Don't Vote, it Just Encourages the Bastards

by P.J. O'Rourke

“[A] merciless but often humorous look at the shortcomings of American politics” by the #1 New York Times–bestselling author of Parliament of Whores (Booklist).  Don’t It Just Encourages the Bastards is a brilliant, disturbing, hilarious, and sobering look at why politics and politicians are a necessary evil—but only just barely necessary. Read P. J. O’Rourke on the pathetic nature of our attempts to govern ourselves and laugh through your tears or—what the hell—just laugh.   “Whether readers agree with O’Rourke’s politics or not, his style is funny, cutting, and insightful.” —Booklist   “P. J. O’Rourke is like S. J. Perelman on acid.” —Christopher Buckley   “The funniest writer in America.” —The Wall Street Journal

Genres: Politics, Humor, Nonfiction, Comedy, Satire, History, Sociology

305 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 2010

About the author

Patrick Jake "P. J." O'Rourke is an American political satirist, journalist, writer, and author. O'Rourke is the H. L. Mencken Research Fellow at the Cato Institute and is a regular correspondent for The Atlantic Monthly, The American Spectator, and The Weekly Standard, and frequent panelist on National Public Radio's game show Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!. Since 2011 O'Rourke has been a columnist at The Daily Beast. In the United Kingdom, he is known as the face of a long-running series of television advertisements for British Airways in the 1990s.

He is the author of 20 books, of which his latest, The Baby Boom: How It Got That Way (And It Wasn’t My Fault) (And I’ll Never Do It Again), was released January 2014. This was preceded on September 21, 2010, by Don't Vote! – It Just Encourages the Bastards, and on September 1, 2009, Driving Like Crazy with a reprint edition published on May 11, 2010. According to a 60 Minutes profile, he is also the most quoted living man in The Penguin Dictionary of Modern Humorous Quotations.

Reviews

[Emma · Rating 2 out of 5]

Reading political things is either just making yourself feel good about what you already believe or an exercise in increasing blood pressure. So I've decided.

"...terrorism is not... just a product of left-wing politics and its offshoot fascism." (p 181)

"Gun ownership is crucial to the preservation of American freedoms. We may have to shoot Democrats. It happened in 1861 and it could happen again." (p 165) (Note that this book was published slightly before the political shooting of Congresswoman Giffords in Tucson, Arizona.)

So if you think analogies taken really far are hilarious, and the quotes above amuse or comfort you, you might actually like this book. I did not. My brief foray into reading political books ends now.

Read my full review at my book review blog: Em and Emm Expound on Exposition.

[Jim · Rating 4 out of 5]

There is no political essayist that makes me laugh more than P.J. O'Rourke. In the most recent collection of pieces culled from columns and speeches, O'Rourke beats the conservative drum over the head of liberals in general, Obama in particular and Republicans for screwing up the opportunities leading up to the sub-prime fiasco and the current economic and governmental travesty. I cannot recall any book I've read where the footnotes made me howl-out-loud laugh. This one does.

[Barry Parham · Rating 4 out of 5]

Brilliant. And, as with everything by Mr. O'Rourke, such fun to read. Every page offers something to quote or, better yet, to steal. For example:

[Concerning the federal bailout]
"The message that the U.S. government sent to the broke banks and beggared financial institutions was this: 'Don't you ever do this again or we'll give you more money.'"

[on taxes]
"The government makes off with [an increasing chunk] of our goods and services. Then the government gives those goods and services back to us. (In a slightly altered form, the way a horse gives the hay we feed it back to us in a slightly altered form.)"

[Douglas Wilson · Rating 3 out of 5]

He has moments here of glorious lucidity, and I enjoyed the whole thing enough to read all the way through. But O'Rourke is missing a step or two these days.

[John Wiswell · Rating 1 out of 5]

This was my first exposure to O’Rourke in longer form than a column or talk show appearance. In the future, I’ll stick to newspapers and TV. There you receive a few hundred words targeted on a subject of the day, and in the televised case, delivered to you by someone with personable charisma to help moderate the dreary outlook. In a full book it clots up into cynical monotony.

