Presenting Edmund Burke thematically is perhaps the only way to really approach Burke, as Conor Cruise O'Brien or Russell Kirk (Burke's best biographers) would probably agree. So unlike 'On Empire, Liberty, and Reform,' which is chronological, the portable Edmund Burke instead tackles Burke under the themes of America, Ireland, India, and the French Revolution, and a couple other sub-themes, with invaluable commentary. By the end of the book, Burke is better enveloped here than in most biographies, HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!

The eighteenth century Enlightenment is one of the most interesting and exciting periods of intellectual history. The thinkers of that age had a sizable impact on concepts of science, nature, politics, religion and society. How do we become immersed in the wealth of writing of that period, however, without giving up job and family in order to read the works of the Enlightenment authors?

This reader is an excellent book for novices and experienced readers alike. It is an excellent 600+ page book filled with short, pithy excerpts from the key thinkers of the period. Actually the writings go back as far as 1620 with an excerpt from Francis Bacon where he puts down the Greek philosophers and introduces what is to become the scientific method. Beccaria comes up with novel thinking on crime and punishment. Does the death penalty deter crime? How about the punishment fitting the crime instead of being meted out at the whim of some aristocrat?

Montesquieu, Voltaire, Rousseau and Paine weigh in with their political philosophy. The skeptics speak up with their religious criticisms. Manners, morals, art, war, and gender and race issues are all discussed by the likes of Mary Wollstonecraft, David Hume, Reynolds, Pope, and Bentham.

Bite sized as these entries are, they give the flavor of Enlightenment thought. And, importantly for the general reader, they are all mentally digestible. You don't have to read every paragraph six times in order to get a glimmer of the authors' meanings. The represented authors are not just from France either. The best thinkers from France, Italy, Germany, the United States and Great Britain are represented.

This was the most helpful anthology when I needed to write a research paper on seventeenth century religion. It has sections for almost all aspects of life and contains various selections that truly show the Enlightenment spirit!

This book is one of the best books I have read on the ideology of the revolutionary and constitutional periods in American history. It deserves to be read alongside the works of Gordon Woods, J.G.A. Pocock, Joyce Appleby, Bernard Bailyn and all the others who have done so much to reveal to us the full complexity of that marvelous period of time.
This period of our history has undergone an extended period of bitter contestation in the last few decades. At one point, the predominant interpretation of this period was that it was one of Lockean liberalism. The theory was argued by historians as different as Leo Strauss, C.B. Macpherson and Louis Hartz. Then came the extraordinary work of Woods, Bailyn and Pocock as well as Carolyn Robbins, Douglass Adair and others. This work suggested that the American Revolution was perhaps best seen as the last act of a renaissance political philosophy- the republican politics of civic humanism.
Whitehead once suggested that the history of philosophy could be seen as a series of footnotes to Plato and Aristotle. Perhaps the historiography of the American Revolutionary and Federalist Periods for the last thirty or so years could best be seen as a series of footnotes to Hartz and Pocock.
Kramnick seems to me to suggest the best answer to this debate: everybody's right. The founding fathers and mothers were extraordinary people and we do them a disservice if we see them as single minded ideologues. We want to use them as trump cards in current political and ideological debates but they are more, much more than that.
Yes, many of them were Whigs who saw the politics of their times in terms of the corruption of political or civic virtue. But many of these same were Protestants and budding capitalists who were starting to define virtue in terms of the industriousness, the abiltiy and talent of the individual. Kramnick is an excellent guide to the interplay of these diverse ideologies. He wants to reassert the importance of Locke. I think he is right to do so. It is hard to read the writings of those times and not hear the echos of Locke. One can hear it in the writings of Jefferson, of Madison, of Paine, of Hamilton, of James Burgh.
This book is a sure and fair minded guide both to the historigraphical debate and to the period in question. Kramnick is to be congradulated on his modesty. Unlike many intellectuals, he seems to know that his ideas have limits and that others may be as good or better guides to some of the issues he discusses.
It is a shame that this book is out of print and only available as a used book. If you love this period of our history, if you are fascinated by the intersection of political philosophy, practical theory of governance, assertion of the primacy of individual liberty (usually by slave owners), the protection of class and property interests, by all the wild contradictions that this period offers, this book is for you. Read it alongside Woods, Adair, Pocock, Powers and all the others who are trying to lay out for us that wonderful and strange brew that is the history of those times.
p.s. I thought it might be useful to give y'all a Table of Contents:
Preface
1. Liberalism, the Middle Class and Republican Revisionism

