Anybody read "American Theocracy: The Perils and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil and Borrowed

Money in the 21st Century" by Kevin Phillips? I found this review this morning and it looks like he ties oil politics, debt, and religious fundamentalism altogether.

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/3886/

"The basic thesis of the book is that America is in the throes of several converging crises: a crisis of ideology, manifested in the rise of Christian and, to a lesser extent, Jewish fundamentalism, and their becoming a significant part of the ideology of the state and the Republican Party; a crisis of oil dependency, which is deepened as the world’s supply of oil peaks; and a crisis of debt, manifested in historically unprecedented levels of private, business, government and foreign indebtedness. Phillips argues that the George W. Bush presidency is at the center of these converging crises. It is entangled in oil and debt capitalism and is deeply implicated in the right-wing evangelical ideological movement. Due to these entanglements it can only deepen these crises. Phillips does not suggest that a Hillary Clinton or John Kerry presidency would make a significant difference. He argues that the GOP government in Washington is a Southern-dominated, biblically-driven rogue coalition, like the Southern slavocracy before Lincoln’s election." - Anthony Monteiro

is Sarah Palin.

John McCain's won't be able to get an insurance policy from AIG should he win election. The fundies are already praying for his untimely demise.

Bad Money - Reckless Finance, Failed Politics, and the Global Crisis of American Capitalism. It's prescient, given the events of this week. It's much shorter than American Theocracy because it merely updates and expands on the financial aspect covered in AT (which was only one of several issues in that book). You really need to read AT first to get the most out of Bad Money.

I've been a Phillips fan since... well, I don't remember the date, but I first got interested in him with his book The Politics of Rich and Poor. But it was Wealth and Democracy that made me a fan. For the most part, I've found all his books to be generally easy to read and understand, although he sometimes loses me when he wanders off into the economic-theory weeds. But, again, in general, a pretty down-to-earth read for non-experts.

But I still can't forgive him for white washing racism with his silent majority crap for Nixon...

was the financial section. I thought it would have been the section on the theocrats. Highly recommend this book.

I read it more than once, but I never recommend the book. He is why. It's a brilliant yet highly flawed book. And of course I'm suspicious of anything written by someone from the Nixon administration. Unless that person's name is John Dean. Kevin Phillips, like a lot of people with fundamentalist and right-wing leanings, view of the world is that of a fatalist. He talks wistfully about the repeal of all the banking and insurance laws from the new deal, and how they lead the current excesses in the credit market, but he rejects the idea that putting these laws back on the books will help the current crisis. He also rejects the idea that the reforms implemented during the new deal were part of what kept the economy stable for most of the second half of the 20th century. I believe this is because if Kevin Phillips acknowledged that success by the Democrats would also be knowledge in his part in helping the Republican Party rise to power, and his part how ever small in the current cluster *&^% we are in. Instead he takes his fatalist view -- that by their nature's countries rise and fall and there's nothing much you can do about it except ride the wave.

He was on Bill Moyers last week or the week before saying he was against reenacting all the thinking rules from the new deal. I'd really hope he's learned his lesson. Phillips' solution was basically just wait around and something will happen to fix it. That is the wrong approach to life and too close to GWB approach to governing.

Even given that large flaw in the book the book is remarkable in its scope. I keep meaning to get around to reading the two books that he cites the most. I can't really tell if he's just regurgitating those two books with a little bit of fatalist spin or if you put together the connections himself

And his take on Oil and its history was informative. I go back and read it over and over to refresh my memory.