You could argue that it's two-tone rather than monotone. There's the fake sincerity of the setup, then the half-sober sarcasm of the dismissal. Whether it’s within one paragraph, or spanning several pages on a topic, the book breaks down to one general gag. You get:

“I have a twelve-year-old daughter, Muffin. All I hear is, “It’s not fair! It’s not fair! It’s not fair!””

And then:

“I say to her, “Honey, you’re cute. That’s not fair. You’re smart. That’s not fair. You were born in the United States of America. That’s not fair. Darling, you had better get down on your knees and pray to God that things don’t start getting fair for you.””

And sometimes it’s funny. The above anecdote is cute. “Nearly half of all Americans with a vote have used it in past elections, often with tragic results” is inspired. But page after page of:

“We can desocialize some other aspects of government but there are limits.”

and then:

“It’s hard to imagine the advantage of competing networks of private sewer pipes.”

In person you’d beg him to stop. To please use a different formula, or at least lighten up. To take this copy of the book in trade for an hour’s witty conversation, because you just know this guy would be better in person. And if you’ve seen him on a talk show, you know he is. And done live he would never pull the late-book analogy of “the family of nations,” which can’t go six words without explaining to you what it’s satirizing.

The redundancy of humor is compounded by his material’s age. Mocking Hillary Clinton for crying on the campaign trail was tired in 2010. Debating whether Nancy Pelosi is worse than Dick Cheney? With Pelosi out of the Speaker’s position, who cares? And so chiding Obama over re-election will likewise be rusty in another year or two. It’s the problem with all topical humor. It ages terribly, and the better topical humor of the day is the most specific, which necessarily ages even faster than vaguely topical humor. You're better suited watching The Daily Show, Colbert Report, your favorite topical stand-up comedian - or finding O'Rourke's own latest column.

O’Rourke aims for a little immortality by chiding bringing up world history and core concepts behind modern debates. So Obama gets beat up for liberal spending, and then the greats of economics are dragged in. Charlemagne and Karl Marx get theirs. But in the same style of, “Here’s this serious thing, and here’s me knocking it down all sour-like,” it doesn’t last much better than mocking a Joe Biden gaff.

[Richard · Rating 4 out of 5]

As has been noted in other places, this rant of P.J. O'Rourke's is not as entertaining as Parliament of Whores, but I think it is indicative of a change in his reporting position: When he wrote Parliament of Whores, he was still working in Washington and had regular contact with politicians and policy wonks of all types - you'll never find a better (or more infuriating) look at federal bureaucracy than his chapter on the Department of Transportation. In Don't Vote, a lot of it is just P.J. ruminating on things that aggravate him. While his aggravation is amusing to read, it's not quite the entertaining/educating work of a journalist.

My only other gripe is that a number of pieces are reprints of various op-eds he produced for other sources. This has the effect of making the book slightly disjointed as we switch from topic to topic without a whole lot of rhyme or reason.

All that being said, P.J. O'Rourke is still an immensely talented writer with a talent for metaphor that makes seemingly complex concepts understandable. I say "seemingly" because what I think P.J. really does is strip away complex verbiage that the powers-what-is use to make simple concepts (zero-sum, the effects of government investment) seem too complex for the plebeians. Even at a distance, his nose for B.S. is still very keen and makes for entertaining reading.

[Terry Cornell · Rating 3 out of 5]

Although this book was published in 2010, the title is very appropriate for today's political train wreck. I would give this book a three and a half star rating. O'Rourke's writing style is an interesting mix of humor, very serious analysis of political theory, and on occasion a vocabulary that forces me to reach for the dictionary. Perhaps my biggest observation is that over the last six years none of the political issues mentioned in 'Don't Vote' have been fixed. The economy is still on life support, terrorism around the world is getting worse, health care costs are rising more than ever, our taxes are never enough to please the pols, etc. This part is my own take after reading: The triple threat of the ruling class continually pile it on the rest of us. If you think there's much difference between the Republican elite, the Democratic elite and most of mainstream media you're probably part of the problem.

