Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics

by Reinhold Niebuhr, Robin W. Lovin (Introduction), Langdon Brown Gilkey (Introduction)

3.99 of 5 stars 3.99 · rating details · 349 ratings · 35 reviews

"Moral Man and Immoral Society" is Reinhold Niebuhr's important early study in ethics and politics. Forthright and realistic, it discusses the inevitability of social conflict, the brutal behavior of human collectives of every sort, the inability of rationalists and social scientists to even imagine the realities of collective power, and, ultimately, how individual moralit...more

Paperback, 284 pages

Published January 1st 2002 by Westminster John Knox Press (first published 1932)

more details... edit details

Get a copy:

More…

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

Politics

33rd out of 180 books — 108 voters

Celebration of Discipline by Richard J. Foster

"Christianity Today" Books of the 20th Century

17th out of 99 books — 27 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

(showing 1-30 of 924)

filter | sort: default (?) | rating details

May 03, 2012 Chris rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

What Niebuhr is selling* with this bad boy from 1932: It pains me to have to say this, but it's Cluebat time for all you arm-linked and well-intentioned but tunnel-of-love-visioned LOLcat lightweights, awash in pacifist dreams and tiptoeing about waiting for the Kingdom of God to answer all of your pinned-and-needled hopes. That happy realm lies in the occluded future; the present is anointed in Original Sin. It's a dark, hard, cold world, the more so as we lose ourselves within the collective—a...more

like 7 likes · see review

Feb 02, 2008 Conor Williams rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: pragmatism

The following is part of my writeup on Moral Man and Immoral Society from my undergraduate thesis on John Dewey:

In Moral Man and Immoral Society, Niebuhr claims that Dewey underestimates the place of coercion and violence in human interactions. Niebuhr doubted that the social sciences could follow the natural sciences through experimentalism, since they were tied so carefully to various biases and predilections. From his perspective, interest-free social science was an oxymoron.

In his 1932 e...more The following is part of my writeup on Moral Man and Immoral Society from my undergraduate thesis on John Dewey:

In Moral Man and Immoral Society, Niebuhr claims that Dewey underestimates the place of coercion and violence in human interactions. Niebuhr doubted that the social sciences could follow the natural sciences through experimentalism, since they were tied so carefully to various biases and predilections. From his perspective, interest-free social science was an oxymoron.

In his 1932 exploration of political virtue, Moral Man and Immoral Society, Reinhold Niebuhr took direct aim at Dewey’s identification of individual morality as socially determined. As a progressive pastor concerned with the brutality of pure laissez-faire capitalism, Niebuhr shared Dewey’s desire for change, but disagreed rather dramatically as far as which means were necessary and appropriate to bring it about. He possessed the flair for rhetoric and youth that Dewey lacked, and more importantly, adopted a very Marxist approach to capitalism and democracy. Above all, Niebuhr maintained that power was an essential element of effective political progress. He did not share Dewey’s qualms with the threat and actual use of violence, a position which Dewey largely adopted after his difficult experience supporting World War I. Diggins goes so far as to suggest that Dewey’s rather vitriolic responses to Randolph Bourne during World War I resemble Niebuhr’s challenges in Moral Man and Immoral Society as far as their intellectual content is concerned. What leads Niebuhr to accept violence so readily? How does he determine that politics is bound to force and power? To treat Niebuhr’s arguments carefully, a discussion of his ethical philosophy is in order.
At the base of his treatment of power is Niebuhr’s skepticism concerning human compassion. As the title Moral Man and Immoral Society suggests, he distinguishes between the morality of individuals and that of groups:
Individual men may be moral in the sense that they are able to consider interests other than their own in determining problems of conduct, and are capable, on occasion, of preferring the advantages of others to their own. They are endowed by nature with a measure of sympathy and consideration for their kind…Their rational faculty prompts them to a sense of justice…But all these achievements are more difficult, if not impossible, for human societies and social groups (xi).

