This small volume, now some 35 years old, contains a dozen essays authored by some of the leading intellectual lights of the "New Deal" era, including Gardner C. Means, A. A. Berle and Andrew Hacker. The book is and, unfortunately, remains one of the few lights illuminating the rise of the corporation as the dominant player in American social, economic and political life. It is all the more remarkable because it foresaw the the internationalization of economics and the concomentant evolution of neoliberal politics in its service. Thus, these ideas form a necessary link for anyone seriously concerned about the past, present and future influence of corporate culture.

An excellent book on how to manage complex computer software projects. The book gives the complex steps in easy to follow manner and not only tells you what to do but why and how to do it. An essential tool for any budding Project Leader and/or Project Manager. Even ISO9000 certified companies will find such a book a mandatory weapon in their armoury for tackling issues related to project management.

If you are new to the Internet, then this is your book

Toqueville's work unquestionably will last for as long as human nature remains the same. Certainly, it is diverting to read accounts about the topography and anachronistically idiosyncratic habits of the inhabitants of America over a century ago; the fundamental value of his work, however, lies in his acute understanding of human nature that does not change throughout time. I must, however, qualify this statement, since there is only one Book, the author of which I am in utter agreement. One part of his book I disagree with concerns the ways of ending slavery. It was not nearly as dangerously problematic as he thinks, since most Western nations that had had slavery peacefully eradicated it, and America could have done so by several means. (One way, although a distinct compromise, could have been for philanthropists, abolitionists, and/ or government to requite the slave owners their money and thereby instantly free those enslaved.) Having said that, I wholeheartedly agree with much of the work, and think that more than most writers on the American polity, he truly perceives how certain tendencies of human nature are revealed in this particular society founded upon practical wisdom, personal responsibility, self-reliance, and faith. Many of his disquisitions on these tendencies that could be accentuated in American democracy are now more thought-provoking than ever. One prominent example is his understanding of an issue fundamental to Americans. He famously shows how they are pragmatically intent upon getting things done by combining in 'societies.' A problem could occur if ever the citizens in general become selfish and much less self-reliant: 'individualism' could arise. He articulates a bleak portrait of a society in which none care to take personal responsibility, but are willing to sacrifice freedom for temporary security. This is disquieting for modern society, and it would be well were more people to read his work and learn from it.

The specific edition I am reviewing is the Heffner addition which is a 300 page abridgement. I also own an unabridged edition but I have only read Heffner cover to cover. What is amazing about de Toqueville is how uncanny many of his observations are over a century and a half later. He accurately predicted in 1844 that the world's two great powers would be the United States and Russia. He aptly pointed out that Americans are a people who join associations and he is so right 156 years later. Although there are both religious extremists on both ends, ie fundamentalists and atheists, he was dead on that, as a whole, we are a religious society but that our religious views are moderate. De Toqueville shows how American characteristics evolved from democracy as opposed to the highly class structered societies of Europe. From de Tocqueville, it could have been predicted that pop culture, such as rock music etc, would develop in America because the lack of an aristocracy causes a less cultured taste in the arts. In a thousand and one different ways, I found myself marveling at how dead on de Toqueville was. Most controversially, those who argue that we have lost our liberties to a welfare state might well find support in de Toqueville. Here, 100 years before the New Deal, he forsaw that a strong central government would take away our liberties but in a manner much more benign than in a totalitarian government. There are certain liberties that Americans would willingly sacrifice for the common good. Critics of 20th century liberalism in the US might well point to this as an uncanny observation. By reading "Democracy in America," the reader understands what makes Americans tick. De Toquville was an astute observer of who we are as a people and should be read by all educated Americans.

I want to note that there are several editions of this great work and in deciding which to buy, be aware that each has a different translator. I feel Heffner's translation is slightly stilted but, he did such a wonderful job in editing this abridgement that it, nontheless, deserves 5 stars.