[Andrea · Rating 2 out of 5]

Occasionally funny, frequently lame. Full of boring ad-hominem nonsense (which may be satisfying if you really hate, say, Joe Biden) and straw men. I can't imagine this speaking to anyone who actually analyzes arguments rather than just automatically nodding bobble-heads.

[Sara Goldenberg · Rating 2 out of 5]

it was probably funnier when it was first written

[Marina Fontaine · Rating 3 out of 5]

P.J. O'Rourke is my favorite humor/satire writer, and I absolutely loved his earlier works, so I suppose my expectations were too high going in. My hopes rose high in the beginning of the book (kill/f--k/marry is just as sharp and hilarious as I remember P.J. being). There is also a lot of very interesting and useful information, from history of this county's founding to a great explanation of why US infant mortality rates are higher than in Europe (the answer will break your heart). Towards the last 1/3, though, it gets less funny as well as less accurate. When he blames "conservatives" for subprime mortgages, No Child Left Behind and over-spending, I'm not sure if he wants to establish his credibility as being "impartial" or if he's just really that misinformed. By the time he gets to making fun of Limbaugh's drug addiction, there's nothing to do but hope that section of the audiobook will be over soon. What I felt was almost an embarrassment for someone I really like and respect (and paid $100 to hear live at a Cato Institute speech). I've heard from others he's been getting mellow after having kids at a late age. Maybe that's it. Sigh.

[Vilde · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is very cleverly written and at times laugh-out-loud-on-public-transport funny. Couldn't disagree more with his views, but still an extremely enjoyable read. Although, twenty-three jabs at Bill Clinton's infidelity might be at least twenty-two too many.

Part three, which starts with the chapter "Why I'm right", is gruesome and makes me feel guilty for having laughed at his previous jokes. However, I did laugh, so the book still deserves a high rating. Unfortunately.

[Sidharth Vardhan · Rating 2 out of 5]

The book is good as an introduction to American Political scene with great humor even if you don't agree with author and he seems to know that most issues are open to debate.The trouble is writer seems to get carried too far away with his jokes at times.If you want the beat of writer you must read his commentary on 'Wealth of Nations'

[Melissa McShane · Rating 3 out of 5]

I like his travel writing better, and a lot of this is recycled from other books. Most interesting to me was his account of his journey from one end of the political spectrum to another; I find stories of how people change their lives fascinating.

[Martin · Rating 4 out of 5]

O’Rourke is a conservative with a brain, readable across the political spectrum and the integrity and quality of this book is far better than the Beck and Palin types

[Brian · Rating 3 out of 5]

Worth reading if you are "hall monitor" for TAKS testing week - otherwise PJ has a lot better books out there.

[Paul Sand · Rating 4 out of 5]

[Imported automatically from my blog. Some formatting there may not have translated here.]

A new book by New Hampshire's own P. J. O'Rourke means that I have one more thing to stick on my Christmas list. And it worked. It is, of course, quite good. P. J. looks at the current American political scene, and is discouraged. It would be an excellent introductory Political Science text for high schoolers, were it not for the filthy language and advocacy of drinking and cigar smoking. Politics is a broad field, and the book is wide ranging. Some might say rambling and unfocused, but I prefer "wide ranging."

It's tempting to just type in a few quotes from the book. And I will succumb to the temptation. Here's P. J. on health care reform:

What part of the cost of medical treatment is supposed to get reformed? The cost, or our cost? Somehow, in the mouths of politicians, it's always both. The quality of health care will increase, the quantity of health care will increase, the number of people receiving health care will increase, and therefore health care will cost less. […]

Something doesn't add up. Politicians are telling me that I can smoke, drink, gain two hundred pounds, then win an iron man triathalon at age ninety-five.

Something doesn't add up. Politicians are telling me that I can smoke, drink, gain two hundred pounds, then win an iron man triathalon at age ninety-five.

