This is an interesting list. I can think of some titles I would add, which I will come back later and put in. The idea behind the list, books to be an informed voter, is definitely great. Whatever your political party or affiliation (in the US), you need to read some of these.

This is an interesting list to be an informed citizen of this World.

The New Yorker

Wow, only 1 chomsky book and that's at 41. This is a remarkably tame set of books.

Glenn beck, the bible. Jesus christ.

Yeah, a lot of these would have the opposite effect of informing a voter. Instead of informing people of the truth and the issues, many of these just inform the reader of one partisan groups incredibly bias opinions and the half truths and misinformation they use to support their agendas.

Where is the "Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein and "The Wrecking Crew" by Thomas Frank and many others? This is a very very limited list.

Our country is based on the Bible, like it or not. Read it sometime and you will become an informed voter.

Should be renamed "Best Books to Become an Informed Voter in America". Very little of this applies to the rest of the world.

As a graduate with a degree in polisci, I wouldn't consider most of these books to be very informative (mostly opinion/commentary), so I added the following:

The lack of philosophical works on this list makes it beyond deplorable. It's mostly just a collection of partisan pamphlets that serve only to keep citizens short-sighted, bigoted, and unworthy to participate in anything resembling a democratic process. To rank journalists, pamphleteers, sensationalist polemicists, and partisan hacks like Thomas Paine, Richard Dawkins, Glen Beck, Howard Zinn and Al Gore as significant authors for an "informed voter" betrays the terribly obvious lack of understanding of a very uninformed individual.

I was pleased to see some Cicero, Locke, and de Tocqueville on the list, but with no consideration given to Plato, Aquinas, Hobbes, and dozens of other very important thinkers, this list is very incomplete.

Since I think a good list of important books should be brief, I chose three already on the list (The U.S. Constitution, The Federalist Papers, and The Bell-Curve) and added two more:

Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity on this list? God, no.

And Ayn Rand? Really?

Gabriel wrote: "Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity on this list? God, no.

And Ayn Rand? Really?"

I had very similar thoughts.

Our country wasn't based on the Bible (maybe The Jefferson Bible); however, a lot of people these days seem to think it was.

James wrote: "Our country wasn't based on the Bible (maybe The Jefferson Bible); however, a lot of people these days seem to think it was."
James, may I suggest a book for you? Please read, "The Jefferson Lies" by David Barton. I promise you won't regret it :)

Max wrote: "Should be renamed "Best Books to Become an Informed Voter in America". Very little of this applies to the rest of the world."

Very true.

I already regret seeing the author's interview on The Daily Show.

may I suggest a book for you? Please read, "The Jefferson Lies..."

I felt like that author is sort of on the fringe debating others on the polar opposite fringe. The lies he breaks down in each chapter are not held by any historian of credibility; most were lame rumors that were dismissed scores ago. His book seemed to counter obscure blog writers (what a group) and to push viewpoints that fit his own belief system rather than historical fact. I would not recommend that as a book someone should read, since I'm not sure what you can really gain from it.

I think the list is a nice reference point; I've used it a few times to check out books that I've never heard of.

I don't think anyone should worry about the rankings though. The difference between being in the top fifty or ranked dead last: 5 votes.

Re: The Jefferson Lies, http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08...

"After the internal review of Barton's book, Hampton said, 'We became convinced there were parts of the book that were not historically supported.'"

Wow, the publisher pulled the book because of the inaccuracies-I've never even heard of such a thing. Thanks for the link.

Get the whole story, not just one side.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/exclu...

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissues...

the holy bible and the book of mormon? really??? people, you know America is not a Christian nation, right? There's a little thing called freedom of religion...

You're absolutely right David, America is not a Christian nation. America does make law freedom of religion, but what you do not understand is that it wouldn't be so if it wasn't for the Christians in our Founding who understood God's word and His attitude toward the free will of man.

2 Corinthians 3:17
Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is present, there is freedom.

Galatians 5:13
For you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity to indulge your flesh, but through love serve one another.

Modern-day Christians may have trouble understanding this, but that's because God's word isn't really being taught in the majority of churches anymore. It's all about emotionalism and good feelings and social life. Christians in the founding era had their share this as well but it wasn't nearly as rampant as it is today.