De Tocqueville was simply of one of the great social scientists writing about America and Democracy. From reading the book I deduced that De Tocqueville was a social scientist before Marx! He compares European culture and government with the fledgling culture and democracy he observes in America. He is very much impressed with what he sees taking place in America in the 1830's and hopes it will spread to Europe. He at first believed that America's prosperity was simply due to geography and their distance from powerful neighbors, he abandons this idea after his visit to America. He comes to realize that the West is not being peopled "by new European immigrants to America, but by Americans who he believes have no adversity to taking risks". De Tocqueville comes to see that Americans are the most broadly educated and politically advanced people in the world and one of the reasons for the success of our form of government. He also foretells America's industrial preeminence and strength through the unfettered spread of ideas and human industry.

De Tocqueville also saw the insidious damage that the institution of slavery was causing the country and predicted some 30 years before the Civil War that slavery would probable cause the states to fragment from the union. He also the emergence of stronger states rights over the power of the federal government. He held fast to his belief that the greatest danger to democracy was the trend toward the concentration of power by the federal government. He predicted wrongly that the union would probably break up into 2 or 3 countries because of regional interests and differences. This idea is the only one about America that he gets wrong. Despite some of his misgivings, De Tocqueville, saw that democracy is an "inescapable development" of the modern world. The arguments in the "Federalist Papers" were greater than most people realized. He saw a social revolution coming that continues throughout the world today.

De Tocqueville realizes at the very beginning of the "industrial revolution" how industry, centralization and democracy strengthened each other and moved forward together. I am convinced that De Tocqueville is still the preeminent observer of America but is also the father of social science. As a retired Army officer and political philosopher, I found this book to be a must read for anyone interested in American history, political philosophy or the social sciences.

I'm amazed at some of my fellow reviewers. Hacker pickes on whites? Sucks up to blacks? Hardly.

I read the book some years ago and was very impressed. Hacker's use of statistics cuts through a lot of the rhetoric that surround the issue of race in America. I don't agree with all his conclusions--on the topic of race, none of us agree on every point--but he makes some very good points. My only complaint, actually, is the analysis is a bit light. I would have liked to see him draw some more conclusions. Still, if you want a statistical overview of race, linked with some good commentary, here's a place to start.

Oh, and I suppose I should mention I'm a white guy. Not a self-hating white guy, just a white guy. And I didn't and don't feel picked on by Hacker's book.

While Hacker uses statistics to illustrate the divide between black and white America, his book is anything but dry. Furthermore, while Hacker is an academic, he avoids the text book type of writing that many academics are known for. Two Nations is interesting, provocative and should be required reading in any class that attempts to address the problems of race in America. Although Hacker's book doesn't provide any solutions, he doesn't proport to. He is truly the foremost writer on race in America. Read Two Nations and find out why.

What can be said about one of the most noteworthy works of the late twentieth century! Hacker's "revelations", although surprising to some, are familiar to the millions of minority Americans who have felt the stares, the unwanted job placements, the overt and covert acts of discrimination, and the other biases inflicted upon them since the first slave ship landed or the first white man entered "Injun territory." Mr. Hacker's writing style makes the facts contained within the pages easy to grasp and ponder. By including a segment on the differing racial reactions to the O.J. Simpson trial, Hacker has tapped into a serious flaw in America's mettle: how the justice system is definitely NOT colorbind! The book should be mandatory for high schools, colleges, workplaces, police departments, and even future and present residents of the White House!

Rather dry. Not very much that you couldn't figure out by yourself; not much original insight. The author uses statistics throughout to the point that it almost becomes meaningless. Anyone with the most limited experience with statistics knows that you can make them say just about anything you want.

What I had hoped for was some insight into why there is so much economic disparity in this country and what we can, or should, do about it. Instead the author gave more of a status quo, "we are here," appoach.

The last chapter was maybe the most insteresting. It focused on the economic changes in the US since WW2. It is anybody's guess what the future will bring, but it seems like it will continue as it is now until there is some big crash or other disaster.

Andrew Hacker's Money is a great look at who has the money in America and how they got it. He talks in great detail about how the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. I was astounded to read that in 1997 there were 137 individuals who claimed over $1 billion in income. Almost 70,000 tax returns claimed an income of at least $1 million. There are far more rich people out there than I thought and it leads me to believe that if they can do it, so can I.

