This collection of six essays reveals why so many people not only feared communism, but were right to do so. From a variety of nations and perspectives, the authors recount the events that led to their involvement with, and eventual break from, "The Party." At times chilling, always fascinating, this short series of works is an important philosophical milestone in the (ongoing) fight against communism.

Anyone who is a fan of George Orwell or P.J. O'Rourke should enjoy this collection of essays from intellectuals who made the journey to communism and back. Arthur Koestler's (sp?) essay captures perfectly the confusion of Weimar Germany before the rise of Hitler, and shows that the communists actually helped the Nazis to power. You will come away from the book wondering how some intelligent people believed - and still believe - that communism was the way of the future. If there is a book that will turn a diehard leftist into a subscriber to the "National Review", TGTF is that book.

These individuals believed the party line whole heartedly. This is an emotional, intellectual, spiritual, and physical committment and possesses the initiate. Novices are enamored with the power of the idealogy and master practitioners wield that power ruthlessly. Emergence of an individual from said idealogy usually renders said person 'washed out.'

This tape is a must for every serious student of political science. BLUNTLY, the disturbing fact is that this tape reveals how an intellectual leftist insider could not "leave it all behind". Mr. Podhoretz trys to convince the listener that he has turned his back on his liberal past...but has he? After listening to this tape one must ask if a former liberal can EVER become a true conservative! Can he ever know what real conservatism is? Or are socialism and other leftist ideas so engrained that it still spills forth! Mr. Podhoretz did not accept conservatism as he found it. This tape demonstrates that he set out to CHANGE conservatism into a Global new-age construct more suitable to his thought process and background. Thus the fallacy of neo-conservatism is born. Just because it is wraped in intellectual language does not make it correct or in keeping with the long history of traditional conservatism. This tape answers the question of why most traditional and social conservatives feel uncomfortable with the liberal's "step child", NEO-CONSERVATISM!

Mr. Buckley is an excellent writer and a spiritual man with a conservative point of view. In this book he takes several of his writer-colleagues to task for alleged anti-Semitic sentiments expressed in anti-Israeli discourse. In doing so, he attempts to delineate a careful distinction between being critical to another country's policies (namely Israel's) and using such legitimate criticism as a means of promoting bigoted ideas. This is an important subject burdened by a lot of emotion, and Buckley makes every effort to be fair.

Yet through his careful editing, the book is drained of the passion the subject deserves. Expect your mind to be challenged but your heart unmoved by this book.

I have to admit up front that I haven't read this book, only summaries online (some by fans and some by critics), but a major shortcoming of the book is already evident.

Like Harold Bloom in his "Book of J," Pohoretz has apparently ventured into a highly technical field without the necessary expertise. His analysis is evidently based on traditional notions about the historical context of the texts he's interpreting, notions that would not regarded as accurate by the consensus of specialists in the field. In essence, his analysis starts with bad data, so it doesn't seem likely that his conclusions will tell us about who the Prophets were so much as about who Norman Podhoretz is.

While I agree with Podhoretz that the content of the prophetic texts has been appropriated in anachronistic ways since they were written (by later ancient Isrealite and Judean editors and interpreters as much as by modern Jews, Christians, and secularists), that minimal insight by itself is no more than a commonplace among actual scholars of Ancient Near Eastern texts.

I have been reading the writings of Norman Podhoretz for about twenty years and find him consistently rewarding. This book, which seems meant for the general reading public, is no different. Though I do not have the technical expertise to evaluate his elucidation of the prophets, this book provided a perspective that was very helpful to me. It will give my reading of the books of the Old Testament a remewed focus of interest. His concluding chapter is particularly well written, well reasoned and enlightening, even prophetic. He might have spoken louder.

I have read Norman Podhoretz for about twenty years and always find his writing rewarding. This book was no different. Though I cannot judge the technical accuracy of his interpretation of the prophets, it helped me put the Old Testament into a much more living perspective, and I found his conclusion chapter so well written and so enlightening, even prophetic.

At the very beginning of the book, the author promises to "argue vigourously" in favour of conservatism. Thus enthused, I jumped right in, and read, and read, and read, and then I quit reading, and I skimmed, and went back and forth in search of anything that could be characterized as "argument" - and I found nothing. What I did find was words, words, words, a gushy, mind-numbing profusion of words, a blast of blabbering vacuity, name dropping and name calling, incantations galore. But not a trace of argument. In defence of conservatism, that? Lord, save us from our friends...