So the list would be better if it were more narrow with less titles? Isn't the point of becoming informed (on any topic) to read all sides?

Dante - I think the comments are supposed to be about the list, not a christian debate about the old world thinking (which advocated slavery) of what the founding fathers understood.

Glen Beck. Ayn Rand. The Bible.... No wonder people in the USA can't have a rational discussion about state-sponsored health care.

(And when you type "state-sponsored" in google, you get "state-sponsored terrorism" as first result. It's insane. And that's my point.)

Stephen wrote: "Gabriel wrote: "Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity on this list? God, no.

And Ayn Rand? Really?"

I had very similar thoughts."

As did I.

Nate wrote: " may I suggest a book for you? Please read, "The Jefferson Lies..."

I felt like that author is sort of on the fringe debating others on the polar opposite fringe. The lies he breaks down in each..." Everything in David Barton's book is meticulously researched and contains numerous footnotes from Jefferson's original documents. Historians hate it because it doesn't gel with their opinions on opinions. The original documents and writings can't be disputed. If you actually read it I think you would find it interesting. Don't be duped by the mainstream media.

David wrote: "the holy bible and the book of mormon? really??? people, you know America is not a Christian nation, right? There's a little thing called freedom of religion..." You misunderstand the founders. Freedom of religion is a right that was put into the Constitution because the founders didn't want the government to interfere in religion like it had in England with the Church of England. They weren't afraid of religion on the contrary, they wanted it preserved against the interference of the government, not the other way around. The founders were Christians. Read the Federalist Papers and you'll figure that out. Or if that's too hard, I recommend the 5000 year leap. The Constitution was based very much on the Book of Deutoronomy in the Bible. Unfortunately, real history based on the actual documents of the time is not taught anymore.

James wrote: "Our country wasn't based on the Bible (maybe The Jefferson Bible); however, a lot of people these days seem to think it was." Read the Federalist Papers. The Book of Deutoronomy in the Bible is the most heavily quoted book by the founders. Our Constitution is very much based on the bible. Read the actual documents instead of spouting what your teachers told you.

Melissa - mainstream media doesn't discuss these topics, so you can't blame them-that is just cliche phrase now used by anyone with a view that dissents from conventional thought.

I like dissenters, but Barton is unimpressive to me. It seems his research was based on proving others wrong, rather than publishing his own results-meaning he had a preselected conclusion and was grabbing at whatever he could, in any context, to prove his case. I would love it if he discovered new evidence or facts or illustrated how conventional wisdom on history is off a little, but he didn't do that from what I saw. His publisher, who is based in Nashville (not exactly ground zero for liberal rhetoric), agreed.

I still am not sure what Barton was trying to prove though, that Jefferson was a flawless Christian?

As for your religion reference, the founding fathers tended to say one thing, and do another-so simply quoting historical documents hardly provides enough context to what was really going on. Everyone is free, unless you're black, everyone is equal, unless you're a woman, everyone has religious freedom, except you have to pay taxes for whatever religious choice your state has made and your religion is frankly not wanted/welcome if it isn't ours.

I have found that the oxford guide to the supreme court does a great job of discussing historical cases, and how the culture and the interpretation of constitution & law was used at the time (it has changed.... A lot).

Nate wrote: "Melissa - mainstream media doesn't discuss these topics, so you can't blame them-that is just cliche phrase now used by anyone with a view that dissents from conventional thought.

I like dissent..." Nate, where to start. So much of our history has been changed and altered because of the Progressive movement in the United States beginning in the late 1800's and really coming into fruition during Woodrow Wilson's Presidency. (Read Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism.) The founders didn't "say one thing and do another," that is misguided. The founders very much believed in the things they wrote and lived by them. For instance, most of them were abolitionists and the 2/3rds clause in the Constitution was meant to wipe out slavery by limiting the amount of influence of the Southern States. It had nothing to do with the worth of the person, only how their vote was counted which would have been influenced by their masters. I'm not saying the founders were perfect, but it is easy for us to cast stones, when we have issues in our Society that people ignore such as strapping our children and our grandchildren with massive debt without a care in the world (by both political parties.)

