Summary: The Assault on Reason: Review and Analysis of Al Gores Book

The Assault on Reason by Al Gore

---

The fact is it is a two -way medium. It might be the weakest of two ways, but there are ways to communicate dissatisfaction with television. You can change the channel or simply turn it off. In fact, for the past two years, that's exactly what has been happening. It's true that FOX news is the most popular news channel and that it is making us all mindless drones.

The Observer Ethical Awards 2017: categories | Lucy Siegle

Gore's book correctly points out that most news has leaned to the right on most issues, but what he fails to add are two interesting nuggets about Fox's viewer ship - while it is the highest of all the networks, its audience is much smaller than even the third-place network 10 years ago. In fact, television viewer ship is at an all time low when compared to the past 25 years. That's a clear message from the people to TV saying "We hate what you are doing.

However, that's a minor complaint. My biggest complaint about this book is the middle of it. Gore repeatedly complains about the Bush administration and how it has manipulated the media. I dislike the Bush administration and do believe they are all treasonous hacks who should be imprisoned for life, but by harping on it constantly through a great portion of the book, Gore almost makes it seem like the Bush administration is solely responsible for all that is wrong with Democracy in America today. His book would have been better served if he also had used equal examples of how Democrats as well as the two houses of Congress and the Supreme Court as well as local governments have really manipulated the system or just dropped the ball.

Gore does not do this.

The Assault on Reason

He makes it sound like Bush's cronies have warped the entire system and that before Bush's appointment by the Supreme Court in , everything worked perfectly fine. Nothing could be further from the truth, in my humble opinion. The system of communications in Democracy was far out of whack before Bush even decided to run for president and I think I could argue that Bush has gotten away with a lot of crap over the years because the system was broken before he broke it even further.

While I respect Gore's opinions in this book and believe that his complaints have merit, he would have really put himself in a better light and made this a much better book if he had expressed some of that neutrality that he complains is missing from modern communications today. May 17, Jerzy rated it really liked it. This didn't turn out to be the book I was expecting, but I'm quite glad I read it. I think the biggest moment of insight for me came when I read these lines and of course all the context around them: But even more important is respect for our Constitution.

Many Republicans have denounced Bush-opposers as unpatriotic. Well now, folks, I agree it's important to respect our leaders, but NOT when they blatantly disrespect our Constitution the way the B This didn't turn out to be the book I was expecting, but I'm quite glad I read it. Well now, folks, I agree it's important to respect our leaders, but NOT when they blatantly disrespect our Constitution the way the Bush administration does.

Our leader is not what makes us America and ties us together--that would make us a monarchy. What makes America unique is our respect for the rule of law and our Constitution. Thus, failing to hold our leaders to the same law as everyone else is profoundly unpatriotic. Sadly, Gore cites a survey which "found that more than a third of respondents believed the executive branch has the final say on all issues and can overrule the legislative and judicial branches.

Barely half— percent-—believed that the president was required to follow a Supreme Court decision with which he disagreed. They think that's what the president is supposed to do. Checks and balances, people! If Congress passes a law outlawing torture, and the president disagrees with it which is in itself inexplicable but he knows Congress will overpower his veto, he needs either to build a compromise with Congress or just suck it up and stop torturing people.

The Observer Ethical Awards 2017: about | Lucy Siegle

That's how democracies operate. He shouldn't just sign it and then continue doing his own thing anyway! One day we'll look back on this administration as eight years of foreign rule. Bush et al are not Americans --they don't share our values or abide by our laws. Hopefully in we'll get a proper American president again who respectfully takes their place as one member of one branch of the government instead of pretending to be the entire government. So anyhow, this book turned out to be much more of a "here's the case against Bush" sort of deal than I expected, but Gore really does an excellent job of showing the havoc Bush is wreaking across the board.

I expected the book to focus on the question of why reason is so undervalued in politics lately. This is explored in more simplistic terms than I was hoping. Basically, Gore says that TV has become the major means of mass communication, but it's so expensive to own and operate a TV station that only rich conglomerates end up being able to transmit information outwards It's very very hard to get equal time for dissenting viewpoints on TV, and therefore very hard for dissenting viewpoints to be heard widely in general.

This is probably fairly true, and it's probably true too that the Internet will eventually help balance things out. I just wish this discussion had been meatier.

The book could have used more background about how things got this way, and a more detailed proposal for how to fix the problem. Jan 12, Andrew rated it liked it. This book was a very easy read, and as a pretty liberal individual, my views are very well in line with Al Gore's. I know there must be hundreds of anti-Bush books published by now, but if you just read this one, you should get a pretty good sense for the numerous abuses of this current administration.