Perhaps the absolutely fundamental neoconservative idea was the need to reassert American
nationalism or patriotism or "Americanism" or "American exceptionalism": the idea that American
society, however flawed, is not only essentially good but somehow morally superior to other
societies.

[This idea] is especially associated with immigration. The future neoconservatives mostly came
from relatively recent immigrant stock. It is arguable, though certainly unproven, that such people
in America feel a stronger need than those of longer American lineage to display their credentials
as Americans; or rather, that those whose families came over on the Mayflower feel that there is
nothing incompatible between deep patriotism and a propensity to shout about what needs to be
changed.
-The World Turned Right Side Up : A History of the Conservative Ascendancy in America
(1996) (Godfrey Hodgson)

Boy, Godfrey Hodgson really hits the nail on the head there. Norman Podhoretz's book, My Love
Affair With America, is basically a protracted attempt to suggest that he loves America more than any
of his former rivals on the Left, or current rivals on the Right. Podhoretz famously broke ranks with
the intellectual New York set in the 1970's, having determined that their anti-Americanism, most
ostentatiously displayed during the Vietnam War, neither jibed with his own life experiences--the
meteoric rise of a poor Jewish child of immigrants to respected writer status--nor was compatible with
the need to maintain a militarily strong and assertive America, to stand as a final guarantor of an
embattled Israel's continued existence. He has an easy time rewinning his old battle with the radical
counterculture (though he's unable to resist the compulsion to claim credit for having created that
counterculture in the first place). Their anti-Americanism is a result of their genuine opposition to
freedom, which is America's organizing principle. They do not wish to perfect America, but to
destroy it and remake it in an image of their utopian (or dystopian) fantasies. Podhoretz gives them
yet another well-deserved drubbing.

But then he takes on the modern Right, and here he founders badly :

In the mid-1990s there unexpectedly came an outburst of anti-Americanism even among some of
the very conservatives I thought had been permanently immunized against it...I was already pushing
seventy, and it made me a little tired to think of going back into combat over a phenomenon that I
had fondly imagined I would never have to deal with again, and certainly not on the Right

The anti-Americanism he's talking about is the harsh, but loving, cultural criticism of Bill Bennett and
Robert Bork, and the tentative suggestions on the Religious Right that the Supreme Court may have so
far departed from the Constitution in its decisions on social issues, specifically abortion and
Church/State issues, that it is no longer a legitimate institution. Podhoretz is horrified by these trends
and seeks to read them out of the Conservative movement, but they were there long before him and
will remain long after.

The problem for Podhoretz, and for neoconservatism in general, is the absence of a core political
philosophy. The Left believes that the central duty of government is to guarantee equality of
outcomes among the citizenry and that government is capable of solving social problems and
effectively running the economy. Classic Conservatism is structured around a countervailing belief in
freedom, which necessitates a very limited government, but strong social institutions, and, though it
requires equality of opportunity, accepts that the resulting outcomes will be very different.
Neoconservatism is really only interested in supporting Israel and opposing quotas, it's largely agnostic
on the other issues and has no firm view of the proper role of government generally. On social issues,
a natural distrust of Christian conservatism and the fact that neoconservatism arose in the urban milieu,
combine to create a willingness to countenance big government, and the need for a massive military
requires big government. On the other hand, if equality is enforced by the state, it will work to the
detriment of groups, like Jews, who are disproportionately successful, so there's a reluctance to trust
government too far. This naked self-interest is certainly legitimate, but it's hardly a coherent political
philosophy.

That Podhoretz is only marginally conservative becomes clear from the fact that he almost completely
ignores the question of the size and role of government, from his dismissal of objections to the 1964
Civil Rights Act, from his failure to discuss, except in passing, the free market economic philosophy
of folks like Milton Friedman and F. A. Hayek, and from his failure to comprehend why abortion is
such a salient issue on the Right. Even more revealing is his thinly disguised contempt for the
conservative intellectuals of the first half of the century, who either go unmentioned (Albert Jay Nock,
for example) or are dismissed as cranks (like the Agrarians--Allen Tate, Robert Penn Warren, etc.).
He seems to think that conservatism was born in the 1950s, only became a significant political
movement in the post Vietnam era (not coincidentally, just after he joined it) and consists of little
more than nationalism.