Part One
Bourgeoise Radicalism and English Dissent
2. Religion and Radicalism: The Political Theory of Dissent
3. Joseph Priestley's Scientific Liberalism
4. Children's Literature and Bourgeoise Ideology
5. Tom Paine: Radical Liberal

Part Two
Republican Revisionism and Anglo-American Ideology
6. Republican Revisionism Revisited
7. James Burgh and "Opposition" Ideology in England and American
8. "The Great National Discussion": The Discourse of Politics in 1787.
9. "Then All the World Would Be Upside Down"

Index

This is actually a presentation on de Tocqueville's life and times, centered on a general analysis of Democracy in America, but including much background on his family's history, his political career and accomplishments and a look at the historical context of France, Europe and the US in the mid 19th Century. The themes of DiA are reviewed with many quotes from the book and from commentaries by de Tocqueville's contemporaries. He is presented in all his glory: his hits (the brilliant insights into social character, the nature of democracy and his devastatingly astute, timeless analysis of our American identity) and his misses (his advocacy of war and his surprisingly traditionalist views of society's class structure). An occasional cheesy French accent in some of the characterizations is the only flaw. This is a _great_ commute tape, I look forward to "reading" more in this series on other great writers!

Democracy in America by Alexis De Tocqueville is by far an in depth view of America as seen by the traveling Frenchman. It is written so well that even today almost one hundred and fifty years later it is still apropos.

The translation flows very easily and is not distracting. De Tocqueville has a wonderful writing style that could pass today even though it was written long ago... so well readable and quotable that you get the picture of American life, morals, and an astute view of politics all rolled into one.

You get a view and meaning of American civilization, for America herself, and also for Europe. You can tell from reading. that this view is ever-present in De Tocqueville's mind as if he is a comparative sociologist. Yet reading this book you get the impression that De Tocqueville had generations of readers in mind.

As De Tocqueville noted, "It is not force alone, but rather good laws, which make a new govenment secure. After the battle comes the lawgiver. The one destroys; the other builds up. Each has its function." So true even for todays war. After you defeat your enemy you have to build up the infratructure just as Marshall and Truman both realized.

Reading this book you see the skillful eye of the author noticing and recording what he sees and he is impressed. I found this book to be of great import for the observations of America and hope that our educators use this book for teaching our children about the great country we live in.

De Tocqueville is every bit as brilliant and insightful as he has been said to be. The book is as relevant now as when written and is a must read for every american who is serious about understanding his country. What one realizes in reading the book is how novel and radical was the american experiment in creating a state that was both a republic and a democracy. De Toqueville's research was amazing, as well, he read the laws and constitutions of the various states, he didn't just observe the manifestation of american government and society. His assessments of the plusses and minuses of our government forms was incredibly astute and it is interesting to reflect on the changes that took place in the government after his time and how accurately he foresaw the advantages and disadvantages of those changes, as well. Given the short period of time that he spent in this country and the distances that he travelled one stands in awe of his work. His writing style is, of course, dated but one gets accustomed to it and learns to follow the rhythm.

If you are going to read "The Federalist Papers," you must also read "The Anti-Federalist Papers" in order to get the complete picture. Both books cross-reference each other, and both are instrumental in understanding how our government was designed and how it was intended to work. In addition to the Papers, this edition also contains the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and an excellent introduction by Charles Kesler.

