Politics: Observations & Arguments, 1966-2004

There is no better way to be introduced to a piece of writing than hearing its author discuss his work. In January, I attended a lecture entitled "Politics and The New Yorker," given by the magazine's senior political editor. In a calm, earnest, reflective manner, Mr. Hertzberg spoke about writers of previous generations and about enduring relevance of the issues they raised. He talked of his hopes and his vision for the country. A book by this logical, articulate, sensitive person should be a worthwhile read, I thought. Too bad I could not get a copy right then and there, and have it inscribed - the organizers did not accept credit cards, and I did not have enough cash on me. The next day I was at Borders, and found the book. It promised to be a real treat - the first impression that was fully confirmed as I kept reading. All of a sudden, my daily commute became both short and interesting. As an ex-Russian, I appreciated the breadth of the subject matter of this collection of essays, and its vivid writing. I learned a lot about recent American history; an American-born reader who is too young to remember Kennedy and Nixon, hippies and weathermen, will reap a similar benefit. It is a given that a book by someone of Mr. Hertzberg's standing should be a brilliantly polished piece of literature. Poetics, irony, wit, sarcasm and plain lucid logic are masterfully employed, and perfectly fitted to the subject matter: an interview with John Lennon is pure poetry; passionate, argumentative language is used to convey dismay over the flaws in our political system. Descriptive passages are brilliant; and the punch line is always sharp and unexpected. But aesthetics of writing is not the only attraction of this book. Its discussion of our political system, and suggestions for fixing its flaws are of no lesser interest. Not that one necessarily agrees with everything, but the book sure does make the reader think. For example, I cannot possibly agree with a suggestion to reserve some Senate and House seats to represent minority views of those who, while sufficiently numerous to potentially have seats in the House, are spread too thinly across the country to be able to win actual representation on the Hill. To give them representation in a way suggested by Mr. Hertzberg would be to institute in Congress a genuine inequality. One congressman would arrive at Washington shackled hand and foot by all manner of obligations to his local constituents; for him, to vote his conscience would be to risk political demise. The other one, sent by a constituency so vague as to be indefinable, would be beholden to no one, and at full freedom to vote his conscience. That's a huge inequality. And the very idea of a congressman or a senator voting his conscience is hugely problematic in itself; it goes against the very grain of representation. My representative should vote my conscience, not his. A representative who votes his conscience embezzles delegated power. But ma

Hendrik Hertzberg has been one of the clearest and most articulate commentators on the American scene for nearly forty years. As editor and writer at The New Republic and The New Yorker, he has set a standard for spare, simple prose that is both elegant and profound. The articles in Politics range far and wide, from commentary on presidential elections to reviews of concerts. I particularly enjoyed Hertzberg's evaluation of Jimmy Carter and his Presidency (he was a speechwriter in that Administration) and his rueful analysis of how differently (and more wisely) an Al Gore Administration might have handled September 11 and its aftermath than did Bush. It was also interesting to see how prescient Hertzberg was at times in predicting election outcomes and cultural trends, and how at other times he was completely off the mark. This is a book to be read carefully over a long period of time. Keep it handy, especially during the next few months before November 2004, and dip into it when a dose of clearheadedness is required.

Hendrik Hertzberg is the most humane and articulate voice I've heard in the mainstream media in this decade. I wanted to stand up and salute, or cheer, or cry, or something, after hearing an hour-long interview with him on NPR. His writing, like his speaking, radiates kindness, humanity, wisdom, thoughtfulness: unlike almost any other writer analyzing U.S. politics (an automatically divisive subject), Hertzberg is unfailingly courteous, even solicitous, immensely and sincerely respectful of the reader, and above all, kind; yet his critique is razor-sharp and perfectly articulated. This is a writer who knows what words mean, and always uses exactly the right words to express what he means to say. In short, if you read only one non-fiction book this year, let it be this one; Hertzberg will lift you up, he will restore your faith in humanity, and he will remind you of what the English language can do when it's properly employed.

Hendrik Hertzberg writes about any range of topics with style and insight, but I am particularly impressed with his nuanced and well-researched critique of our winner-take-all electoral rules in his set of essays in "Ghosts in the Machine." The lecture "The Case for Proportional Representation: Why Voting is Almost Never a Political Act in the U.S." should not be missed and has not appeared in any other publication.

The right wing review that preceded this one tells far more about the reviewer than about this perceptive, sensitive, sometimes brilliant collection of essays. Apart from his political acuity, Hertzberg's observations on other aspects of American culture, such as his wonderful piece on the experience of police at a post 911 Bruce Springsteen concert are exceptional. Yes, Hertzberg has a liberal bias and he makes moral judgements, most of them ones which are sympatico with our professed best American values. Even if you were to read only half of the columns in this book, you would get more than your money's worth.