It's a book review but it's a review of a book Americans should read.

This is about a book describing the opinions of the author. I quote from the article: “The subordinate task of managed democracy is to keep the citizenry preoccupied with peripheral and/or private conditions of human life so that they fail to focus on the widespread corruption and betrayal of the public trust.” That sounds rather accurate to me. The rest of the article was also rational and worth the one’s time.

What I find most interesting about the book reviewed in this article is the concept of "inverted totaliarianism" -- in other words, the art honed by Bush et al of making it seem like they are practicing democracy, when they are not.

The review presents a provocative and insightful view from the book. The presentation only gets weak when it finishes like an American movie, with a hopeful happy prognosis of living happily ever after some time bye and bye when things might get fixed. I would recommend the review for a quick read, and think the book could be quite worth reading.

This opinion piece has minimal journalistic merit. It is largely copied from a book. The author of the book is promoting his far-out views, that bear no relationship to reality. Historians will give him an F for ignorance of what happened under past wartime Presidents, such as Lincoln, Wilson and FDR. He knows little of American constitutional history and thus makes a series of false statements. The author of the blog post should at least have been asked to point out the errors in the book.