Indeed, Niebuhr identifies a tension in human groups between reason and interest. While in individuals, reason is frequently capable of restraining passions, emotions, and impulses, there does not exist any similar force in social life (xii).
(less)

like 2 likes · see review

May 14, 2013 Darian G. rated it 4 of 5 stars

“Moral Man and Immoral Society”, by Reinhold Neibhur, was published during the years of the Great Depression. In this work, Reinhold asserts the requirement of politics in the fight for social justice because of the depravity of human nature, that is, the arrogance of human beings. Neibur sees the flaws of the mind when it comes to solving social injustice by moral and wise means, “since reason is always the servant of interest in a social situation”. This is his judgment of liberal Christian do...more

like · see review

Dec 12, 2012 Mikey B. rated it 4 of 5 stars

There were some good points raised in this book – but for the most part I find the style overly verbose - an overuse of words. I agree with the main prognosis of the individual (good) arrayed against society (conformist – evil). There are a lot of obvious statements – like society being resistant to change.

I feel the proletariat is romanticized – who will be their leader – to be a leader one must raise above the proletariat level. In Hitler’s rise to power he was supported by all levels of socie...more

like · see review

Oct 18, 2009 Walter rated it 5 of 5 stars

This is Niebuhr at his finest (though most dense and packed with stream-of-consciousness). Insights into human nature, society, the influences on our choices from moral, ethical, spiritual, religious, political, economic and social perspectives, etc., are plentiful. The prose is tough - and, in truth, at points, impenetrable - but ultimately the cost is worth it to access so many critical guidelines for more effective individual and collective living.

Among the incredibly abundant piercing insigh...more This is Niebuhr at his finest (though most dense and packed with stream-of-consciousness). Insights into human nature, society, the influences on our choices from moral, ethical, spiritual, religious, political, economic and social perspectives, etc., are plentiful. The prose is tough - and, in truth, at points, impenetrable - but ultimately the cost is worth it to access so many critical guidelines for more effective individual and collective living.

Among the incredibly abundant piercing insights are the observations that individual and collective ultimate goals are different (the former favoring unselfishness, the latter justice) so that society is not simply an aggregation of individual interests; that even moral aims may require coercion and other means that are not themselves generally considered moral; that economically-driven class interests are most often disguised in political and social processes; that the privileged tend to favor the preservation of the status quo and its attendant "peace" over the agitations of the less fortunate who have greater exposure to injustice; and that the American Negro may need to use Gandhi-like non-violent strategies in order to effectuate a change in his social, et. al., condition. (With respect to this last suggestion, remember that it was written in between the World Wars in 1932, anticipating the American Civil Rights movement - led by Gandhi devotee Martin Luther King - by a generation!?!)

Suffice it to say that the incredibly prescient observations are legion, but there are a few misguided conclusions, too. Among them are his suggestion that because socialism more closely aligns with the ultimate collective goal of justice (especially when demonstrated by providing equality of opportunity to all) it is the preferable economic system (though he does acknowledge its limitations due to difference between the theory thereof and the practical reality of what humans actually do in the attempt to bring it into being). Also, there are some sentences whose prose is so dense and obtuse that they are mystifyingly impenetrable. For example, in a section - actually a single paragraph that encompasses two and a third pages - on the topic of the religious sense of the absolute, Niebuhr shares this gem of a sentence:

"Whether the religious sublimation of the will-to-live mitigates the sharpness of the conflict between the will-to-power of individuals on the historic level, by lifting the energy of life to a higher level and beguiling the soul to seek ultimate satisfactions in a tranhistorical and supramundane world, is a difficult question to answer." After reading it over a half-dozen times, trying vainly to relate it to what precedes it and what comes after, I could only think of and paraphrase the classic 70s sitcom Different Strokes in trying to describe this sentence: "What you talking about, Neibuhr?"