In a time when each colony had its own "constitution," the Federalists believed in creating one strong centralized government (with one Constitution) that could effectively represent the people. The authors and supporters of the Constitution knew that they could not afford to lose the vote in the state ratifying conventions. In an effort to win over his home state (New York), Alexander Hamilton, with the assistance of James Madison and John Jay, began a collection of 85 essays and published them under the pseudonym of "Publius" (named after one of the founders and heroes of the Roman republic, Publius Valerius Publicola). The Papers, published in 1787 and 1788, analyze and defend the proposed Constitution of the United States.

Obviously, the Federalists succeeded in winning the colonists' support. But even though the anti-federalists lost, their ideas were also brilliant and made an important contribution to the history of our government, which is why you should also read "The Anti-Federalist Papers."

This book is a must-read for all Americans. After reading this book, you will have a renewed appreciation and admiration for the wisdom and vision of our founding fathers.

If you are going to read "The Federalist Papers," you must also read "The Anti-Federalist Papers" in order to get the complete picture. Both books cross-reference each other and both are instrumental in understanding how our government was designed and how it was intended to work. In addition to the Papers, this edition also contains the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and an excellent introduction by Charles Kesler.

In a time when each colony had its own "constitution," the Federalists believed in creating one strong centralized government (with one Constitution) that could effectively represent the people. The authors and supporters of the Constitution knew that they could not afford to lose the vote in the state ratifying conventions. In an effort to win over his home state (New York), Alexander Hamilton, with the assistance of James Madison and John Jay, began a collection of 85 essays and published them under the pseudonym of "Publius" (named after one of the founders and heroes of the Roman republic, Publius Valerius Publicola). The Papers, published in 1787 and 1788, analyze and defend the proposed Constitution of the United States.

The Federalists succeeded in winning the colonists' support. But, even though the anti-federalists lost, their ideas were also brilliant and made an important contribution to the history of our government, which is why you should also read "The Anti-Federalist Papers."

This book is a must-read for all Americans. After reading this book, you will have a renewed appreciation and admiration for the wisdom and vision of our founding fathers.

I found this book to be one of the best books I ever read. Instead of giving a lay understanding of some of the arguments, I would like to note what I found exceptional about this book: the footnotes. The footnotes of this book gave detailed accounts of historical references made that shed much light on where the arguments were coming from. There is so much to be had from this book that I know I will read it at least five more times. Should be required reading by all Americans.

"Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices." This is just a sample of the wisdom of Thomas Paine in Common Sense. His vivid words and sound arguements make it clear why this pamphlet helped to ignite the revolution. He starts by discussing the general design of government and talking briefly about the English Constitution. The second chapter deals with how silly the whole concept of heredity succession is and how the monarchy has failed. It's reminiscent of Sir Thomas More's Utopia in that respect. Chapter three discusses America at the current time and chapter four is about America's ability to fight Britain at the time. The appendix refutes arguements in the king's speech, which reached America the day Common Sense came out. After reading this important piece of American literature I was ready to go out and fight the British. Thomas Paine's words still have that effect 224 years later.

This little book changed the world. This alone makes it worth reading, but I am always thrilled to read the wisdom of Thomas Paine. Essentially an argument that the concept of British rule over the colonies was irrational and immoral as well as a statement of conviction that at the time of the publication of the work America was ready to rise up against the Brits. Paine's writing is smooth and his logic is undeniable. Read this and understand what united the colonists and led to the achievement of the first nation to result from the great thinkers of the Enlightenment.

Thomas Paine's January 1776 pamphlet, "Common Sense," is one of those documents of American culture which goes all too frequently neglected these days. Paine's insistent call for independence from Great Britain in the winter before the Second Continental Congress was instrumental in mobilizing public opinion and popular support for political and economic freedom. Economics and social values form the basis of Paine's critique of the British presence in the American colonies, and he never loses sight of either his purpose or his rationale throughout the course of his argument. "Common Sense" follows a logical schematic - from a general philosophical explication of human government, to a critique of the current state of British government, to an analysis of the American situation particularly, and even includes a general plan for an independent American government following independence. "Common Sense" is remarkable for Paine's diagnosis of the American situation, Paine having been only 14 months in the colonies when it was published, and for its eloquence and exhortative value.

