson made his own, in which the journalist’s views and opinions are allowed to colour the reports, and in which the journalist plays an active part in the unfolding events, and is not just an observer. Thompson clearly favours the ‘no-hope’ left wing candidate George McGovern from the outset, both as an alternative to what he saw as malignant right wing influences within the Democrat party, and also to Nixon, who had begun, to Thompson, to represent everything that had gone wrong with the ideals America was founded with.
‘FALOTCT72’ is, to me, a savage account of the death of the ‘American Dream’ (as Thompson understood it), every bit as devastating as his classic novel ‘Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas’. As a journalist who is close to the election (especially to the McGovern campaign), but not actually within the approved cadre of accepted hacks, Thompson is in an excellent position to give a brutally honest account of the electoral process. Although we may accept that behind the scenes shenanigans are standard in elections, the book shows how far from the ideal of democracy modern politics has fallen, with dirty tricks abounding even within the Democrat party against its own candidates. A note of hope is provided as the idealistic, non-politico McGovern comes from nowhere to defeat the old party guard, threatening to usher in a new honesty in politics. Thompson sees hope for America in its support for McGovern until it is brutally swept away by the intrusion of old-style politics into the presidential campaign, heralding a crushing defeat to Nixon, a president almost universally recognised as untrustworthy.
This is a surprisingly touching book. Thompson still has hope for his country in ’72. Indeed that may have been the last year that he did. His feelings about an election that represented so much more than simply a win for Nixon are tragic. It is all told with his trademark savage humour, drug consumption and outrageous behaviour. It perhaps requires some knowledge of American politics to be fully appreciated, perhaps explaining its lower profile when compared to ‘Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas’. It is nevertheless very much in the same vein: funny and tragic and beautiful. An observation of American life that says so much more than the text simply describes. This is Hunter Thompson at his most poignant and, for me, the best book of his that I have read to date.

Possibly his best work, 07 Jun 2005
This is a truely fantastic book, I am an avid fan and have virtually all his books, this one is one of the top.

A very interesting take on the political process in America, funny, witty and incredibly clever.

Best and rawest account of electoral politics, 08 Dec 2004
This is a great book - I have never read a better or more raw account of the low politics of election campaigns. Hunter S Thompson has an unmatched understanding of the forces that drive American politics and, although some tactics have changed, the book remains remarkably fresh over thirty years on. The historical perspective we now have on the figures (Nixon, McGovern, Humphrey, Mayor Daley, Gary Hart etc) may even add to the appeal of the book.

One minor quibble and a little warning. First, the book is a collection of dispatches written for the Rolling Stone and this inevitably means some repetition and an occasional disjointed feeling. Secondly, the book will appeal most to people with an interest in electoral politics - those who simply liked the good Doctor's style in the Rum Diaries, Hell's Angels or F&L in Las Vegas will still enjoy it but get a bit less out of it.

Perlstein Land, 19 Jul 2008
Perlstein is a scion of the 60s. Through reading a lot of newspapers and mining a lot of television, he has constructed an imaginary world called Nixonland. Nixonland, like Hobbitland, exists in the mind of the fabulist. Perlstein has also reconstructed, in this same manner, many of the events of the 50s and 60s in fascinating and often compelling narrative detail. As a popular history of these times, Nixonland is an exciting and sometimes fresh read. As a paradigm for understanding America in the postwar era, the concept of `Nixonland' is extremely limited. The limitations of the concept are readily apparent, for example, in the race narrative that Perlstein grapples with throughout the book.

To conclude, as Perlstein does, that Nixonland `has not ended yet' is true but meaningless. Nixonland does exist, but not in the way Perlstin imagines. It is in fact the place where the 60s go to die. It is the remote magic mountain nursing home for those unable or unwilling to recover from the past, where the patients live in the twilight of a rapidly fading era. Most of the kids today don't visit the nursing home, except occasionally on grandpa's birthday, when he tells them stories of cities burning, John and Yoko in bed for peace, and `radical' philosophy be-ins, but leaves out the part where he took acid and ran half-naked in the streets before becoming a lawyer and moving to the suburbs. Nixonland is the same kind of invented place as John Ford's American West.