Other than a few of the above head-shakers, though, this is a deep and deeply affecting and insightful book, well worth the considerable effort required to identify and digest its contibutions. I recommend it highly, but not for light reading.... :-)

Also, I will note that though he is considered one of if not the imminent American theologian of the 20th century, this is not actually a work of theology as much as one of social theory (broadly defined) and critique. As such, then, I would argue that the theologian label limits Niebuhr and the appreciation for the true scope of his contributions.(less)

like 4 likes · see review

Feb 22, 2009 Brett rated it 3 of 5 stars

A worthy read from the perspective of its influence, not from the perspective of pleasure (it long and difficult). Even though most people have never heard his name, it is difficult to overestimate how much impact this man's political/ethical theory has influenced American thought and policy. His basic thesis is that in spite of whatever moral achievement can be accomplished in an individual life or intimate relationships, it is impossible when it comes to human collectives/societies. The collec...more

like · see review

Aug 11, 2011 Isai rated it 4 of 5 stars

I loved H. Richard Niebuhr's "Christ and Culture," so I decided to pick up this book written by his brother. Reinhold Niebuhr taught for many years at Union Theological Seminary in New York in the areas of ethics, theology, and political philosophy. The ethics and the political aspects are front and center as seen by the subtitle of the work. However, the theological aspect is kept to a minimum only appearing in glimpses by means of "religion," "Christianity," as well as other words. Nevertheles...more

like · see review

May 05, 2011 Michael rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: non-fiction

A great book, but one you'll want to dig into for long stretches as it's pretty dense (every other sentence seems like a premise for another book). My primary takeaway is that governments are incapable of behaving on moral parity with individuals, and that they should not, and that looking to them to do so is a futile endeavor that misses the point of effective government.

Current events and what they've revealed about our own expectations regarding how our government should react and behave indi...more

like · see review

Apr 13, 2009 Adrian Colesberry rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

A difficult book but essential reading for anyone wanting to engage in the conversation about how to effect improvement in the human condition. He judges society and any corporate body to be patently incapable of making moral decisions. In light of recent events, I don't know that any American today would disagree with him.
It's also nice to be reminded of a time when religious thinkers had nuanced intellectual positions. I'm sure these thinkers exist today, but the only opinions I hear from rel...more

like 3 likes · see review

Jul 13, 2010 Domonic is currently reading it

Shelves: philosophy, library

Can't recall where I saw the reference. Think it was Russell maybe. But it was certainly a glowing ref of a man to read, from an atheist.

He's certainy got several axes to grind, but he grinds them pretty well. Seems to start out in his intro as a strident Marxist, but settles down into a more measured axe grinders tone later on.

His main thesis is that man is moral at an individual level, but that the force of the crowd leads to immorality, to some degree. You don't have to agree with what he's s...more

like · see review

Feb 25, 2011 Tom rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: to-review

The final book in a series of theoretical readings I did at the beginning of this year. Niebuhr's thoughts on human moral behavior in groups was challenging both in style and content. Stylistically, the book is very dense, and contains long segments in which the author dwells on a certain idea that's somewhat tangential. Content-wise, the thesis of the book is that humans tend to act selfishly/immorally in groups when interacting with other groups, which contradicts my basic beliefs about human...more

like · see review

Dec 31, 2010 Chris rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: class-union, theology, lefty

"THERE ARE IDIOTS. Look around." --Larry Summers

Economics, in its standard formulation, assumes rational markets, built from a base of rational actors. Summers, though a sexist jerk, was absolutely right to question that assumption, at least for purposes of dealing with real markets. Which brings us to Niebuhr. Moral Man, his 1932 bombshell, assesses the place of ethics, reason, religion, and persuasion in human societies. Niebuhr is as forceful as Summers, somewhat less of a sexist jerk, and fo...more "THERE ARE IDIOTS. Look around." --Larry Summers

Economics, in its standard formulation, assumes rational markets, built from a base of rational actors. Summers, though a sexist jerk, was absolutely right to question that assumption, at least for purposes of dealing with real markets. Which brings us to Niebuhr. Moral Man, his 1932 bombshell, assesses the place of ethics, reason, religion, and persuasion in human societies. Niebuhr is as forceful as Summers, somewhat less of a sexist jerk, and focused on a broader sense of rationality; but the basic method is the same. He looks around, describes a universe of moral idiots, and dares you to argue otherwise.

