Rarely Written Book Review

Book reviews tend to not get published when the reviewer is really not impressed. Read a poorly written book and you will usually forgo the pleasure of trashing it publicly. The cliché about even bad publicity being good is in play. Tell the world that a book really stinks and people will be attracted to it as surely as they stop on the freeway to gape at a fender-bender. Even if you do write a scathing review, there’s a highly probable chance that the editor will dump it. People read book reviews for recommendations, that’s why good reviews predominate. Bad book reviews don’t go to press.

When the author is famous, the likelihood of a good review of a bad book is pretty high. When the author is a former president of the United States, the sales of the book are a virtual certainty. The advance is usually very big bucks and the editorial assistance to make the work readable is self-evident. One need only recall the incredible contract numbers for the weighty memoir of our most recent ex-president—the impeached one. That’s why it is so unusual to read what the Wall Street Journal wrote about Jimmy Carter’s recent scribbling. This is trashing of an incredible level. You don’t have to read between any lines or fill in any subtle connotations on your own. Take a look: Prez Jimmah Takes a WSJ Beating

Bret Stephens does a job on this one. He dismantles the title, takes issue with the premise, destroys the thesis and totally discredits Mr. Carter by clearly listing some historic facts. From Carter’s embrace of reprehensible dictators around the world to his misguided acceptance of Marxist economics, the review builds a pretty clear case for the foolishness and ineptitude of our arguably least successful 20th Century president.

I recall the tenure of Mr. Carter. I was in the military at the time and serving in Europe. The dollar was in serious decline against the local currency and each month as I exchanged dollars for Deutschmarks to pay my rent the cost was going up. The pain was multiplied by the fact that Mr. Carter chose simultaneously to either freeze our pay or offer only partial cost-of-living increases for three of his four years in office. If you were around then and of bill paying age, you might recall the inflation rate rising to over 20% and mortgage interest rates peaking at over 18%. All the while, Carter was lamenting a malaise in America. Yeah, it’s pretty hard to get enthusiastic when you can’t afford to maintain your standard of living while defending your country around the world.

However, it was his foreign policy that was the worst aspect. The partnerships with folks like Arafat, Kim Il Sung, Ceausescu and the admiration for their policies that WSJ editor Stephens describes are frightening, but indicative of the skewed world view that seems to permeate the idealists of the political left. The major international disaster of his administration, of course, was the collapse of the Shah of Iran and the seizing of the US Embassy in Teheran. The hostage-taking and the rise of the Islamic fundamentalist movement in the region might well be accepted as contributing to the Jihadist mentality that now fuels the terrorist campaign.

I’ve never read a book review that so thoroughly discredits a work by a major public figure. Yet, I think that the WSJ and Mr. Stephens have performed a valuable service for the nation by clearly delineating what Carter says in his book and why his thinking is so off track. Might be good to keep this around for a quick reread when the next presidential election comes around. It could help you decide whether to go with a one-world liberal or not.

Oh, and if you want to see what the Journal had to say about another book, take a look at: Combat and Courage: A Review by Dan Ford