Had Nixon never become president, the arc of his career would have still held some interest for historians, but he hardly invented the Orthogonians versus Franklins (Perlstein's rhubric) conflict, a theme that has been salient throughout American history. Nixon was one player in the postwar drama, and a fascinating one, skilled at exploiting social rifts for political gain, but hardly the master metallurgist forging a new social alloy. The subtitle of the book includes the phrase, `the fracturing of America'. It's hard to know what that means, especially after reading the book. Fractures, fissures, social conflict (think FDR and his `moneyed interests'), and violence have marked American life for centuries, driving the social dynamic of the country. Nixon is one variant of the venal, cynical, manipulative, and corrupt American politician. In this he has keen competition, including among those who achieved the presidency.

The book repays reading and one should anticipate with enthusiasm a further instalment where Perlstein will presumably draw out the picture of a fractured America.


Enlightening, 22 Oct 2008
I'll never see a political advert in the same light again; Professor Westen uses his experience in the field of clinical psychology to dissect how the campaign ad and the political speech affects the average Jane Winebox. Westen makes some important points relating to how elections can be won or lost on the language used in and delivery of these two mediums.

It's a compelling read, and a crucial one at that - given the impending US elections. Even if you're not usually one for political non-fiction, I would recommend you give this book a go.

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.


Excellent narrative history of Boris beating the incumbent, 10 Sep 2008
This book is a very quick read and doesn't break much new ground for anyone who took more than a passing interest in the 2008 London Mayoral Election. It is, however, the first book to bring the whole story into one volume and in that sense is pretty exhaustive yet entertainingly written (Isaby's gossip column skills help on this front). Perhaps another book will be written with more analysis of events or in depth accounts of one or other campaign, but for now this is a pretty definitve history lf the election.

Definitive analysis of the London elections 2008, 11 Jul 2008
The perfect pairing of Giles Edwards and Jonathan Isaby has made this book the definitive analysis of the race between Boris and Ken. It's pacy, astute and informative. Labour strategists who want to understand where their campaign went wrong should have this down as holiday reading.

Blond Torygraph Boy versus Red Ken, 30 Jun 2008
Excellent read tells the story of how Boris applied himself to defeat the man who survived Thatcher , Kinnock , Blair and Brown ! Isaby is a remarkable journo who even in his twenties was consulted by Tory MP's on who would be elected Tory leader in 2001 and 2005.

superb insiders guide to the great upset of 2008, 04 Jun 2008
A top quality read by 2 insiders in British politics. Giles and Jonathan really seem to know their way around the london political scene. This book tells the full story of boris, his tactics, his persona and his victory. It is insightful, witty and the not to miss political book of 2008!

Refreshing Take on Politics, 23 Dec 2008
This book is certainly a refreshing take on politics; especially from an Irish viewpoint. Niall Stanage does away with myths that have been the centrepoint of many an Irish journalist and indeed, an American politician's angle for votes: the Irish-American vote in the context of the USA's entire population is not that important! Controversial words yet backed up by examples of politicians in different elections, not just the '08 Obama v McCain. This subject in itself is given a sense of less importance as it is not mentioned until near the end. The majority of the book, obviously, being given to the whole dramatics of the primaries and then the presidential election race. Stanage, whilst sometimes being swept along with the whole Obama-craze does for the most stay neutral and offers interesting and thoughtful insights into the Obama campaign. A high point of the book are all the "ordinary joe-soaps" stories: elderly African-American women, young white Americans, middle-aged ordinarily conservatives being swept along with Obama and dong an extraordianry amount of work for him.

This book is accessibly political, without dumbing down any aspects of the complex American presidential election process. Wholly recommended for anybody interested in politics, America, or simply in reading about behind-the-scenes of one of the most fascinating, and important electoral votes in the history of the world. If you couldn't have been there...read the words of a man who was.

political science students only, 23 Jul 2008
Having read just about the entire output of HST I can honestly say I'd rather gargle with pins than read this again.It all started off fine but soon dives off a cliff into a sea of political intrigue that I frankly found pretty dull in comparison to the rest of his works.OK so theres a few respites here and there but not enough to make it the classic people claim it to be.If you have a good understanding and interest in the American political system then it may appeal to you,if however you read this hoping for more gonzo type journalism then you'll probably be disappointed.