Were that true, were conservatism nothing more than a blind patriotism, of recent vintage, then he
would be right to criticize cultural conservatives for questioning the moral climate of the country and
the direction in which it is heading. But conservatism, even American conservatism, antedates
America. And conservatism has endured precisely because it offers such a powerful critique of
America. In Albert Jay Nock's great book, Memoirs of a Superfluous Man, he says the following :

Burke touches [the] matter of patriotism with a searching phrase. 'For us to love our country,' he
said, 'our country ought to be lovely.' I have sometimes thought that here may be the rock on
which Western civilization will finally shatter itself. Economism can build a society which is rich,
prosperous, powerful, even one which has a reasonably wide diffusion of material well-being. It
can not build one which is lovely, one which has savour and depth, and which exercises the
irresistible attraction that loveliness wields. Perhaps by the time economism has run its course the
society it has built may be tired of itself, bored by its own hideousness, and may despairingly
consent to annihilation, aware that it is too ugly to be let live any longer.

By economism, Nock means a kind of unfettered materialism or consumerism. These lines, prophetic
anyway, seem even more prescient in light of the events of September 11th. There is a palpable sense
in America's continuing discussion of the events that the America that died on September 11th
deserved to die (though the victims certainly did not), that it was too self-centered, too trivial, too
degenerate. People have now judged the America of the 1990s, which Podhoretz is here defending
against conservative critics, and, as W. H. Auden said of an earlier time, they have determined it to be
"a low dishonest decade."

In the final pages of the book Podhoretz offers a dayyenu, a list of each of the things that would have
been sufficient for us to owe America a debt of gratitude. After a brief, and platitudinous, generic list,
including such things as "domestic tranquillity" (which one is tempted to point out that China too
enjoys), he gets to his real reasons for feeling patriotic, and they are all about the success he's made of
himself : "...America...sent me to a great university..."; "...America handed me a magazine of my own
to run..."; "...America saw to it that I would live in an apartment in Manhattan..."; "...America
arranged for me to build a country house...". It's utterly vacuous and truly appalling.

Freedom is vital to everything that America stands for. It makes possible the kind of rags to riches
story that Podhoretz has lived. But it is not enough. Conservatives demand freedom, but also believe
that our country "ought to be lovely." This loveliness consists mostly of an adherence to the eternal
values of the Judeo-Christian tradition, of which, as Nock says, we are unworthy inheritors. And right
there is another key element, humility. Conservatives realize that our inheritance is too precious to
experiment with willy-nilly and so seek to conserve as much as can possibly be conserved of that
tradition. Paraphrasing Nock (one last time, I promise), who borrowed a phrase from Lord Falkland :

What it is not necessary to

Norman Podhoretz' billet-doux to the country who has given him so much is an enthralling read occasionally marred by desultory digressions.

Like all long lasting marriages, this love affair went through periods of turbulence, but even when he felt instances of temptation, he was true to his citizenship and never gave into infidelity. Such inveterate loyalty did not extend to his politics. Once an avowed liberal, "Commentary's" long time editor maturated into as the subtitle declares "a cheerful conservative." Still, his devotion to his homeland remained steadfast regardless of where he was on the political scale. One of the salient disillusionments he found with liberalism was the ignominious tendency to badmouth America. Acts of such betrayal outraged Mr. Podhoretz and no doubt gave increased impetus to his propitiation toward conservatism.

This love letter warns of a similar concern more recently seen from the right, but this is one area where the supporting evidence is weak. Except for the discussion of a controversial seminar and a handful of other morsels, this charge remains rather unsubstantiated. Certainly, nothing is given that equates to the sixties radicals offering vainglorious aid and comfort to the Vietcong.

It should also be noted that Mr. Podheretz wisely does not see justified, severe criticism of the government as a lack of faithfulness to the nation. He was one of the many eclectic movers and shakers (ranging from Clinton/Gore cheerleaders Alan Dershowitz and Lawrence Tribe to conservative icons William Bennett and incoming Secretary of Labor Linda Chavez) who gracefully signed the brilliant syndicated ad urging the supine congress to take some action against Clinton, Reno, and company for the savage incursion and kidnapping perpetrated on the noble Gonzales family that infamous Easter weekend. Despite the natural umbrage he felt by this execrable breach committed by her opprobrious government, his allegiance to his beloved America was not diminished.