As a former student of Professor Hacker, I've developed much respect for the man. While that certainly biases my opinion of his books (as I do view him as the God of Political Science), I know that I will always be getting a fresh perspective as I've never known anyone who could "cut the crap" better than Professor Hacker.

One of the most important lessons I learned from him is to always read between the lines; so that we may learn to think beyond the 68% norm. While Dr. Hacker could certainly fill hundreds of more pages with his insightful comments and statistical analyses, he knows that in between the lines, there is a whole other book yet to be created by the reader. I regret not having learned that until after he had already given me my final grade.

And there aren't enough of them to go around.

At least that's what Andrew Hacker suggests in his depressing new book "Mismatch," a glib, didactic book that uses sometimes dubious methodology to ratify women's worst fears about dating and marriage and the opposite sex.

To buttress his conclusions Mr. Hacker - a professor of political science at Queens College in New York - flings around a huge number of statistics, many of them taken from government reports like the census. The problem is he tends to mix up solid facts and figures with more qualified findings, focuses almost exclusively on those statistics that back up his thesis, presents the familiar or obvious with an air of revelatory zeal and glosses everything with speculative hyperbole - a technique he lamely defends by arguing that "hyperbole can serve a purpose: to sharpen our understanding of the murky world in which we live."

To make matters worse, "Mismatch" is liberally seasoned with knee-jerk editorializing on Mr. Hacker's part. He makes gross generalizations about men and women ("in most marriages, he loves her less than she does him"); asks stupid questions ("to what extent," he wonders, is brutality "endemic to men"?); and makes silly assumptions ("let's imagine that all the women who favor greater curbs on guns and less reliance on missiles would prefer to find a man who shares their views").

There are questionable assertions in this book - "few straight men haven't married at least once by the time they reach their 40's" - and even more dubious theories: at one point the author suggests that "a growing unwillingness by white men to become or remain resident fathers to the children they have sired" might be connected with the mainstream popularity of rap and hip-hop music and movies like "Shaft" that "glamorized black potency" and a laissez-faire attitude toward family life.

Echoing the title of his earlier book "Two Nations", on bitter and deeply entrenched white-black racial divide, Mr. Hacker concludes that men and women can be viewed as "two nations," that there is "an emerging mismatch between the sexes" and "not enough men who satisfy the expectations that modern women have for dates and mates."

To use Mr. Hacker's technique "the average single woman" could have told you the same thing without brandishing a single statistic or citing a single survey.

I wanted to like this book, but alas I cannot fully recommend it.

But first, I think much of the criticism of this book has been unfair. The author clearly states in the preface, that he is not presenting material that is completely new. He is merely using the latest statistics to paint a clearer picture of the "conventional wisdom" on this topic. Also by the very nature of the topic he is forced to speculate and make gross generalizations. He readily admits that people are going to disagree and argue with him. So most of the objections that have appeared in most reviews (in New York Times and Salon magazine for example) are directly addressed in the preface.

And yes he does present a lot of statistics. Did you know that there were more female embezzlers than male embezzlers in 2001? Or that 60% of divorces were initiated by women (over the objections of the husbands)? Through these and other statistics you get a clear sense that gender roles have shifted so much that we may be entering an era where marriage becomes less and less the norm, and that this is primarily because of the changing status of women.

And Hacker places ALL the blame for this on "inadequate men who are not meeting women's needs" (this is a paraphrase). Surprisingly enough given the bad reviews this book received from women, Hacker is thoroughly PC in his diagnosis of the problem. Men are not measuring up. As a male I must say I was a bit irritated by this one-sided analysis. He never seemed to even consider that there might be more to it than that, or maybe that women might have to change their expectations of marrying a man who make more money than them given the changed social circumstances.

So why didn't I like this book?

There is too much shallow analysis. Especially in the later chapters, it felt like he was hanging a lot of theory on too few facts. He brings out some fact, and then he goes off on some totally unrelated tangent that is not very convincing. I know he warned about this in the preface, but he should have just cut out those chapters that he didn't have anything to say about.

I think this book is worth a read if you are interested in the latest statistics, but if you want some insightful analysis on the changing nature of gender roles in modern society then this is probably not the book for you.