A Raw and Hilarious Account of U.S. Politics, 25 Jul 2006
'Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72' is a fantastic journey through a spectacle which grips the U.S. every four years. It is a journey which in the hands of other authors would be thoroughly boring. But Hunter S. Thompson (HST) succeeds in combining great intelligence and insightful commentary with shocking hilarity and the result is a great book.

'Campaign Trail '72' doesn't have the same constant flow of wacky, laugh-out-loud humour and outrageous anecdotes as some of HST's other works, but then HST wrote this book as part of a year-long assignment to cover the Presidential campaign, not a week-long bender at the Kentucky Derby. In some respects, the length of time over which Thompson was reporting helps reveal a more 'everyday' side to an author who at other times appears to lead a wholly surreal lifestyle. Even the Doctor of Gonzo has down-time and boring days.

HST undoubtedly achieves what he set out to do in December '71. He gives his readers an insider's account of what it's like to cover a Presidential campaign. He reveals some of the underhand and downright corrupt tactics of the candidates and their entourages, the fickle nature of the electorate's support, the decisive role of the media in an election, and the importance of 'perception'. Thompson reports in a way that no one else is capable of reporting. He goes with gut instinct and from page 1 refuses to write from within the journalistic confines of objectivity. He openly supports Democratic candidate George McGovern, and sees Richard Nixon as a great threat to the U.S.A. and the rest of the world. Indeed, on a few occasions, he openly likens Nixon to Hitler; something which no other journalist would dare write, no matter how strongly they felt it.

Rick Steadman's sketches provide another interesting angle on the campaign and complement HST's writing excellently. The author also offers up a few timeless maxims on the nature of politics, which will strike a chord with anyone who lives in a Western 'Democracy'. In all, despite the fact that some of the detail in this book may seem mundane and dated to a present-day reader, most of HST's writing is timeless and one gets an overall sense that U.S. politics don't appear to have changed much since '72. Post-election, Thompson considers running for the office of Senator in Colorado; after reading this book, he certainly would have had my vote.

Brilliant commentary on US politics in action, 31 Dec 2005
‘FALOTCT72’ is a series of articles originally written by Hunter Thompson for Rolling Stone magazine, in which he follows the race to elect a Democrat challenger to Richard Nixon in the 1972 presidential elections. It is a classic example of Gonzo journalism, the style that Thompson made his own, in which the journalist’s views and opinions are allowed to colour the reports, and in which the journalist plays an active part in the unfolding events, and is not just an observer. Thompson clearly favours the ‘no-hope’ left wing candidate George McGovern from the outset, both as an alternative to what he saw as malignant right wing influences within the Democrat party, and also to Nixon, who had begun, to Thompson, to represent everything that had gone wrong with the ideals America was founded with.
‘FALOTCT72’ is, to me, a savage account of the death of the ‘American Dream’ (as Thompson understood it), every bit as devastating as his classic novel ‘Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas’. As a journalist who is close to the election (especially to the McGovern campaign), but not actually within the approved cadre of accepted hacks, Thompson is in an excellent position to give a brutally honest account of the electoral process. Although we may accept that behind the scenes shenanigans are standard in elections, the book shows how far from the ideal of democracy modern politics has fallen, with dirty tricks abounding even within the Democrat party against its own candidates. A note of hope is provided as the idealistic, non-politico McGovern comes from nowhere to defeat the old party guard, threatening to usher in a new honesty in politics. Thompson sees hope for America in its support for McGovern until it is brutally swept away by the intrusion of old-style politics into the presidential campaign, heralding a crushing defeat to Nixon, a president almost universally recognised as untrustworthy.
This is a surprisingly touching book. Thompson still has hope for his country in ’72. Indeed that may have been the last year that he did. His feelings about an election that represented so much more than simply a win for Nixon are tragic. It is all told with his trademark savage humour, drug consumption and outrageous behaviour. It perhaps requires some knowledge of American politics to be fully appreciated, perhaps explaining its lower profile when compared to ‘Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas’. It is nevertheless very much in the same vein: funny and tragic and beautiful. An observation of American life that says so much more than the text simply describes. This is Hunter Thompson at his most poignant and, for me, the best book of his that I have read to date.

