[In the following review, Graber calls Zinn's book successful in terms of its critique of American ideology, particularly in the sections on U.S. foreign policy.]

Thomas Jefferson thought that the tree of liberty needed to be watered with blood every so often. Only through intermittent reenactments of the revolution, he believed, would American ideals retain their vitality. Howard Zinn's latest book offers a valuable alternative for a nuclear age. “Whatever in the past has been the moral justification of violence,” he points out, “must now be accomplished by other means” (p. 289). Zinn's remedy for “an obedient, acquiescent, passive citizenry,” a disease he correctly considers “deadly to democracy” (p. 5), is a vigorous interrogation of the ideas that implicitly structure mainstream American thought. His work promises “declarations of independence from all nations, parties and programs—all rigid dogmas” (p. 8).

For the most part, Zinn conducts a successful cross-examination of American ideology. His chapters on American foreign policy, in particular, should intrigue both students and professors. Declarations of Independence will challenge anyone to explain how repeated examples of malicious and frequently unrealistic national goals can be justified in the name of realism. Zinn also offers a thought-provoking attack on American participation in World War II. Although he does not deny the legitimate reasons for entering into that global conflict, Zinn presents evidence that strongly suggests that the desire to free civilization from murderous and expansionist fascist regimes does not explain the course of American policy during the war and afterwards. Public recognition of this distinction between circumstances that might justify military intervention and the actual policies leaders pursue during wars might have reduced enthusiasm for recent U.S. forays in the Persian Gulf.

Foreign policy, however, receives too much emphasis in this work. Although Zinn does devote chapters to such matters as civil liberties, racism, and the distribution of wealth, he repeatedly attributes the failure of Americans to live up to their ideals to the demands of the national security state. Thus, he fails to cross-examine mainstream assumptions that economic growth is a necessary good that justifies material inequities or sacrifice of the environment, or that all citizens should strive to be rich. This latter aspect of American culture may help explain why many Americans support regressive tax policies that disproportionately benefit affluent citizens.

Declarations of Independence works better as a cross-examination than as the statement of a case. Indeed, when defending his political beliefs, Zinn occasionally makes statements that contradict the claims he makes when questioning conventional ideals. Thus, after demonstrating that lack of a good scientific basis for asserting that human beings are inherently violent, he blithely states that human beings are innately altruistic. Moreover, for a scholar devoted to the power of ideas, Zinn seems surprisingly contemptuous of everyone who disagrees with him. Those persons who advance mainstream beliefs are in his view either stupid or corrupt. Nowhere in Declarations of Independence is there any hint that the central problems facing the United States are difficult or that their causes and solutions may be the subject of good-faith debate. In this respect, Zinn seems quite similar to his nemesis, John Silber.

In spite of these faults, Declarations of Independence will enliven any introduction to American government or history. Zinn is provocative, but readable; indeed, his work demonstrates that radicals need not speak fluent post-structuralism to critique the influence of class, race, and (with much less emphasis) gender in the United States. Although few students or professors will agree with Zinn's conclusions, if they learn that “it is a crucial act of independent thinking to be skeptical of someone else's thinking” (p. 11), their undergraduate education will not have been in vain.