I just finished the review copy of Richard Mgrdechian's How The Left Was Won I received a couple of weeks ago.

It was a good read. I'd describe it as a manual for understanding the arguments and tactics many on the left use to further their ideals. People who are used to being "in the trenches" of the left-right political war will probably think that they're already familiar with all the arguments used by the left, but I think there's probably something in this book for even the most veteran of political debaters.

Personally, I found the chapter about "bad competition" to be particularly well done. Mgrdechian first describes to us the differences between what he calls good competition and bad competition. Good competition is when two people or groups or businesses, etc. compete by working to improve themselves in order to beat the opposition. Bad competition is when the same try to weaken the opposition in some way in order either win or "level the playing field." I think this highlights exactly many of the differences between conservatism and liberalism. Conservatives believe in empowering individuals in order to make society more equitable whereas liberals seem to feel that it is best to weaken certain parts of the population in order to strengthen other parts.

Take equal hiring practices, for instance. Most conservatives would agree that the best way to promote diversity in the work place is to identify those groups that are falling behind and making sure they are getting all the same opportunities the other groups are. Liberals approach this problem by promoting affirmative action quotas which dictate that certain groups should be given preference over others based on nothing other than race or gender.

Mgrdechian lays all of this out in a concise and illuminating manner.

He also addresses several other tenets of leftist thinking like the victim-hood society (which he labels - awkwardly I think - "groupdividual") as well as relevancy and proportion.

If I had to criticize Mgrdecian, though, I'd say that he often goes a little overboard in his rhetoric. From the cover of the book (as I pointed out before I think the picture of the Democrat donkey holding a gun to Uncle Sam's head is a little over the top) to the many aspersions he casts at liberals, I think he often gets carried away. Often it comes off as a bit petty, which is distracting from the otherwise informative material in the book.

If I had to recommend this book to anyone I'd suggest it for a budding conservative who is trying to find to learn more about the left and how it thinks.