Paine begins by outlining human nature as he sees it. In a fascinating inversion of Thomas Hobbes, he notes that monarchy at the present time creates a situation wherein government is as effective as it would be if there were no government at all. The nearly anarchic state of nature defies the logical purpose of government. Paine says that people form societies naturally, and form governments only because human morality is not perfect. The end of government is to protect the right to property and religious freedom. Paine favours a representative democracy wherein there is frequent turn-over, and where the common interests of the people are consulted and catered to. Finally, he argues for the rule and sovereignty of law against the arbitrary and absurd rule of kings and men.

He contrasts this with the British model, in which government seems only to serve the interests of the King and the aristocracy. Taxation, as a primary example, allows hereditary rulers, who are inherently removed from the interests of the industrious people they govern, to live off their subjects without contributing anything of substance to the society or the polis. Paine insists that the province of government is not to regulate the lives of the citizens; instead, it must create and protect an arena where free competition in the marketplace will allow people to pursue their own best interests. With a minimum of government, civil society, Paine believes, can administer itself. In one of his most clever lines, Paine says that if an American government can only see to the protection of its own economy and exports, it will flourish "and will always have a market while eating is the custom of Europe".

The impetus for "Common Sense" is the current of thought that suggested reconciliation with Britain is preferable to independence. In an American public sphere anxious about its relationship to Britain, Paine provides encouragement to debate and discussion with all the subtlety of a street-corner millennarian. Citing the inevitability of a split between the colonies and Britain, and emphasizing that the legacy of America is at stake in the choices of the present moment, Paine calls the drive to independence "the cause of all mankind". In persuasive and urgent, nearly prophetic language, Paine makes a case for the political, economic, and historical implications of American independence.

Of course, "Common Sense" is not without its problems. Paine's discussion of natural and artificial distinctions within society and government is problematic at its intersections with gender and race. Paine's strange thematic of government and prostitution reflects 18th century gender standards; and he never seems comfortable with the issues of African slavery in America or the 'problem' of Native Americans. In this context, it is easy to see, in Paine's assessment of whether independence should be pursued now or later, a prefigurement of the political and economic bases of the American Civil War. Isaac Kramnick's extensive and exhaustive introduction to this Penguin Classics edition of "Common Sense," though nearly 30 years old, sets Paine's achievement in firm and understandable contexts of its philosophical, historical, and biographical origins. An excellent edition of a work that every American, if not everyone, owes it to themselves to read.

One of the most common misperceptions about the United States is that it is a Christian nation. It is not. It never was, nor was it ever intended to be. American citizens have been spoonfed a false nostalgia for a "better time" when religion, specifically, Christianity, was the "center" of our government and home life: that has been the propaganda of "freedom of religion".

Early settlers were a despotic lot, intolerant and stringent in their views. Modern-day evangelists would not have been welcome in New England. Quakers were hanged for their beliefs. There was little freedom of anything, let alone religion.

This book gives a resounding answer to those who are fond of saying "the phrase 'separation of church and state' doesn't appear anywhere in the Constitution". Well, neither does "right to a fair and speedy trial", but it is part of the common lexicon and a sacred principle of our society.

If you've ever wondered what the truth really is about the first amendment and the role of religion in the founding of the United States, this book is an excellent place to start your search.

This book presents a well presented argument for the clear seperation of church and state in America. It draws from history, and touches upon some key moments in the development of our Constitution and the history and ideas that went into creating this purely secular document. This is presented against a backdrop that highlights the framers of the constitution and what they were intending.

This is a pretty unbiased book in the sense that it does not get into the debate over the value or truth of religion, only how it fits in to the American government through the Constitution.

In a day and age where most people's concept of history comes from the mouths of demagogues instead of from the truth, this book provides an enlightened perspective on a very important social issue.

One thing also you learn from this book - there is nothing being said today by the forces trying to make our country into a theocracy that hasn't been said before.