The entire middle of the book is dedicated to this and eventually, I just wanted to browse through it sin This book was a very easy read, and as a pretty liberal individual, my views are very well in line with Al Gore's. The entire middle of the book is dedicated to this and eventually, I just wanted to browse through it since there were so many egregarious abuses of executive power. Reading about this pattern of abuses just got old. I was pretty well-informed on most of the evidence he cites, but his examples really drive the point home. One of Gore's main point is that America no longer has a well-informed electorate.

Since television is a "one-way communication", there is no forum for discussion. And since propagandists have figured out that the electorate is very responsive to 30 sec commercials on television, politicians spend a exhorbitant portion of their time fundraising to buy 30 second programming, instead of having lengthy, thorough debates.

See a Problem?

Gore, of course, offers hope that the internet will offer the two-way communication that will restore the public forum for debate. And with my excessive postings on facebook, blogging on the NYT, and this goodreads page, I think Gore is right. I only gave three stars because I did not receive too many new insights or paradigms of thinking from reading this book. Two new insights I did get were: Bush is perceived to be a dimwit by most citizens of the United States. But, Gore points out that he is really a smart, calculating individual who successfully misled the majority of Americans into believing that Saddam Hussein was somehow responsible for September He has also successfully hijacked religious doctrine to develop an international policy that suits the special interests that he and Cheney represent.

A few months ago, I was surprised to hear that Bush has only vetoed 3 bills in his 7 years in office 1 was federal funding for addition embryonic stem cell lines, 2 and 3 were expansions of SCHIP - the program providing healthcare to children. How does any President get through office with so few vetoes not even one per year?

He apparently does it through "signing statements". Signing statements "are written pronouncements that the president issues upon signing a bill into law. Bush could have vetoed the law, but COngress almost certainly would have overriden his veto. Instead, he signed the law but announced that he did not, and would not, have to abide by it. This helps to explain why Bush has vetoed only one bill [circa Why bother, if he can simply decide on his own whim which provisions of a law apply to him and which ones he will simply ignore.

Aug 16, Joshua rated it really liked it Shelves: It's a shame that the people who should read this book never will. Al Gore's critique of the current state of media, politics and democracy in America is thoughtful and thought provoking. His writing is methodical and intelligent, if slightly repetetive and not always clearly structured. The book points out Gore's perspective that our country has fallen into a slump of disinterested, uninformed decision-making. He says one of the major factors contributing to this state is the ubiquitous nature It's a shame that the people who should read this book never will.

He makes a compelling argument that even made me a self-proclaimed tv addict stop to think about the choices I make with my free time. Most of the book is an attack on the Bush administration - though I would not characterize it as partisan in the slightest.

Gore blames the Bush administration for its failings, not the Republican party. In fact, I don't think he ever attacks the Republican party - but he does place a good deal of blame at the feet of the newsmedia, which spends hours and hours reporting on Anna Nicole Smith and Michael Jackson, rather than substantive issues that deserve national attention. Gore's book is well written, though a bit academic, and I was hoping for more evidence of his characteristic sense of humor. All told, it is a damning analysis of the Bush administration's six years in office and a call to all Americans to raise their level of involvement and responsibility in our country.

There is hard work ahead, but Gore has faith we can accomplish it together. Oct 24, Peter rated it it was amazing Recommends it for: Gore begins by lamenting the nature of politics in the post-modern United States: I do not mean the physical environment; I mean what is called the public sphere, or the marketplace of ideas Gore Gore begins by lamenting the nature of politics in the post-modern United States: Gore comes perilously close to writing the book I've been writing for the last several years, and I am glad that he affirms some of my own ideas.

The Founders took great care to protect the openness of the marketplace of ideas so that knowledge could flow freely. The Republic of Letters has been invaded and occupied by the empire of television Gore is not only familiar with the works of Neil Postman, founder of the NYU's Media Ecology program, but he is also familiar with the principles regarding the operation of media and their consequences for the user: In the world of television, the massive flows of information are largely in only one direction, which makes it virtually impossible for individuals to take part in what passes for a national conversation The "well-informed citizenry" is in danger of becoming the "well-amused audience.

As a result, our democracy is in danger of being hollowed out Gore then invokes the name of one of the founding fathers of the entire field of media studies: McLuhan was almost alone in recognizing that the passivity associated with watching television is at the expense of activity in parts of the brain associated with abstract thought, logic, and the reasoning process.

Any new dominant communications medium leads to a new information ecology in society that inevitably changes the way ideas, feelings, wealth, power and influence are distributed and the way collective decisions are made Or, as McLuhan put it, "the medium is the message. Many young Americans now seem to feel that the jury is out on whether American democracy actually works or not. We have created a wealthy society with tens of millions of talented, resourceful individuals who play virtually no role whatsoever as citizens.