On Citizen's United, the Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance:

President Obama called the Supreme Court ruling "a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies…" At which point he seemed to run out of kinds of corporations that Americans are ticked at. "…and other powerful interests," he said. Surely, if the president had thought for a moment, he would have added, "…those people who call in the middle of dinner and want you to switch cell phone services."

Climate change? It's the shortest chapter in the book, one page, and here it is in its entirety:

There's not a goddamn thing you can do about it. Maybe climate change is a threat, and maybe climate change has been tarted up by climatologists trolling for research grant cash. It doesn't matter. There are 1.3 billion people in China, and they all want a Buick. Actually, if you go more than a mile or two outside China's big cities, the wants are more basic. People want a hot plate and a piece of methane-emitting cow to cook on it. They want a carbon-belching moped, and some CO2-disgorging heat in their houses in the winter. And air-conditioning wouldn't be considered an imposition, if you've ever been to China in the summer.

Now, I want you to dress yourself in sturdy clothing and arm yourself however you like—a stiff shot of gin would be my recommendation—and I want you to go tell 1.3 billion Chinese they can never have a Buick.

Then, assuming the Sierra Club helicopter has rescued you in time, I want you to go tell a billion people in India the same thing.

Now, I want you to dress yourself in sturdy clothing and arm yourself however you like—a stiff shot of gin would be my recommendation—and I want you to go tell 1.3 billion Chinese they can never have a Buick.

Then, assuming the Sierra Club helicopter has rescued you in time, I want you to go tell a billion people in India the same thing.

A few pages in the penultimate chapter involve an interview with then-Senator John E. Sununu; I predict a lot of my fellow Granite Staters will read this with intense pangs of sadness. Why did John E. first run for Congress?

When then New Hampshire House seat came open," he said, "I looked at the other people who had announced. I came to the conclusion that if I didn't run, New Hampshire would be represented by another trial lawyer."

Well, at least we had him in there for awhile. P. J. notes what came next:

The Democrat who defeated John Sununu in 2008, former New Hampshire governor Jeanne Shaheen, is not a trial lawyer—her husband is. Shaheen is a product of the only institution capable of making our lives more miserable than the law courts. She is a schoolteacher.

You probably won't agree with everything P. J. has to say—I didn't—but you'll have a good time figuring out why not.

[Jon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Somewhere in my online travels, I ran across a mention of P.J. O'Rourke's book, and thought it sounded interesting. I've never read anything by him before, but I think I might have to make a habit of it. O'Rourke has been a journalist covering politics for many years, and his take on things in this book is savage, biting, and often spot-on.

You may need to turn off your obscenity meter while you're reading it, as it's about as irreverent as anything I've read since Rape of the A*P*E*, by Allan Sherman, about the sexual revolution and its aftermath. Politics is a dirty game, and O'Rourke doesn't seem to mind getting down and talking dirty.

You can't take all of it too seriously, as the author doesn't, and has some pithy commentare about statement by the founding fathers, such as "Tom Paine...exhorted us to 'receive the fugitive and prepare in time an asylum for mankind.' Calling America an asylum may have been a poor choice of words, or not." He has some great sarcastic bits, like "Science is deterministic and its special needs stepsister social science is not." Special needs stepsister? Is that a politically incorrect image for you, or what?

You'll forgive me if I continue to highlight some great quotes from the book.

"Freedom of speech is important - if you have anything to say. I've checked the Internet; nobody does."

He quotes Adam Smith, in a speech, "Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice." How many countries around the world can say that they've enjoyed long periods of all three? Does it make you think about the plight of third world nations a little differently. I don't know a whole lot about taxes in Somalia, but peace and justice left that place to go on world tour a long long time ago.

Speaking of irreverence, he puts a little different slant on some events from Exodus (the biblical version, not Leon Uris') when he's talking about committees. "Moses goes to a business conference with God and the next thing you know, 'the people gathered themselves together' And someone says, 'All in favor of worshipping a golden calf...'"