Reading Niebuhr's first chapter, on the defining place of common interest in structuring social power, I was nagged by a persistent sense of familiarity. The source, in fact, wasn't hard to tell: I was hearing a voice much like Saul Alinsky's. The parallel is instructive. Alinsky was Niebuhr's younger contemporary. Both drew from a common stream of early-20th-c. American radicalism. Both cut their organizing teeth in the industrial Midwest (Niebuhr in Detroit in the '20s, Alinsky in Chicago in the '30s). Both spent their careers building movements around churches, student groups, unions, and government. Alinsky's progressive cred has held up much better than Niebuhr's, for good reason: Niebuhr never liked liberals much, in part because he thought they weren't serious about power.

Nevertheless, the book is essentially a critique of liberalism from within. Niebuhr's goal is the greatest level of social justice possible, understood especially as the raising up of the disenfranchised and downtrodden. The prevailing liberal dream in his time was that society would better itself as people became more educated, more open to one another's views, more spiritually aware. More reasonable. More sane. The pursuit of personal purity would never conflict with the struggle for a just society. Niebuhr shares liberal social goals entirely, but argues convincingly that only power moves power. Only an equitable sharing of power, gained by the most effective means, can move society toward proximate justice. The point isn't new-- Niebuhr sees it in, among other places, the Hebrew Bible-- but he makes it with pith and eloquence.

The book's major weakness is embedded in its title. This is a Man's book-- the perspective of an elite, White American. Niebuhr is so focused on correcting the sins of his primary audience-- White liberal self-regard and self-righteousness-- that he forgets the future neocons are listening too. He wants to attack the pacifist's sense of purity, so he downplays who's likeliest to suffer in war and revolution. It's not that he ignores the dispossessed: His first positive takeaway on Gandhi is suggesting that such tactics are obviously suitable to attacking segregation, which is something near prophetic. But this is still, all the way through, an intelligentsia's discussion of tactics. He could predict proletarian revolution, but I'm not aware he ever stood on a picket line.

Five stars, here, largely for the book's importance. As much as any, it founded the field of Christian social ethics, which sits somewhere between systematic theology, political theory, and old-fashioned muckraking. The theologians have never been comfortable with Niebuhr, for the same reasons politicians and activists (and some liberation theologians) have called him their favorite theologian. The post-liberal theologians of the Yale school and beyond aren't just reacting against Niebuhr, but in ethics especially, his priorities have structured their response more than most of them would care to admit. This book is where those priorities, of power and effectiveness and ethical realism, are most clearly stated. I have some profound disagreements with Niebuhr, but I can't ignore this book.(less)

like · see review

Jun 16, 2012 Trice rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: political-science, philosophy, bookaddicts2011challenge, 2012, ethics

The final chapter was focused on what I was hoping to read all along, looking at how we reconcile ethics with politics and idealism with realism, without ignoring either. The previous 9 chapters were certainly thought-provoking, however. It was interesting, too, to come across the completely unexpected reference to Moral Man, Immoral Society in Paulo Freire's and Miles Horton's spoken book, We Make the Road by Walking: Conversations on Education and Social Change. This put a lot of what Niebuhr...more The final chapter was focused on what I was hoping to read all along, looking at how we reconcile ethics with politics and idealism with realism, without ignoring either. The previous 9 chapters were certainly thought-provoking, however. It was interesting, too, to come across the completely unexpected reference to Moral Man, Immoral Society in Paulo Freire's and Miles Horton's spoken book, We Make the Road by Walking: Conversations on Education and Social Change. This put a lot of what Niebuhr was saying into a context that I wasn't previously thinking about. In Chapter 8, Niebuhr does go a bit into his thoughts on the situation of African Americans in the United States at the time, prior to the Civil Rights Movement. And there is a clear correspondence between what he was thinking about power relationships in a society that supposedly prided itself on equality and justice, and the way that Miles Horton went about building the Highlander Center as well as the way in which the Citizenship Schools developed. I should mention that Horton states in the above that he was sitting in Niebuhr’s class when the lectures were given upon which this book is based.

