'Book Review of A National Party No More\r'

'The scruples of a Conservative Democrat by Zell milling machine\r\nIn A National companionship No to a greater extent Senator Zell miller writes a non-fiction disk that is some(prenominal)thing of a memoir of his political life as a lifelong Democrat and as well as macrocosm a diatribe against the Democratic caller. In 2002 the Democratic Senator Paul Coverdell from atomic number 31 died suddenly and the gallium Governor Roy Barnes asked Zell moth miller to fill in until November of that course of instruction and so to run for the position to serve the cartridge holder remaining in the late senators term of office. When milling machine went to Washington D.C. he claims that he had hoped that he would assure Washington to be â€Å"the place where great stretch forths of the solar day ar debated and solved, and great giants walk those hallowed halls.” preferably he discovered what Washington D.C. was not at all like he had hoped and this angered him â€Å"on b ehalf of Americans” ( miller 8).\r\nIn his c atomic number 18er milling machine has served the earth of Georgia as an administrator of a number of â€Å" bouncy agencies, as an assistant to two governors, as run of the State Democratic Party, as Lieutenant Governor, and then as Governor” ( moth miller introduction no scallywag number). He also served in the Georgia State Senate from 1965-1969. He failed in his attempts to run for the U.S. House of Representatives from Georgia. In addition Miller served in the U.S.\r\nMarine corps and has taught at four different colleges. It is worth noting that the mass of these positions argon executive positions not legislative positions so serving as Georgias United States Senator put him into a relatively unknown form of government where he lacked extensive experience and n ace on the case level. It appears somewhat incongruous that a marine would be a lifelong Democrat since military occasion currently tend to lean toward t he Republican Party. Although Miller served only three years in the corps it is clear that his experiences affected him greatly because he has write a apply Corp Values: Everything You borrow to Know I Learned in the Marines.”\r\nMillers hurl was occasi aned by his experiences in the U.S. Senate beginning in 2000, in combination with his advanced age. Miller was born in 1932 according the reverse side of the title page. The take hold was published in 2003 so Miller was 70 or 71 at the time his book was published.\r\nThis is certainly not an issue of itself, alone one wonders if Miller would make the corresponding claims he had entered the same Senate at the age of forty or fifty. Miller alludes to this when he writes that he has â€Å"arrived at a come in in life where I hear the let the cat turn up of the bag of that moral policeman we all have to state to . . .” (Miller 1). He takes the occasion to advise â€Å"members of my Democratic Party and other po liticians who ar so far out of touch with regular Americans to ‘shape up” (Miller 2).\r\nThis position, that tacitly assumes he is correct while other party members who dissent with him ar wrong, is strongly reminiscent of an elderly valet on the brink of retirement who climbs on a soapbox to â€Å"straighten out” the next generation. This is not to say Miller does not make some good stains, he just does not excavate them nor give the reader sufficient information to take in if Mill is correct.\r\nThe book suffers significantly because it has no notes, no bibliography and no index. Consequently the reader has no hazard to check either the statements Miller makes as being either true or false. M all of his claims atomic number 18 supported by anecdotal evidence establish on his memory of what happened throughout his career.\r\nMiller calls himself a Conservative Democrat, an unusual designation, besides not an unconnected one. Despite this he is known to have been a supporter of President George W. Bush and announced in 2003 that he would support the Presidents re-election. He spoke at the Republican National Convention in 2004 in support of the President. Such actions hardly indicate a lifelong Democrat.\r\nMiller criticizes the Democrat Party because the leaders, he claims, have ignored the opinions of Conservative Democrats in the South, approximately one-third of the U.S. population, and have told them to â€Å"go to hell” (Miller 9). He appears to assume that all Democrats in the South are Conservative Democrats because he is one and that they all tot with him. He fails to mention the non-conservative Democrats in the South and seems to assume on that point are none.\r\nMiller concludes the Democrat leaders disagrees with gray Democrats on the critical issues of â€Å"capital punishment, late-term stillbirth (even with a lot of pro-choice people), trying juveniles as adults, national defensive measure, and the p rinciple of values in cultivate” (Miller 3). Millers reasoning process is suspect for a sorting of reasons. First, it is not clear that these are the critical issues, at least on a national level. dandy punishment has been left up to the states and should not be regarded as a national issue, as are abortion laws as long as laws do not restrict a womans right to suss out of her own body. Trying of juveniles as an adult does not seem to be a national issue either nor should it be.\r\nThe current system presumes juveniles will not be tried as adults unless there are significant overriding reasons for doing so. The decision of where to try a juvenile is judged on a case-by-case land which is as it should be. As far as the teaching of values as a national issue, it is clearly an important issue that impacts people throughout the country, but the Federal Government has no basis to come across what values should be taught.\r\nMiller seems to have all in all forgotten the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution that reserves to the states any powers not delegated to the federal government and not interdict to the states shall be a state power. It is apparent that legion(predicate) of these critical issues are state issues. National defense clearly is a national issue, but federal taxes, the deficit, Medicare, and Social Security benefits are as well, but Miller doesnt mention these issues.\r\nMillers has a rambling and slubbed writing style that slips from story to story and slides from point to point in a chaotic way that defies linear analysis. He chooses his anecdotes by cherry take stories that will reinforce his position even if they are not related to the Democratic Party; on page 145 Miller quotes The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, Winston Churchill, and Rodney King on the same page in support of a chapter entitled â€Å"Give to Bigotry No Sanction.” sure a case can be do for citing Rodney King, but the other two sources were clearly not writ ten in support of civil rights in the United States.\r\nTo his credit Miller learns mistakes he has do during his career. He points out that during 1964 he had â€Å"proclaimed that there should be an ‘investigation of Communist infiltration in the civil rights movement. What an idiot!” (Miller 143). This is remarkably refreshing wedded the current climate of politicians who consistently hide what they have done and deny they have done it until they are proven to have done it when they will admit and ask for forgiveness. On the other hand this begs the gesture as to just how much credence one ought to place in the writings of a self-proclaimed idiot.\r\nMiller claims that the Democratic Party no longer represents the absolute majority of Americans and has become distinctly too liberal in relation to the United States population as a whole. This is an interesting position. Miller does not claim the leading is wrong on issues, just that they disagree with Southern C onservative Democrats such as himself. This leaves the possibility escaped that the leadership is correct and the membership is wrong, but Miller fails to allow for this possibility. If this proves to be the case, it appears that Miller is advocating that the Democratic Party c one timern itself, not with the correct solution, but with gaining power again.\r\nA National Party No More: The Conscience of a Conservative Democrat is more often than not not successful. His conclusion has merit but his preaching of the issues is inferior. The lack of references is a major weakness that could be easily corrected. Millers failure to move in a linear, logical fashion in favor of victimisation a disjointed, episodic style greatly reduces the intensity level of Millers writing. Rather than being the scathing indictment he hopes to provide that will help the Democratic Party, Millers book feels more like a farewell by a statesman whose party has evolved while he has not. His gloom and doom predictions for the Democratic Party do in 2004 proved him incorrect since the Democratic once again gained the majority in both houses. Although Miller makes some interesting points that have validity, his book should be read with circumspection.\r\nWorks Cited\r\nBarnes, Fred. â€Å"Zell Miller Endorses Bush.” 29 Nov. 2003. The cursory Standard. 20 April 2007. Miller, Zell. A National Party No More: The Conscience of a Conservative Democrat. battle of Atlanta: Stroud and Hall Publishing, 2003. â€Å"Text Of Zell Millers RNC Speech.”  01 September 2004. CBS News. 20 April 2007  ;http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/01/ governing/\r\nmain640299.shtml;.\r\n'