I would go a step further here and suggest that one of the consequences of the commoditization of information and the increasing commercialization of what is actually and ought to be seen as the uniquely human activity -- communication -- is that we have ceased to even see ourselves as citizens. We are now nothing more than consumers -- consumers not in a marketplace of ideas, but of impressions. The democratization of knowledge by the print medium brought the Enlightenment. Now, broadband interconnection is supporting decentralized processes that reinvigorate democracy.

We can see it happening before our eyes: As a society, we are getting smarter. Why isn't this man President? The next time you hear someone taking a shot at Gore because he is "wooden," or "stiff," or "boring," the next time you hear them parroting claims that are just not true, but have been repeated so many times -- on television -- that lazy-minded people believe them, rest assured in the knowledge that you are dealing with one of those very same lazy-minded people -- TV people.

Navigation menu

And then learn about your world, and vote for candidates that will make it better. Only if you believe it to be. Aug 29, Kurt rated it really liked it Shelves: Actually, Al Gore's book gets 5 stars for its overall content, the timeliness and appropriateness of the subject matter, and for more than occasionally delivering masterful, eloquent, and persuasive arguments to support its thesis.

But unfortunately, at the same time, it was impossible to overlook the flaw that other reviewers have also noted: Imperfections aside, this is a book that is well worth reading. Over Actually, Al Gore's book gets 5 stars for its overall content, the timeliness and appropriateness of the subject matter, and for more than occasionally delivering masterful, eloquent, and persuasive arguments to support its thesis. Over the past several years, our nation has become seriously and dangerously divided. To a large degree ideology, propaganda, fear-mongering, and demagoguery have replaced reasoned discussion, education, and debate.

The devastating results of this downward spiral are evident everywhere, yet the spin-meisters continue to persuade their loyal followers to simply blame all their problems on those who disagree with their ideology. Leaders, Al Gore explains, inspire us to manage through our fears; demagogues, on the other hand, exploit our fears for political gain as they continually promise security in return for the surrender of freedom.

Al Gore's plea for America to embrace reason is extremely persuasive and well-researched. I fear, however, that a scarce trifle of the people who really should read this book actually will -- the term "preaching to the choir" comes to mind. The sad fact is as this book clearly documents that most of America will be too set in their ideologies or too involved with the latest reality TV shows, celebrity gossip, or other mindless entertainment and propaganda to ever decide to read such a book as this. Throughout the book the author manages to project a sense of optimism that a substantial return to reasoned dialogue and debate can be achieved.

To a small degree, reading this book increased my hope that this is possible. Jan 15, Elizabeth Fuller rated it really liked it. The idea that TV is rotting our brains is nothing new, but the idea that TV and the modern American system of politics by television has completely ruined our democracy is a bit more novel, and that is the main point of this book. Several other things struck me as I was reading this, however: This book, which very bluntly calls out myriad ways in which the current Bush administration has disregarded, denied and dismantled our constitution and historical tradition, could never have been writte The idea that TV is rotting our brains is nothing new, but the idea that TV and the modern American system of politics by television has completely ruined our democracy is a bit more novel, and that is the main point of this book.

This book, which very bluntly calls out myriad ways in which the current Bush administration has disregarded, denied and dismantled our constitution and historical tradition, could never have been written by anyone who is actually running for president. No one else in the campaign has said half of these things, half as strongly Also, it becomes very clear very quickly that Gore does indeed know his American and constitutional history and has great respect for them and for our core American ideals , which is a lot more than I'd say about most of the people who have been in charge here recently.

Definitely a must read for this campaign season Jul 13, Steph Fisher rated it really liked it Recommends it for: Gore confronts the Bush administration on issues of policy, ideology, and ethics in a rational manner, and lays out his argument that television and a lack of transparency in the government is causing the trend of an apathetic, cynical public. At first I was skeptical of his argument railing against TV, because it seems like such an easy thing to attack.

But it is hard to deny the way television, as the primary source of most American's news and information, has contributed to a lack of civic di Gore confronts the Bush administration on issues of policy, ideology, and ethics in a rational manner, and lays out his argument that television and a lack of transparency in the government is causing the trend of an apathetic, cynical public.

But it is hard to deny the way television, as the primary source of most American's news and information, has contributed to a lack of civic discourse. Gore doesn't stop at the attack, though. He provides a vision for innovation in television and internet media that can revitalize the public debate and restore a reasoned citizenry. I am simplifying the scope of the work, of course, because media is only one of the contributing factors to the "assault on reason.