To the reading, some of his major points:

- That the evils of society come through the multiplication of the selfishness of its citizens when they are assembled into said society; hate to shout a slogan of pure naïveté, but here I kept thinking 'what about the multiplication of their capabilities for good?' His response to that would likely come from his contention that once we move beyond relations between individual human beings to the relation of multiple members of a society and/or the relations between groups in society, it is unlikely that people will look beyond their own group's needs and/or perspective, and it is potentially dangerous for them to do so as it permits the enaction or continuation of injustice against their own group.

- Many within democratic societies focus only on political equality and fail to realize the determining factors developing from economic inequality - that these factors have real effect on a person's ability to participate in society, on a person's choices in life, on a person’s real ability to advance their position in society. There may be exceptions, but if there is a large group who, by virtue of some or all of their group’s characteristics is unable to improve their living situation, this is a society functioning through injustice and this injustice should be righted. The counter argument to this is often along the lines of, ‘if you’re willing to work for it, you too can climb the ladder to success.’ This seems partially correct, but does not adequately address the clear splits in society that truly seem insurmountable for those at the bottom of the economic ladder. These splits are not only with regard to the ability to become the CEO of a multinational, but simply to be able to take care of one’s and one’s family’s basic needs when working 70-hour weeks.

- Everyone develops a blindness to the situation outside of their own socio-economic group and cannot see past that group’s own needs/desires/wants to those of other socio-economic groups. There is also a blindness that develops with regard to basic injustices that are part of the very fabric of a given societal structure – it is difficult to address these until circumstances become truly unbearable for those who suffer the injustice. At this point he addresses both violent/revolutionary and non-violent change - either through government or outside of it - to deal with these injustices.

I believe it was in the Horton/Freire book that they give him the title Christian Socialist, and I do see this, but there were many times when I wondered how thoroughly the ‘Christian’ label really fit. I am eager to read more of his writings to see how his thinking changed as he lived through WWII, Civil Rights, the Cold War, etc. Some of his thoughts and theories on politics and ethics were borne out by the events of the mid to late 20th century, while others were contradicted by events. He seems, however, like a thinker who faced his thoughts and uncertainties directly and honestly, and who would do likewise with errors in thought.(less)

like · see review

May 10, 2010 Peter Namtvedt rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: masochists

A Socialist’s Ruminations about Altruism

A Review of Reinhold Niebuhr's Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics, New York, Scribner’s, 1932. 277 pages, $11.95

Let me first briefly state what this book is about: liberals are mistaken in thinking that individuals and society behave in the same ways and that solutions to moral problems should be the same for both. You can learn a different view here from a Christian and Marxist perspective.

Background

Before getting into details a...more

like · see review

May 13, 2008 Craig rated it 4 of 5 stars

One of the most influencing books on my thought on human nature. I'm not sure the book itself can be considered one of the greats, but it spoke to me in a way that resonated with my way of thinking more than other more classic texts have. Both a Christian theologian and an intellectual fluent in classical philosophy, Niebuhr's elaboration on human nature and its interaction with society brought together many different ideas and opinions I myself had been grappling with for some time. It crushes...more

like · see review

Jun 05, 2012 John rated it 5 of 5 stars

There is a lot in this book, and much of it is hardheaded, cool, and practical. While certain themes are repeated throughout, it seemed like every page had some new and provocative insight that challenged preconceived notions (he criticizes Gandhi at one point, and fairly, I might add). And though the book seems dated, I thought its age allowed the reader to judge the accuracy of some of Niebuhr's claims about, what was then, the future. Even then, this book has lost none of its relevance.

like · see review

Apr 25, 2010 Bob Griffin rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: political

Read when I was in graduate school I have recently rediscovered this book and keep going back to it again and again because of the wisdom published in 1932 even before WWII. Many of these thoughts are so modern and applicable to the understanding of our present day world. Needs to be read again and again.

