I learned more from this book then I did in all the classes I was required to obtain my political science degree. The main premise of the book is that the Republican and Democratic party leaders collude to keep power, often by not contesting elections that could easily be won with any money or effort expended. A quick example from 25 years after the book's publication should suffice to verify Karp's thesis.In the state of Florida in 1998, half of the congressional seats were not even contested (several other "contests" simply have write-in candidates with zero chance of winning). This was despite the fact that both parties knew winning an extra seat or two might well determine who controlled the next Congress. Unfortunately, this fact is overlooked by not only the public, but all of the so-called experts on TV. Right now, the public perception still is that the parties fight like dogs to win elections at all possible costs. Karp sees what the pundits oftoday can't; namely, the goal of party leaders is to maintain control of their organizations,not to win elections. One quote from former Democratic speaker Sam Rayburn demonstrates this principle;when faced with a coming landslide for his party and a gain of many seats for his party,he ruefully says :"I'd just as soon not have that many Democrats, they'll be difficult to control." This is the shocking but real story of how politics in America really works. A truly indispensable work.

....

Karp not only pulls back the curtain on the evils of partisan politics, but goes on to propose a Jeffersonian style of self-government. Some of my favorite analysis from this book includes the following:

* Party oligarchs and their Cold War statism highlights his "principle of waste."

* A State inherently tends toward collusion and monopoly-granting, and therefore expansion, and this necessarily leads to war.

* Special privilege is in direct odds with liberty and self-rule, and only serves to further entrench a ruling political elite. And this he says, is a result of the "Hamiltonian tradition."

* Political ideology necessarily takes the form of the ruling bureaucracy.

*Decentralization [and hence, secession] is the key to breaking the back of the Hamiltonian system.

Karp, a revisionist historian, takes on such sacred cows as FDR, Wilson, Johnson, McKinley, Hamilton, and trade unions (gasp!). It's one of the best books ever on raw political machinations.

For me, the major impression left by this book was it's massive originality. Every page was the equivalent of opening your lunchbox in expectation of the usual bologna sandwich, and finding instead a skyscraper, the Hope diamond, or Elvis' twitching torso. Karp looks at the theories of American politics and attempts to overturn every accepted explanation, always suggesting complex, subtle and powerful alternatives. Whether he succeeds or not you can judge for yourself, but he somehow manages to be always unique on ground previously trodden by so many feet. Yet, he isn't merely a contrarian. His intricate theory retains remarkable consistensy throughout this book and his other three books on politics.

The previous reviewer sums up one of the books main ideas very well. Another argument of the book is that power in America is almost totally monopolized by the two parties -- contrary to most opinion today which seeks to blame anyone and everyone for our problems except the most obvious suspects, the politicians who pass laws and frustrate reform. Since so many pundits blame either the "liberal media elite" or monopolistic corporations for our woes, Karp details the ways in which both groups are under the complete domination of the two parties (his analysis of the media is part of a separate book _Buried Alive_). As Karp points out, the idea isn't new. Madison, Jefferson, Washington, et. al. shouted until they were hoarse about the necessity of zealously watching politicians and rulers. They had little if any concern about journalists, manufacturers and bankers, except insofar as they might become willing tools for would-be despots and oligarchs. But no one except Karp has thoroughly explored the implications of this founding belief in the modern political context.

This book (149 Pages) was crammed with facts, keeping me on the edge the whole time. I never knew how cool Darwin was until I read this book. And like I said, if you need tons of facts on Darwin, this book has so many, its hard to record!

This book is most provocative in its treatment of the generally revered Woodrow Wilson and the story of how (according to Karp) he cynically engineered our entry into WW I, motivated by Anglophilia and a messianic (and in Karp's view delusional) conviction that he could bring a new era of peace and justice to the world.

A number of books have made similar allegations about FDR and our entry into WW II, but at the end of the day, who cares? Does anyone really think the world would be a better place if the U.S. had stayed out of World War II?

WW I was quite a different kettle of fish, as Karp points out. It was not in any way clear that the U.S. had something to gain from involving itself in a sordid struggle in which neither side held the moral high ground. And Karp argues rather convincingly that Wilson was played for a fool -- he tipped the balance to Britain's Lloyd George and France's Clemenceau, only to see these enormously cynical and skillful politicians torpedo his "just peace" in favor of viciously punitive terms which ultimately led to the rise of Adolph Hitler.

Karp also discusses Wilson's suppression of free speech and his aggressive use of propaganda in favor of the war effort.

Karp was a frequent contributor to Harper's magazine who unfortunately died quite young a number of years ago. This little-known book should be read by anyone interested in America in the WW I era and in the development of modern American political culture. It's also worth studying if you want to understand better why U.S. public opinion was so resolutely isolationist up until the attack on Pearl Harbor. Wilson got his war, but the experience left a very bad taste in the mouth of the American public.

I've never read anything quite like Liberty Under Siege. On one hand, it is well written,intellectual, and difficult to put down. Unfortunately,the author overgeneralizes frequently and sometimes it seems like he is leaving out information damaging to his conclusion (with which I partially agree). Nonetheless, I recommend this book to anyone interested in politics, regardless of their political persuasion.