Informative and challenging, The Assault on Reason is a must-read for anyone who is ready for a change in American politics. View all 3 comments. Dec 09, David rated it did not like it. Gore presents his disagreements with his opponents as evidence of their mental inferiority. Even though his critiques of their policies are reasonable, by framing them as a question of smart him and dumb them , he alienates anyone whom he might want to convince of his position.

And massively annoys those who are already on his side. Feb 23, Travis Kirk rated it it was amazing Shelves: After reading this book my sentiment is that Al Gore could be a modern day Abraham Lincoln. His work demonstrates his knowledge of the human condition both through science and scholarship. His book looks at decline reason in Society. Gore quotes many frightening prophecies from men like Thomas Jefferson to show us that the alarm bells have been ringing only we're too ignorant to know what to listen for because we me included have never read Jefferson or Thomas Payne.

I didn't quite know of his After reading this book my sentiment is that Al Gore could be a modern day Abraham Lincoln. I didn't quite know of his devotion to JC, and though the book does not trumpet this fact, it is yet very clear where his strength comes from. I include that last sentence only because I suspect others, like myself, might not have known it.

He is a voice that cries out for justice. Jul 10, David rated it it was amazing. Al Gore has written a well-reasoned critique of the Administration's leadership or lack of same.

He draws on Chomsky and other progressive critics. This book is surprisingly direct for a practicing politician. Of course, the environmental parts are the hardest-hitting. If the conservative coup in had been prevented, this country, under Gore, would have had liberty and justice for all, not just the superrich.

Nov 16, Bethany rated it it was amazing. Feb 23, Brian rated it it was ok Shelves: As a polemic against the worst failures, mistakes, and wrong-headed policies of the Bush administration, it's okay.

Book Review: The Assault on Reason

As anything more than that, The Assault on Reason fails. The book can't even deliver on its basic premise -- that the politics of fear, deception, secrecy, etc. For example, the first chapter focuses on fear, and uses research from cognitive science and psychology to show how fear can disrupt our brain's thinking patterns -- and therefore our public discourse and our collective decision-making.

This would be a fascinating avenue of exploration, but it never really goes anywhere. The scientist Charles Taber is quoted as saying, "The Enlightenment model of dispassionate reason as the duty of citizenship is empirically bankrupt," but Gore seems to not even notice that this statement may undermine the entire premise of his book. There are a few other parts of the book where Gore pulls together insights from interesting places to illuminate the current political exile of expertise and evidence.

Unfortunately, those passages are surrounded by rehashing common criticisms of Bush policies, banal observations about media and technology, and strings of familiar quotes from Founding Fathers. Nov 09, Mikey B. This book has a somewhat meandering style — in no way is it as powerful as his documentary film An Inconvenient Truth on climate change.

Gore is evocative when focusing on the gross ineptitudes of the Bush administration. He is less forceful when discussing the effects of television and the possible future effects of the internet. I also found his constant juggling of historical anecdotes of the past — whether it be the George Washington era or Greek philosophers to be irritating.

Nevertheless This book has a somewhat meandering style — in no way is it as powerful as his documentary film An Inconvenient Truth on climate change. Nevertheless his critique of Bush-Cheney is to the point with strong suggestions that they are circumventing democratic processes from the war in Iraq to the torturing of prisoners in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo. He also blasts the Bush administration for their avoidance of climate change. You argue forcefully in your book that the country needs to evolve to a place that is more hospitable to reason to move past the politics of fear, and what you call blind faith.

So it seems like you are only minimally effective if you are sort of the thunder from the margins on political life, if you are just speaking from the sidelines. Look, I am trying to play a constructive role in rallying people to solve the climate crisis. And in pursuing this task, I have come to feel ever more strongly that in order to solve the climate crisis, we're going to have to address these deep problems in the way we make decisions. You know, what led to the emergence of our country more than two centuries ago was a way of communicating freely that enabled individuals for the first time in history to use knowledge as a source of influence to mediate between wealth and privilege by presenting facts and asking others to look at the facts and — if they agreed — to join in endorsing the ideas that flow naturally out of a reasoned judgment on those facts.

I don't think it's naive or quixotic to believe that the truth still matters. I have heard millions of people around this country in one way or another ask the same question that I ask myself. What is it that's gone basically wrong in the way America is operating?

This book is my effort to Now, I am going to take you at your word that this is not a pre-campaign book. You've said many times that you have no plans to run for president again. Is that no plans in or no plans ever again? No plans ever again to do it.