like · see review

May 23, 2009 Tyler rated it 5 of 5 stars

The copy I read was actually printed in 1932 and it was amazing to think about how little "the course of human relations" has changed in the past seventy years. While he does make odd references to then-contemporary political scandals, all in all the book is a real classic.

like · see review

Sep 18, 2010 peter rated it 5 of 5 stars

After a lifetime of devoted pacifism, this is the one book that has made me critically re-examine not just the practicality of my views but indeed their moral and ethical import.

like · see review

Nov 08, 2009 Ned rated it 5 of 5 stars

what's most worth noting is how powerfully predictive niebuhr's insights are with regards to the rest of the twentieth century.

like · see review

Jan 16, 2013 Christina "6 word reviewer" Lake added it

Individual morality cannot overcome social immorality.

like · see review

Jan 27, 2012 Curtis rated it 3 of 5 stars

Complete review here: http://curtisknowsnothing.blogspot.co...

like · see review

Mar 17, 2010 Lawrence is currently reading it

Book group book.

like · see review

Mar 22, 2013 pjr8888 rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Recommended to pjr8888 by: St Patrick's Seminary

Shelves: religion-spirituality, work-life, psychology

1960

like · see review

Dec 06, 2007 Toussi21 rated it 5 of 5 stars

It took me a year to finish this one. Any one who's ever questioned the role of the group in one's own personal idea of faith should definitely pick this up. Niebuhr has become my favorite theologian.

like · see review

Jul 22, 2008 mike rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Niebuhr criticizes the naivete of socialists & moralists. But because he such an infelicitous writer, his insights are difficult to separate from the chaff that burden this overly long essay.

like · see review

Jan 20, 2008 Andrew Brown rated it 4 of 5 stars

Anyone who wants to take pacifism seriously must first engage Reinhold Niebuhr. Purely classical text for understanding individual interaction with the structures of our society.

like · see review

Jun 18, 2011 Hadrian rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: nonfiction, philosophy, politics-and-foreign-policy, society-and-culture

Very interesting and skeptical view of individual vs. group morality, and would be very useful for one attempting to enact positive change in society.

like · see review

Jun 04, 2012 Charles rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: theology

Can't be the final word, but an important work for Mennonites to wrestle with. Really sets the stage to read either JL Burkholder or JoHo Yo

like · see review

Sep 06, 2008 Dan Patla rated it 5 of 5 stars

This book so far has been amazing! I love Niebuhr's interpretation of our socio-ideological quests for power. Intriguing to say the least

like · see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … 30 31 next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Be the first to start one »

Recommend it | Stats | Recent status updates

combine
Other Editions (9)

More editions...

Genres

Philosophy

30 users

Religion > Theology

23 users

Politics

17 users

Non Fiction

8 users

Religion

8 users

Politics > Political Science

5 users

Sociology

3 users

Academic > College

2 users

Religion > Christianity

2 users

Literature > 20th Century

2 users

See top shelves...

Readers also enjoyed similar books

About Reinhold Niebuhr

U.S. theologian. The son of an evangelical minister, he studied at Eden Theological Seminary and Yale Divinity School. He was ordained in the Evangelical Synod of North America in 1915 and served as pastor of Bethel Evangelical Church in Detroit, Mich., until 1928. His years in that industrial city made him a critic of capitalism and an advocate of socialism. From 1928 to 1960 he taught at New Yor...more

More about Reinhold Niebuhr...

Books by Reinhold Niebuhr

Leaves from the Notebook of a Tamed Cynic

The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness: A Vindication of Democracy and a Critique of its Traditional Defense (Scribner library)

The Essential Reinhold Niebuhr: Selected Essays and Addresses

More…

Share This Book

Facebook Twitter Your website

Trivia About Moral Man and Imm...

No trivia or quizzes yet. Add some now »

title link	preview: Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics
avg rating	preview: Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics Goodreads rating: 3.99 (349 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/55235.Moral_Man_and_Immoral_Society?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1348241646l/55235.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/55235.Moral_Man_and_Immoral_Society?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics by Reinhold Niebuhr[/url]

Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics

Friend Reviews

Community Reviews

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website