In this zeitgeist where patriotism and fidelity are routinely belittled, this tale of mutual honor and approbation stands as an example to be emulated.

The book is interesting in that it deals with famous members of mid-century intelligencia, but it also explores the nuances of political thought happening among members of the left in that time period. Also interesting is the fact that Podhoretz had his falling out with people sometimes for reasons other than his right-wing conversion in the 1970s and 1980s.

The book is quite good at explaining the subtle differences in opinion among left-wing American intellectuals of the time. Almost everyone had trifled with Communism or fellow travelerism, but out of that start grew many different points of view that Norman and his Ex-Friends would argue about again and again. Being philosophical writers, they would tend to explore many different avenues from one another. It's a wonder that any two writers remain life-long friends.

I grew less interested in these characters as the book progressed though. The pattern gave me the "heard it once, heard it a thousand times" feeling. By Hannah Arendt, I was tired from a long journey. But not because Mr. Podhoretz isn't a fine writer, he most certainly is. Only, I'll be ready for another subject matter from him next time around.

Norman Podheretz, editor of COMMENTARY for 30 years, presents us with a must-read book of war stories about problematic celebrity friends of his.

Poderhetz's crystal clear writing is a pleasure to read, and so especially are the explanations he provides about the writings and thinking of the subjects he describes in EX-FRIENDS: Falling Out With Allen Ginsberg, Lionel and Diana Trilling, Lillian Hellman, Hannah Arendt, and Norman Mailer.

The author's writing is welcome because these folks are not always easy to understand.

For instance, Poderetz explains that Norman Mailer thought that the social revolution of the 1960's would succeed because its advocates gained incredible strength by giving into ALL of their impulses as much as possible. The inhibited opponents of that revolution, Mailer opines, couldn't and didn't compete in the "giving into their impulses" dept. and so didn't do as well. Mailer cites Richard Nixon as an example of too much inhibition. That will shut people who thought Nixon was "too emotional."

I always wondered what Norman Mailer was talking about when I used to see him on talk shows like THE MERV GRIFFIN SHOW, but it took Podheretz to explain it to me!

I always wondered when Allen Ginsburg stated he "saw the best minds of his generation destroyed by madness," exactly which minds he was referring to. Poderhetz doesn't get into that, but his Allen Ginsberg section is also worth reading.

It's hard to be an editor. H.L. Mencken was editor of the AMERICAN MERCURY in the 1920's and early 1930's, he, too, ran into a lot grief from prima donna writers of great talent but short fuses.

Hooray for Norman Podheretz. A writer and a good man.

Born in 1930, Norman Podhoretz was one of the youngest members of New York's legendary "The Family". This group of intellectuals was extremely influential in literature, art, philosophy, and politics.

Mr. Podhoretz has written several books which cover most of the fascinating occurrences and turns in his life. EX-FRIENDS deals with some of the famous people he broke with as his beliefs evolved while events in the 20th century turned old political labels and beliefs upside down.

Superb writing by the author makes what could have been a dry, self-serving book into a riveting, easy to follow page-turner. Not at all what one would expect from an "intellectual".

The comment of the previous reviewer that to "refute Podhoretz is self-refuting" because it reveals an "anti-American bias" is quite indicative of the Nazi/Stalinist nature of the argument here as well as the intellectual totalitarianism of Poddy's followers and groupies. Even by his own exceptionally low standards of reason and intellect, this book amounts to pretty shoddy Poddy. It tells us nothing new or meaningful about the nature of the war, the issues involved or who fought in it (a hint: it wasn't Poddy's children or relatives or any of his his fellow literary parasites sunning in the Hamptons or holding literary soirees on the Upper East Side of Manhattan); rather it is another episode in his ongoing psychodrama combatting the"Anti-American Left", i.e those in the publishing and literary worlds who no longer invite him to their party's, seeing him as the tiresome self-centered blowhard that he so clearly is.

Like Guenter Lewy's "America in Vietnam" and "Stolen Valor" by B.G. Burkett, it is a definitive piece of work on the subject of Vietnam. Also, it gives great justifications as to exactly why we went there in the first place.

I don't have a whole lot to say other than the fact that the arguments are based on Sound Scholarship, and to refute Norman Podhoretz is nothing but self-refuting since it would come from anti-american bias.

I don't know how to emphasis the importance of reading this book.