We've all heard our kids whine at some point about how "things aren't fair" right? O'Rourke replies to his daughter, "Honey, you're cute. That's not fair. You're smart. That's not fair. You were born in the United States of America. That's not fair. Darling, you have better get down on your knees and pray to God that things don't start getting fair for you."

O'Rourke seems to have a pretty libertarian slant on things, and he tears into politicians from both major parties. The general idea is that we, the people, have allowed the government train to run out of control for far too long, and it's going to take a massive effort to stop it from rolling right over the top of us, our rights, and our freedoms. The book bogs down a bit towards the end, as I think, like most of us, O'Rourke doesn't really know how to stop this thing, but he's hoping that working together, we all can.

[Mary Karpel-Jergic · Rating 4 out of 5]

I often don't agree with PJ O'Rouke (e.g. "when I'm faced with political-economy conundrums, I fall back on a few works filled with common sense: The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek") so I have to give him a high score because normally I read things that are agreeable to me. It is his style that grabs me in his writing. He makes comments, funny comments, but with grains of truth (according to PJ) embedded in them. Great Quotes ("Science is deterministic and its special needs stepsister social science is more so"). Alternative perspectives. Actually, I probably need to admit that as I get older I find myself disagreeing less.

Naturally, as he is an American his context is US politics. The American foundation is the pursuit of happiness. He understands this may be problematic for me as there is "No talk of happiness in England's Magna Carta." Some aspects I just don't get and some of the current affairs get out of date real quick, but this aside, I'm happy to go along with his thinking for a while.

Love his discussion around the baby boomers and the social security bill that that this presents. "We the generation of generations - triumphant in our multitudes, invincible, indomitable, insufferable - have come into our inheritance. Hereby we claim our birthright. Give us all your money.

The pittance that is a current Social Security payment was intended to maintain the decrepit retirees of yore in their accustomed condition of tin gruel and single-car garages. Such chump change will hardly suffice for today's vigorous sexagenarians intent on (among other things)vigorous sex in places like Paris, St. Barts, and Phuket. How can current Social Security allotments be expected to fund our skydiving, bungee jumping, hang gliding, and white water rafting, our skiing, golf, and scuba excursions, our photo safaris to Africa, bike tours of Tuscany, and sojourns at Indian ashrams, our tennis clinics, spa treatments, gym memberships, personal fitness training, and cosmetic surgery, our luxury cruises to the Galapagos and Antarctica, the vacation homes in Hilton Head and Vail, the lap pools, Jacuzzis, and clay courts being built thereat and the his and hers Harley-Davidsons?

He swings a sarcastic aside to liberal environmentalists: "Banning paper AND plastic and making shoppers carry their groceries home in their mouths like dogs is just the thing to make a little tin humanist in the West Wing feel like the admiral of the Mongolian navy." But this is from someone who believes that the true test of government intervention in life is what would annoy the most people the most often!

"Politics can't save us. Politics is the idea that society's ills can be cured politically. This is a cookbook where the recipe for everything is to fry it. The fruit cocktail is fried. The salad is fried. So is the ice cream and the cake. Your bottle of cabernet sauvignon is rolled in breadcrumbs and dunked in the deep-fat fryer. Hence our big, fat political ass."

[Suzanne · Rating 2 out of 5]

As we are in the midst of a Presidential election and the campaign mud-slinging is in full force, I was in the mood for some humor injected into the political realm. I was first introduced to P.J. O’Rourke while working for his lecture agency, and for years I have enjoyed reading his books and columns.

Don’t Vote is a collection of chapters dealing with the issues of the 2010 election and O’Rourke’s leanings have changed slightly from libertarian to leaning Republican. Some of the chapters are rehashes of previous columns altering the means to make his points. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don’t. It’s not his best work, but there were times when I truly appreciated his humor. He talks about becoming a father and how his anything goes political stances of the past have changed now that he has children.

“I have lost all my First Amendment principles about rap songs lyrics. I am infuriated by them. Because I cannot understand a word that hip-hop musicians say. For all I know what’s spewing out of their mouths is ‘We need a single-payer national health care system,’ or ‘Home mortgage interest tax deductions subsidize the urban sprawl, increase the burden on transportation infrastructure, and lead to greater production of greenhouse gases.’”