As for David Barton, I suggest you read his rebuttal to the publisher. Quoting letters, journals, writings all express the thoughts, opinions, and emotions of the person writing. Obviously the historians weren't alive then and so the only way we can judge that time period is through the documents, letters, journals of the time. Everything else is pure speculation. Have you read the book? If you haven't, then how can you judge something you haven't read?

The mainstream media is responsible for misrepresenting, colluding, and hiding truth. They are no longer unbiased trying to present all sides. They are definitely trying to shape opinion rather than report facts. When, for instance, the tea party is discussed, they show a picture of a white old man dressed like George Washington rather than show the African American families with young kids who are attending the rallies. Why? The media isn't trustworthy because they have an agenda. Therefore, whenever they do a hatchet job on someone like David Barton, it behooves us to try to get the facts from both sides.

Was there ever a time when media was unbiased and trying to present all sides From my understanding newspapers often took to liking/disliking a candidate or issue and regardless of reality, reported what they wanted in the context that best suited their objectives.

I don't think media has an agenda as much as they need ratings, and a happy sunshine day doesn't get ratings. Racism or anything extreme does. You can blame the media, but really, the viewers I think are the ones to blame because they won't watch/read/click unless it's something extreme.

I didn't read all of Barton's book no, I read the first part, skimmed some of the other chapters randomly, and put it back on the shelf. I can judge it because I don't need to read every word an author scribes to surmise an opinion about his writing, just like I don't need to watch every minute of dinner in the oven to know it's cooking. This book is also not a novel where there are character developments, etc., which might be crucial to the story. Barton's format is almost short story like where he singles in on a topic, discredits it in his own fashion, then moves to the next one. I don't agree with his publisher taking it off the shelf, but I also wouldn't recommend anyone buy it unless you were on one side of the extreme.

If I recall one of his chapters is about how Jefferson is a Christian, something that's not disputed, but he's not fighting a battle not against regular historical fact, but against quacks on the other end. They amplify Jefferson's periods of doubt in faith to make it seem like he had no religious beliefs, where as Barton attempts to nullify it completely as if it was taken out of context-that a strong christian such as Jefferson could never have a moment of doubt in all his infinite wisdom. Mainstream historians (if there is such a thing), to my understanding, take it for it is: a period of doubt, nothing more, nothing less.

If the 2/3 clause was meant to end slavery, and not to keep more representatives of the south in power, then it failed miserably.

Nate wrote: "If the 2/3 clause was meant to end slavery, and not to keep more representatives of the south in power, then it failed miserably. "

This statement totally ignores historical context. Frederick Douglass, a former slave, knew this when he said, “Let me tell you something. Do you know that you have been deceived and cheated? You have been told that this government was intended from the beginning for white men, and for white men exclusively; that the men who formed the Union and framed the Constitution designed the permanent exclusion of the colored people from the benefits of those institutions. Davis, Taney and Yancey, traitors at the south, have propagated this statement, while their copperhead echoes at the north have repeated the same. There never was a bolder or more wicked perversion of the truth of history. So far from this purpose was the mind and heart of your fathers, that they desired and expected the abolition of slavery. They framed the Constitution plainly with a view to the speedy downfall of slavery. They carefully excluded from the Constitution any and every word which could lead to the belief that they meant it for persons of only one complexion.

The Constitution, in its language and in its spirit, welcomes the black man to all the rights which it was intended to guarantee to any class of the American people. Its preamble tells us for whom and for what it was made.”

Frederick Douglass (June 1863)

I love that you picked Frederick Douglass, since it helps communicate what I was trying to say (although since he wasn't even alive when the founding documents were written, I'm not sure how he provides the historical context that I apparently am missing). He's pointing out the hypocrisy of what was written vs. what was actually practiced-a hypocrisy that was practiced by the very authors of the documents he's referencing.

This is not about the list anymore though, and I'd rather not turn off future viewers who aren't looking for a historical debate about slavery.

You think Barton's book is worthy of the reading time, I think there are better options, either way it's on the list and I think anyone who picks it up can make their own call after reading the first chapter or two.

Stephen wrote: "Gabriel wrote: "Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity on this list? God, no.

And Ayn Rand? Really?"

I had very similar thoughts."

