jimbo1023's review against another edition

Go to review page

4.0

While I don't agree with most of the author's politics, this was still an interesting and thought-provoking book.
The book was published in 2014, and I read it in 2023. I'd be very curious to read a sequel after many of the isolationist sentiments he decried have only exacerbated since then.

nathan_sexten's review against another edition

Go to review page

4.0

A fantastic defense of interventionism in foreign policy and an argument against the neo-isolationism that has overtaken our times.

coulterdaniel's review against another edition

Go to review page

informative reflective sad tense medium-paced

4.0

antoinepham's review against another edition

Go to review page

3.0

This was quite an interesting read that illustrates a vehement stance against redistributing funds from international intervention to domestic programs. While I didn't have an issue with the author's tone of voice, I found the hypothetical "end of the world" scenario to fall short of the author's original intent (i.e. Pax Americana is wonderful and necessary). Correct me if I'm wrong, but foreign policy and intervention with respect to diplomacy were rarely explored. A discussion exploring the viability of increasing resources for diplomats should merit just as much attention as shifting to upgradable weapons. As one other user noted, using the broken windows theory as support for international policing should warrant caution for potentially racist methodologies. An overall interesting read though

momma_nilsen's review against another edition

Go to review page

2.0

Normally, as a rule, I'm not public about my political preferences (and I really hope this review doesn't reveal any of them in particularly). When I first started this book the introduction really put me off. The voice of the narrator was very pretentious and conceited. And I'll be even more honest, the guy just had a very bad way of illustrating a view I don't agree with. I do think, especially in political discourse, that you can have a difference of opinion as long as you have the evidence and language to back up your belief. To me, that is what this book sincerely lacked.

I originally found this book at the library because I began teaching a Civics class this semester and am doing a rather large unit on foreign policy. This book really did get the ball rolling and despite my disagreement with the author, there were some really interesting points made by the author. I just can't resonate with books where the author puts so much of their voice, their opinion into the narrative of the book. I really did feel like I got too much of Stephen's opinions and not much of the facts. In fact, after reading this I still don't understand why he believes we should be the world police, only that he strongly, strongly disagrees with Obama's current foreign policy plan (and never offers up a better one).

I mean, this is Bret Stephens' book so if he wants to put in his own political agenda into the novel than he can do it. But as far as its educational merit and how it can benefit someone trying to learn about our current foreign policy affairs, I just don't think it would cut it for my students.

Pop Sugar Challenge: A Political Memoir
More...