What is remarkable is how little has changed in the conservative and liberal positions since Aristotle. Some of it reads like it came from a recent blog.

My interest in finishing reading this classic is to provide some context for my discussion of the polis and the oikos in the second and, hopefully soon, first published edition of my book "Popular Capitalism". The treatment of the oikos was superficial and none of analysis applied to the polis was used in a deeper analysis of the oikos. Federation and empire were also treated superficially as the polis writ large. The political analysis, or what passes for it today, of the liberal and conservative adopt the same superficiality resulting in their error of making no distinctions between the levels of government, nor between individuals, families, households and corporations as "private" entities.

On the other hand, Aristotle's analysis of education as a preparation for one's role in the polis is accurate and, though limited to the single role of citizenship and omitting the crucial mechanism of the examination, is an excellent basis for an analysis encompassing the merit examinations for civil service advocated by Carl Schurz, academia and vocational training.

Most of the book is devoted to the study of constitutions and directed toward goals from his book on Ethics with the emphasis of the Socratic school on seeking the morally "good" or "best" of everything. Though I find no merit in morality, I can see where this study could afford an excellent introduction to comparative political science, including the effect of philosophical bias on those studies.