Philips, a man whose politics might best be described as Republican populism, fully admits his dislike of the Bush family stretches back decades, however this does not lessen the strength of his argument which in effect has two parts. The first, that politics in America seems to be leaning in an increasingly dynastic direction to me seems a bit weak. While yes several high officials currently holding office followed brothers and fathers into their positions, this can hardly be called unique to the current period. Indeed, similar patterns appear all the way back to the early 19th century in some offices - famously Hamilton Fish seat in New York was held by members of one family for three generations of men with the same name, ending only in the 1990's. This does not mean that congress is on the verge of becoming a house of lords as he at one point argues. The vast majority of office holders are not dynastic. In attempting to make this case Philips weakens what might be an argument better supporting his case against the Bush family - that increasingly American political office is becoming an oligarchy as more and more millionaires and even billionaires spend their wealth to claim high office. What in Philips mind would make such people better than the Bush family is that they tend to make money and then enter government, rather than using government office and connections as a means to build vast wealth.

Philips's charges against the President and his family are hard hitting and generally seem well supported. That both his great grandfathers, Mr. Walker and Mr. Bush used their political power and Wall Street connections to amass great wealth is seemingly undeniable. So to is how the family's unabashed willingness to use power to add to their and their friends wealth while at the same time putting forward the image of genteel WASP's in the North and down home folksy in the South. An easy example is the current President's inability to explain how his father's friends willingly bought a succession of failed businesses from him at a handsome profit and then made this failed executive the managing partner of a multi-million dollar baseball franchise. Equally damning is how those who heaped this largess on Bush the younger earned favor, access, and therefore wealth through the help of Bush the elder.

Most disturbing is Philips's portrayal of the Bush family of ultimately considering average Americans both gullible and contemptible for their naiveté. This argument marries well with the book recently published by former Treasury Secretary O'Neil. Both create the impression of a family that like the King of France sees their own fortunes as identical to those of the state and therefore considers nothing wrong with doling out contracts to cronies. The current Halliburton debacle is only the most recent and well known of a long line of cases that seem to indicate this troubling stream of aristocracy that runs through the current President's family. The same could well be said for the President's strenuous defense of Saudi Arabia, despite their great support of terror, perhaps due to his family's great financial dependence on the House of Saud because of their support of their oil and arms holding.

While Philips's work is not without flaws, particularly in his over use of rather weak historical analogy, his evidence against the Bush family remain something every citizen should consider in the run up to the next election. If Philips is right, the stakes are nothing short of the health of our democracy.

The Bush legacy, er dynasty, is traced back to the Tudor and Plantagenet royal families that once reigned over England. Phillips cites Burke's Peerage as saying that George W. is the most blue blooded of all Presidents. I guess Buchanan wasn't so off base when he called George H.W. "King George" in 1992.

What comes across in this book is that the Bushes are not overly original or scheming, definitely not conspiratory material, but rather closeted WASPs that are opportunistic, extremely well connected and benefitting from quite a bit of dumb luck. The Bush agenda has been in line with broad social developments such as the rise of the number of investors, the polarization of the classes, the emergence of the South as a conservative haven, etc. It seems to me after reading this book that their agenda is not any different than most old line WASPs. This WASP family has just been closer over the generations, more focused, more ruthless, more hungry for political power and benefited more from certain unforseen trends like Texas becoming a political hotbed and training pool for wannabee Presidents.

It is not evil for the Bushes to have built vast social networks, spheres of influence, and to have sent their children to Yale. You can't blame them as it has worked well for them and they are not crooked per se. In every Western country there is the equivalent of American elites. The business and political cronyism in Japan, Korea, England, etc. are much worse as the author cites.

This book's research is amazing and its strength. The obscure facts and side notes are almost too much... almost nauseating. It gives a no- holds- barred view of the extent of old guard privelege, cronyism, and nepotism at the top rungs of business and politics. The author's account of a rising psuedo- arristocracy is provocative. Yes America, meritocracy and social mobility are frequently illusions. Big business and the top 1% of wage earners have disproportionate political power. The Bushes are essentially big business and "kindler gentler" and "compassionate conservative" are as sincere as "read my lips."

The weaknesses of this book are that the author does not expect the readers to already know this. Also, the author thinks that the ideals of the founding fathers can be realized in modern times. True equality and justice for all could only come about by destroying big companies, destroying social networks and ceasing the assets of elites. We would all have to become small farmers again. This will never happen (I hope).