I saw Howard Zinn, Paul Krugman on the list. One who is a devote socialist with nothing positive to say about the US. The other is a phony economist, clinging to his ideology. I agree that Beck and Hannity should not be on this list.

Dont you think that those type of people need to be on the list? As, in, an example of everything thats wrong with the voters being sucked in by a constant hyperbolic attack from the media?

And Ayn Rand is tossed around so much by misunderstanding Conservatives, and Machiavelli is a book every president has read. You dont have to agree with it, but its important to see where some of these people are getting their ideas....

You dont have to agree with it, but its important to see where some of these people are getting their ideas....

Well said Becky, I couldn't agree more. It's a catch-22 with political books since if you don't expose yourself to the other side you will have no way of being well-rounded, but if you do expose yourself to the other side, then people think you're nuts for spending any amount of time on it.

I spend more time reading the stuff I disagree with so I can try to understand their views more, but it seems many people prefer to read only the stances that fit their viewpoints, and their only exposure to the opposition is from the people they agree with who are only selecting bits of information to support their cause.

I'm solidly in the middle if you balance my views against each other, so I find myself exasperated on all fronts :)

Ayn Rand actually isn't conservative, she is an atheist and pro-choice and wasn't fond of Reagan. Her economic and views on small government is what makes her favorable to conservatives.

I just finished White House Burning and felt it was a great book about the history of national debt and budgets, how they've functioned historically, and how they are used today.

Chamko wrote: "Where is the "Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein and "The Wrecking Crew" by Thomas Frank and many others? This is a very very limited list."
Then add some.

Travis wrote: "Yeah, a lot of these would have the opposite effect of informing a voter. Instead of informing people of the truth and the issues, many of these just inform the reader of one partisan groups incred..."

Good point, as this list seems a bit to the right - however, if you are able to take the time and read them A L L then you will get a variety... Maybe better than watch TV channels.

If I'm understanding some of these comments correctly, the ethos seems to be that the best path to become an informed voter is to only read the books that you agree with; but to me, that would result in the opposite effect of becoming a well-rounded (informed) voter.

Even if you feel the other side is filled with false/skewed information, it seems that you would still greatly benefit to understand where they're coming from so that you could potentially share your views/facts in a kinder light, rather than just bulldozing your own ideology over them.

I also think it'd be fair to say that many of these authors-on both sides-may have book sales, rather than education, at the vanguard of their thoughts when authoring a title.

The true scope of becoming an informed voter would span thousands of books, but deciding what type of government you want is probably the first step to getting there.

I agree with Max, this isn't relevant to non-Americans, should be renamed to specify.

Travis wrote: "Yeah, a lot of these would have the opposite effect of informing a voter. Instead of informing people of the truth and the issues, many of these just inform the reader of one partisan groups incred..."

Isn't that part of being an informed citizen, though? Knowing where the other side is coming from? If some political parties reference "Atlas Shrugged" or "Animal Farm" as a guide to their beliefs, I think it's worth looking into if you haven't before. I don't think any books should be banned or looked down upon no matter the content. Maybe just...not aligned with what you think :)

Nate wrote: "If I'm understanding some of these comments correctly, the ethos seems to be that the best path to become an informed voter is to only read the books that you agree with; but to me, that would resu..."

I completely agree. I was born a Rupublican-no-gay-marriage-coorporations-are-amazing-Christianity-for-everyone and fully believed all of it. But growing up and exposing myself to the other sides I realize the truth in what my family had to say (though, it's becoming less and less) but now I identify more as a liberal.

Gabriel wrote: "Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity on this list? God, no.

And Ayn Rand? Really?"

Howard Zinn? Barack Obama? Noam Chomsky? Really? God no!

See what I did there?

deleted user wrote: "The lack of philosophical works on this list makes it beyond deplorable. It's mostly just a collection of partisan pamphlets that serve only to keep citizens short-sighted, bigoted, and unworthy to..."

I'm quite sure The bell curve is horrendous racism posing as science. Glad to see you've deleted your account.

None of these books will assist a voter. Instead you should read your local newspaper, watch local TV news, watch international news (BBC World News),watch national news,and MSNBC if you're a Democrat.

Laurentk wrote: "I'm quite sure The bell curve is horrendous racism posing as science. Glad to see you've deleted your account. "

argumentum ad consequentiam