Thanks for the comic relief, P.J. We could all use a little of that while we’re dodging campaign telephone calls!

[Jimyanni · Rating 2 out of 5]

P.J. O'Rourke makes a point of being politically an ass; often, in spite of this fact, he manages to be accurate in his observations and funny as hell (Parliament of Whores, Holidays In Hell, Give War A Chance). In other books, he manages to be, on balance, pretty funny even though he's an ass (Republican Party Reptile, CEO of the Sofa, Bachelor Home Companion). In at least one book, he fails utterly to be even slightly humorous and is simply nasty (Enemies List). And in some others, he is only sporadically funny while generally managing to only be annoying (Modern Manners, Age & Guile Beat Youth and a Bad Haircut). This book falls into that last group. He has some good lines, occasionally evinces a chuckle even from someone totally in opposition to his political attitude like me, but mostly is just irritating. In his defense, a late chapter in the book (where the right went wrong) admits that even those who he supposedly agrees with fail gloriously to rate a positive score from his scorecard, but it's hardly enough to salvage a book that spends far too much time assuming that the reader agrees with him on the despicable nature of all Democratic politicians. If you DO agree with him on that, I'm sure that you'll find him far less annoying than I do, but I'm not sure whether you'll find him amusing or entertaining anyway; maybe yes, maybe no.

[R. · Rating 3 out of 5]

I've been a fan of P.J.'s work, whether or not I agreed with what he was saying, since, well, since a long time, okay? And I have to admit it: he's not the writer he once was. This may not be entirely a bad thing, but...

Don't Vote... has some thought put into it, no question. Indeed, as he admits himself, a lot of that thought went into previous works, making this one in many places a sort of culmination of where he's been these few decades. And in several places, this has taken him somewhere important and timely -- late in the book, he lambasts the current "conservatives" for their, well, lack of conservatism. I found that refreshing. On the other hand, in many other places, he's... well, clearly I've been avoiding saying it. He's not really as funny as he once was. He's grown, well, conservative. Heh.

Truthfully, it's a good book. But it's not a great book, like Parliament of Whores; it comes off tired where Parliament was angry, and smugly witty where Parliament was edgy and hilarious. There's nothing wrong with a good book. I like good books. But I would've liked a great book more.

[Laura · Rating 3 out of 5]

I enjoy P.J. O'Rourke although I often don't agree with things he says. He's intelligent and usually quite funny. I didn't think this book was as good as some of the others. I liked Parliament of Whores better. When P.J. is on a roll he's very funny, mostly entertaining but sometimes just flat and redundant. Worth the read but this one left me feeling that it should have been better. The biggest problem is that I like his shorter writings (Rolling Stone, National Lampoon, Vanity Fair, etc.) much more. They're a bit more to the point.

P.J. seems crankier and more sarcastic these days with a healthy helping of pessimism tossed in the mix. I would like more of the humorist to re-emerge, for he's outstanding when he's on target. Still even liberals will find something to think about in his books. He has the feel of a conservative, libertarian, right-leaning, republican while retaining the friendly, aging, stoner uncle who's often smarter than the others at the table but certainly more amusing.

I do recommend this book, it's a good read and far more people friendly than many conservative writers out there.

[Richard Barnes · Rating 3 out of 5]

A bit too full of ranting opinion without being pinned to harder reporting. O'Rourke's better books (such as "All the Trouble in the world" or "Eat the Rich") contain plenty of right-leaning rhetoric but it's backed up by real experience.

Too much of this book is less focused anti-liberal ranting - O'Rourke fails to skewer Obamacare or make any meaningful critique of climate warming (perhaps because there isn't a meaningful critique).

He hits his stride best though, where he turns his bile on the Right - holding up the Conservatives' track record for their dismal failure to curb the excesses of Government and stand up for the people that they claim to be standing up for. Similarly he brilliantly tears apart the likes of Fox News for missing the point of conservatism and simply stoking the flames that polarise.