And the fact that I don't give the so-called Sherman statement is not an indication that I'm trying to I'm just being candid. Just curious, how does the presence of Hillary Clinton as a candidate factor into your thinking about the presidential race? If I could turn this to the other side, who among the candidates in the GOP field would be most difficult for a Democrat to beat at this point?

I'm going to ask for a bit of political analysis from you. I'm involved in a different kind of campaign myself — to make sure that the climate crisis is the number one issue on the agenda of candidates in both parties. And I know that sounds like an unrealistic goal right now, but I will wager that by the time the elections of November come around, it will be the number one issue in both parties. And you think that you'll have something to do with that, making sure that that happens?

Television's quasi-hypnotic effect is one reason that the political economy supported by the television industry is as different from the vibrant politics of America's first century as those politics were different from the feudalism that thrived on the ignorance of the masses of people in the Dark Ages. Our systematic exposure to fear and other arousal stimuli on television can be exploited by the clever public relations specialist, advertiser, or politician. Barry Glassner, a professor of sociology at the University of Southern California, argues that there are three techniques that together make up "fearmongering": By using these narrative tools, anyone with a loud platform can ratchet up public anxieties and fears, distorting public discourse and reason.

There are, of course, many historical examples of vivid imagery producing vicarious traumatization that has been used for positive purposes. For example, the images of civil rights protesters being threatened with snarling dogs and being brutalized with fire hoses helped mobilize ordinary Americans to become part of a broader movement for social justice.

In my own experience, I have learned that visual images—pictures, graphs, cartoons, and computer models— communicate information about the climate crisis at a level deeper than words alone could convey. Similarly, the horrifying pictures that came back to us from both Vietnam and the Iraq war helped facilitate shifts in public sentiment against failing wars that needed to end. Even though logic and reason have played more prominent roles in the medium of print, they can also be used along with images to powerful and positive effect in the television medium.

In fact, visual images of suffering are significant precisely because they can help generate empathy and goodwill. The horrifying pictures from inside Abu Ghraib prison communicated the essence of the wrongdoing there far more powerfully than any words could have. Even so, when such strong feelings are manipulated, the possibility for abuse becomes considerable. It is well documented that humans are especially fearful of threats that can be easily pictured or imagined. For example, one study found that people are willing to spend significantly more for flight insurance that covers "death by terrorism" than for flight insurance that covers "death by any cause.

But something about the buzzword terrorism creates a vivid impression that generates excessive fear. The flight insurance example highlights another psychological phenomenon that is important to understanding how fear influences our thinking: Repeating the same threat over and over again, misdirecting attention from al-Qaeda to Saddam Hussein , and using vivid imagery a "mushroom cloud over an American city".

September 11 had a profound impact on all of us. But after initially responding in an entirely appropriate way, the administration began to heighten and distort public fear of terrorism to create a political case for attacking Iraq. Despite the absence of proof, Iraq was said to be working hand in hand with al-Qaeda and to be on the verge of a nuclear weapons capability. Defeating Saddam was conflated with bringing war to the terrorists, even though it really meant diverting attention and resources from those who actually attacked us.

When the president of the United States stood before the people of this nation and invited us to "imagine" a terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon, he was referring to terrorists who actually had no connection to Iraq. President, where's your evidence? Even if you believe that Iraq might have posed a threat to us, I hope you will agree that our nation would have benefited from a full and thorough debate about the wisdom of invading that country.

Had we weighed the potential benefits of an invasion against the potential risks, perhaps we could have prevented some of the tragic events now unfolding there. Terrorism relies on the stimulation of fear for political ends. Indeed, its specific goal is to distort the political reality of a nation by creating fear in the general population that is hugely disproportionate to the actual danger that the terrorists are capable of posing. Ironically, President Bush's response to the terrorist attack of September 11 was, in effect, to further distort America's political reality by creating a new fear of Iraq that was hugely disproportionate to the actual danger Iraq was capable of posing.

That is one of the reasons it was so troubling to so many when in the widely respected arms expert David Kay concluded a lengthy, extensive investigation into the administration's claim that Iraq posed an enormous threat because it had weapons of mass destruction with the words We were all wrong. As we now know, of course, there was absolutely no connection between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. In spite of that fact, President Bush actually said to the nation at a time of greatly enhanced vulnerability to the fear of attack, "You can't distinguish between them.

History will surely judge America's decision to invade and occupy a fragile and unstable nation that did not attack us and posed no threat to us as a decision that was not only tragic but absurd. Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator, to be sure, but not one who posed an imminent danger to us.

• Out of Darkness
• All the Sun Goes Round
• Shaman Pathways - Black Horse, White Horse
• Ashes Shadow
• 1-on-1 Management™: What Every Great Manager Knows That You Dont
• Yesterday