This book examines American History to discover the original intent of the First Amendment. America is not, nor has it ever been an instrument for religion. It was purposely founded on secular ideals to avoid the oppression which all to often plagued governments where church and state were not separated. The American form of government is founded on ideals which were formulated in the mind of man. This position is best summarized by President John Adams who wrote: "Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses." [A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787]

For a political biography, THE RAGE OF EDMUND BURKE/ PORTRAIT OF AN AMBIVALENT CONSERVATIVE by Isaac Kramnick goes a long way into the psychology of social breakdown. Burke is remembered mainly as a conservative, old enough at the time of the French revolution to be appalled that anyone thought an attack which left the queen's bedchambers in Versailles full of mayhem and dead bodies could advance civilization. The revolutionary freedom which America is currently attempting to bring to foreign portions of the world by demonstrating air superiority might be considered as deranged as the situations examined in this book, which was published in 1977, when hardly anyone had reason to suppose that the form of freedom offered by American military conquest was similar to the acts of Medea conjured by Edmund Burke into a description of the nature of rebellion in his REFLECTIONS ON THE REVOLUTION IN FRANCE, quoted in this book as an instance in which "Burke might well have sensed the relationship between his own radical streak and his enduring hatred towards his father. Guiltily, however, he recoiled from the bloody horror and emphasized the loving and caring son. The good subject, he insisted,

should approach to the faults of the State as to the wounds of a father, with pious awe and trembling solicitude. By this wise prejudice we are taught to look with horror on those children of their country who are prompt rashly to hack that aged parent in pieces and put him into the kettle of magicians, in hopes that by their poisonous weeds and wild incantations they may regenerate the paternal constitution and renovate their father's life." (p. 64).

Other major figures mentioned in this book include Bedford, James Boswell, Charles James Fox, Warren Hastings, Tom Paine, Joseph Priestley, Rockingham, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Richard Shackleton, and Mary Wollstonecraft. The beginning of the book emphasizes the role that religious dissenters in England played "in scientific and political innovation." (p. 13). Joseph Priestly, "founder of the modern Unitarian movement," (p. 13) opposed the "Poor Laws, which for the bourgeoisie were one of the most onerous of the old order's interferences with economic liberty." (p. 14). In those exciting times, a mob "burned his laboratory and home in 1791, sending him to finish his days in dissenter's paradise--America." (p. 13).

Freud is mentioned well a few times in this book, showing that it is possible to take a modern view of times that were shaking the foundation of everything that was not America. People who are used to the pampered civilized existence which Americans of today expect others to worship even as they experience extreme forms of chaos might learn a few things that provide a better perspective for understanding Freud than the middle class version of conservatism provides. This book is interesting, if you can stick with it.

As Isaac Kramnick remarks in his introduction, there are many 'schools' of political thought and one should ideally start at their beginnings. Libertarian? Locke. Communism? Marx. Anarchism? Proudhorn?....No. Godwin. This is the first book that I know of to advocate a society without a state. Unfortunately, the reasoning is too bizzarre to be practical and unfortunately for Godwin, time disproved most of this books contents.

Godwin's view of human nature is wrong. His view of the determinism (the nature around us is determined, so we have to be.) is immature. He mauls the definitions of 'voluntary' and 'involuntary' action beyond recognition. The good part, honestly, was his critique on existing governments. Very astute, unless you consider that Montesquieu made identical observations several years befor Godwin was born. Still, if you've not read or don't want to read Montesquieu, Godwin's is a forcefully stated, action-packed polemic.

His view of a stateless society based on a jejune faith in honesty of all people everywhere is extremely naive and one wonders why Godwin, who doesn't have faith in government or the ruled people (yes, even in democracies) could have faith in peoples capacities for honesty and the self-government that it entails.

Alas, I gave this two stars because of it's originality, it's contributions to anarchism (a movement that produces an adequate thinker from time to time) and most importantly, as an historically interesting contrast to Rousseau and Montesquieu who predated this book and Proudhorn, Goldman and even Marx who followed it.