Possibly his best work, 07 Jun 2005
This is a truely fantastic book, I am an avid fan and have virtually all his books, this one is one of the top.

A very interesting take on the political process in America, funny, witty and incredibly clever.

Best and rawest account of electoral politics, 08 Dec 2004
This is a great book - I have never read a better or more raw account of the low politics of election campaigns. Hunter S Thompson has an unmatched understanding of the forces that drive American politics and, although some tactics have changed, the book remains remarkably fresh over thirty years on. The historical perspective we now have on the figures (Nixon, McGovern, Humphrey, Mayor Daley, Gary Hart etc) may even add to the appeal of the book.

One minor quibble and a little warning. First, the book is a collection of dispatches written for the Rolling Stone and this inevitably means some repetition and an occasional disjointed feeling. Secondly, the book will appeal most to people with an interest in electoral politics - those who simply liked the good Doctor's style in the Rum Diaries, Hell's Angels or F&L in Las Vegas will still enjoy it but get a bit less out of it.

Perlstein Land, 19 Jul 2008
Perlstein is a scion of the 60s. Through reading a lot of newspapers and mining a lot of television, he has constructed an imaginary world called Nixonland. Nixonland, like Hobbitland, exists in the mind of the fabulist. Perlstein has also reconstructed, in this same manner, many of the events of the 50s and 60s in fascinating and often compelling narrative detail. As a popular history of these times, Nixonland is an exciting and sometimes fresh read. As a paradigm for understanding America in the postwar era, the concept of `Nixonland' is extremely limited. The limitations of the concept are readily apparent, for example, in the race narrative that Perlstein grapples with throughout the book.

To conclude, as Perlstein does, that Nixonland `has not ended yet' is true but meaningless. Nixonland does exist, but not in the way Perlstin imagines. It is in fact the place where the 60s go to die. It is the remote magic mountain nursing home for those unable or unwilling to recover from the past, where the patients live in the twilight of a rapidly fading era. Most of the kids today don't visit the nursing home, except occasionally on grandpa's birthday, when he tells them stories of cities burning, John and Yoko in bed for peace, and `radical' philosophy be-ins, but leaves out the part where he took acid and ran half-naked in the streets before becoming a lawyer and moving to the suburbs. Nixonland is the same kind of invented place as John Ford's American West.

Had Nixon never become president, the arc of his career would have still held some interest for historians, but he hardly invented the Orthogonians versus Franklins (Perlstein's rhubric) conflict, a theme that has been salient throughout American history. Nixon was one player in the postwar drama, and a fascinating one, skilled at exploiting social rifts for political gain, but hardly the master metallurgist forging a new social alloy. The subtitle of the book includes the phrase, `the fracturing of America'. It's hard to know what that means, especially after reading the book. Fractures, fissures, social conflict (think FDR and his `moneyed interests'), and violence have marked American life for centuries, driving the social dynamic of the country. Nixon is one variant of the venal, cynical, manipulative, and corrupt American politician. In this he has keen competition, including among those who achieved the presidency.

The book repays reading and one should anticipate with enthusiasm a further instalment where Perlstein will presumably draw out the picture of a fractured America.


Enlightening, 22 Oct 2008
I'll never see a political advert in the same light again; Professor Westen uses his experience in the field of clinical psychology to dissect how the campaign ad and the political speech affects the average Jane Winebox. Westen makes some important points relating to how elections can be won or lost on the language used in and delivery of these two mediums.

It's a compelling read, and a crucial one at that - given the impending US elections. Even if you're not usually one for political non-fiction, I would recommend you give this book a go.

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