O'Rourke still provides a sensible, sharp (and downright funny) and well written right-leaning view - it's just that he's done so much better elsewhere.

[Nina · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was hoping for something Dave Barry-ish but was disappointed. This was disjointed, rambling, and full of parenthetical asides where the author was trying too hard to be clever. Political and economic analysis by an English major? It was written in 2010, so I'd like to know now what this right-wing nut-job would think of his paragraph: "Donald Trump for example. Every property he touches seems to go to hell. "Fat cat' would be the wrong epithet for Trump. If someone other than the paroled former Enron accountants were keeping his books, he'd probably be shown to have a net worth less than that of your twenty-pound tabby who just shredded the drapes." I mean, I agree with that, but it was funny to have this author write it!

[Jeremy · Rating 5 out of 5]

I LOVES me some P.J. O'Rourke! When I was wading through the bog that is, essentially, the retarded worldview of academia, P.J saved me with great books like Parliament of Whores, All the Trouble in the World, Eat the Rich, Peace Kills, etc. Sick of the whole political mess we are going through? Listen to this bit of wisdom: "If there's something we want, politics shouldn't be our first resort. Politics is all taking, no making. Whatever politics provides for us will be obtained from other people. Those people won't love us." Additionally, O'Rourke unknowingly sides with President Uchtdorf with his thesis on politics and envy. It is all about pride. Well done, P.J., well done!

[Andrew Fish · Rating 3 out of 5]

What is wrong with American politics and why do Americans let people do it to them? In one of O'Rourke's less structured books, he rambles through the American political system, sometimes philosophically, sometimes simply mockingly. Here and there he even talks about his own journey across the political spectrum - a topic which he covers with amusing frankness. O'Rourke is, as ever, unapologetic about his Republican leanings, but for an outsider like myself this only occasionally jars. For the most part the book is simply a witty and irreverent slice of political life. I look forward to his inevitable book about the Trump phenomenon in due course.

[Steve · Rating 3 out of 5]

Entertaining. I liked his set-up and then delivery, but I think his wit got in the way of the arguments. The book was published in 2010, so there's now almost 10 years of perspective. I especially liked his description of a politician, that fit current Trump perfectly, only to find out it is the Diagnostic Manual of Mental Disorders criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder. I also liked what he said about Trump, "Every property he touches seems to go to hell. "Fat Cat" would be the wrong epithet for Trump....He'd probably be shown to have a net worth less than that of your twenty-pound tabby who just shredded the drapes."

[Valissa · Rating 4 out of 5]

No one can be as wrong and as right, and hysterically funny, as right-wing P.J. O'Rourke.

One of my favorite quotes:
"What's important about morality in politics is us. We own the chicken farm. We must give our bird-brained, feather-headed politicians morals. Politicians love to think of themselves as "free-range" but they do not have the capacity to hunt or gather morals in the wild. If we fail to supply them with morality, politicians begin to act very scary in the barnyard. These are enormous headless chickens and they have nukes."

[Cumberland BlueDevil · Rating 4 out of 5]

True to form, is a fun read

You will truly love this if you are an unapologetic libertarian. You will like it (and relearn a few forgotten principles) if you are a Republican. You will most likely appreciate learning (about true conservatism) if you are a Democrat.

This is not to say the author is a high priest of some ideology with no warts. It is clear he is a right wing partisan with all the blindspots he is entitled to, but he also has a few life lessons we all would rather not forget. So it's a completely worth reading no matter who you are.

[Andy · Rating 3 out of 5]

O'Rourke has some very valid points about government in this book. His humor and views come from a conservative bias. The only thing that limited his score to a 3 rather than a 4, was the fact that I didn't get around to reading the book until 2020. This is almost 10 years after it was published. This is important as in many of his chapters he brings up political examples from that time or prior. As I was familiar with them his material could be relatable, however I might feel it to be a limitation on younger or those who grew up less politically aware.