I started paying attention to politics in the early nineties when I was in high school and my dad began listening to Rush Limbaugh. And I noticed when these two (Matalin and Carville) got married. I've been vaguely curious about what their marriage must be like ever since, so when I noticed this book on the new non fiction shelf at the library I had to pick it up. It's an easy, guilty pleasure kind of read. If you're not interested in politics I don't think you'll be drawn to it, but if you are, then you're going to go back and forth between nodding your head in agreement and grinding your teeth in frustration, depending on which side of the political fence you're on.
I'll be up front and say that Matalin had me grinding my teeth. I appreciate the fact that she's more of a writer than Carville and she tries to paint a picture with her words, but some of her portions just . . .chagrin. She gushes, GUSHES about Dick Cheney. Ugggh. She adores Rush and Sarah Palin. Are you kidding me? She also deeply admires Bush senior, which I'm okay with. I really hated the section where she described her 9/11 experience. She goes on and on about what she was wearing that day and how she had these really high heels on and how she was with Cheney in the undisclosed location, wherever, I couldn't even stand to read it, after a while I had to skim. It made me sick, the way she seemed to relish the fact that she was at the heart of the action. It felt very disrespectful to me when so many people lost their lives that day. She seems like a ME monster a lot during this book, in fact.
And then, for Carville, I had always thought he was kind of a screwy person, just eccentric, and off, but I came away from this book liking him better. I mean he's looking outward at the world and people in it, and Matalin seems to be at the center of her world. So, it wasn't just that Matalin's politics bothered me, her personality irked me as well. Carville, I could relate to. I wanted more Carville and less Matalin. Unfortunately, his bits are small and hers go on and on.
Here are some insights he had that I agree with:
in reference to the Iraq war: "Most times, people do something because they actually think it's going to work out. Most times, they are not evil people trying to undermine America. Most times, there's not some underlying conspiracy or motive. In Iraq, it's true that there was war profiteering. It's true that there was a lot of oil there, which made it a strategically important place. But that doesn't mean those are the actual reasons we decided to go to war. We went to war because people in power actually believed it was a good idea. They were dead-ass wrong, but I don't doubt that they believed it. . .There's a great tendency to overestimate conspiracies and underestimate stupidity. Iraq is a perfect case study of that.
And by the way, stupidity is a really good reason to vote somebody out of office. If you're massively wrong about a massively big thing, it really doesn't matter much that your motives were pure and that it fit with your political philosophy. That all might be true. But you blew it, partner. Time to go. That's what the American people should have said to Bush after his first term."
A difference between conservatives (in general) and liberals (in general): "If I bragged to one of my liberal friends that I'd never listened to Rush Limbaugh or watched Fox News, or that I never read the Wall Street Journal editorial page, that would not be cool. The first question would be "Aren't you curious to see what they're saying over there?" Similarly, if you were at a liberal or progressive party and someone said something like that, the natural response would be "What are you afraid of?" I'll argue with certainty that liberals tend to read way more conservative literature than conservatives will ever read of liberal literature.
They view it as some sort of weakness to be exposed to another viewpoint, like you're going to be corrupted if you have to listen to other people's views. I do have a theory on this. I believe conservatives view their principles as the "Truth." There is a truth. They've figured it out. And it can't be diluted or questioned or compromised. But their "truth" so often turns out to be false.
Liberals are much more nuanced than that, sometimes painfully so. We can see six sides to the Pentagon. But that's preferable to being so dogmatic that you wear blinders. Like John Maynard Keynes said, "When the facts change, I change my mind."
On growing up in a small town and being part of a big family: "When you grow up rural, and your daddy runs the local country store, and you got all your brothers and sisters to play with, and you come from a big family with tons of aunts and uncles and cousins--there's not a lot to reject you out there. There's no doubt about who you're going to spend your free time with because you're surrounded by family. . . There was something to be said for having basically everything and everyone you knew exist in a twenty-mile radius. I loved my world as it existed, and I didn't know what I didn't know. Huck Finn was always running away, floating down the Mississippi trying to find freedom. I lived right here on the banks of the river and felt as free as any boy ever has."