In this volume, Sigal R. Ben-Porath brings several important and useful perspectives to bear on civic education. Her observations are prompted by the special situation created by the U.S. war on terrorism, as well as the unique perspective she is able to offer due to her Israeli background. Both the American and Middle East conflicts are open-ended and often muddled, so that, as Ben-Porath credibly notes, her unique experience with both situations lends her an advantage as she draws lessons for education for citizenship in the modern age. Citizenship Under Fire, then, offers a fresh approach to the all-important question of education for democracy.

Ben-Porath is right to point out the unique challenges presented by war, in which the tensions already inherent in civic education become especially pronounced. These tensions are best explained by Thomas Jefferson, who noted that civic education always involves a balance: On the one hand, citizens must be taught patriotism; on the other hand, they must cultivate a watchful and critical view of the operation of their government, being always vigilant to catch abuse. Civic education has tended to emphasize one or the other of these approaches: Either civic education tends toward being reflexively patriotic and insufficiently critical, or it is weakly patriotic and hypercritical.

These strains, then, are especially acute in war, when the country is in need of ardent support; when the government historically pushes its power to the limit—often at the expense of civil liberties—it is in order to achieve its wartime objectives. For that reason, Ben-Porath's book is especially relevant, more so because of the ambiguous nature of the present “war on terror.” That is to say, the stress placed on civil liberties is difficult enough even when the enemy and objectives are clear, a difficulty for which the World War II Japanese internment camps provide a painful reminder. In the present conflict, the proper balance between individual constitutional protections, on the one hand, and the need for executive efficiency, on the other, is bound to be even more difficult to achieve.

Ben-Porath's pedagogical remedy for the civic dilemma in which we find ourselves is her concept of “expansive education,” an approach designed to transcend more narrowly focused approaches to civic education. The author suggests that conventional approaches to civic pedagogy may promote antagonism rather than encourage attitudes that lead to peace. Accordingly, the word “belligerent” is conspicuous in her prose as a characterization of traditional civic education, as, for example, when she alleges that “educational practices … perpetuate belligerent conceptions” and “belligerent citizenship” (e.g. p. 11). This assertion, as true as it might be, is not adequately supported except insofar as this promotion of belligerence is associated with George W. Bush, his calls for patriotism, and his promotion of the Patriot Act of 2001. Citizenship Under Fire is further colored by closing references to “blind patriotism” (p. 123), language that may be more inflammatory than persuasive. Ben-Portath's readership may not share her characterization of civic education as “belligerent,” nor her description of patriotism as “blind.” Accordingly, some readers, distracted by her language, may miss her larger points. On the other hand, those who accept her characterization of contemporary civics may be more sympathetic to her larger argument.

Whether the reader is sympathetic with this text or not may depend upon whether they are sympathetic to the educational philosophy of John Dewey, as some of the arguments here find their antecedents in the Progressive education tradition. Ben-Porath's argument bears the earmarks of Dewey's legacy. Her advocacy for example, for what she calls “expansive education” is quintessentially Deweyan: “Expansive education, like enlarged thought, relies on the use of the curriculum and the classroom to support the ability of students to put themselves in the position of the ‘other’ and to share the other's experiences” (pp. 125–26). Indicative of this progressive influence is the emphasis the author puts on educating students for attitude, rather than for knowledge first and foremost. Such education for attitude is evident, among other places, in Dewey's Democracy and Education (1916), also a work pertaining to civic education.

One must wonder about the usefulness to American citizens of a discussion of civic education without a single reference to Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, or Abraham Lincoln. The authorities to whom Ben-Porath does have recourse tend toward radicalism, such as critical theorist Henry Giroux and linguist and political activist Noam Chomsky. As significant as their role may be, Ben-Porath limits her work by not balancing these individuals with more traditional thinkers.

Some will read into the chapter on “Peace Education” the author's pacifist leanings. To make such an observation is not to disparage the pacifist tradition. Ben-Porath's personal experience alone, both in Israel and now in post-9/11 America, might incline anyone to that tradition, a tradition rightfully protected under the American Constitution. The chapter though, misses an opportunity to strengthen the argument for the peace education movement because the author fails to address the assumptions of human nature that are at the core of pacifism. She is correct in asserting that democracy involves a “struggle,” but her discussion is incomplete without addressing the argument that national survival also involves a struggle. Until such time as war and nations can be eliminated from our vocabulary, reasonable discussion of citizenship and war must take account of the apparent need for national self-defense—even if the author might ultimately conclude that the many calls for self-defense are jingoistic or overblown.

Ben-Porath treats the concept of patriotism seriously, recognizing that it is a phenomenon that cannot be lightly dismissed. She follows Amy Gutman in describing patriotism: “[P]atriotism is a sentiment, not a moral perspective” (p. 45). But this does not acknowledge the Aristotelian counterargument that patriotism is something weightier. According to Aristotle, patriotism is a passion, as is honor, ambition, love, and fear. Passions, according to Aristotle, are necessary to fuel virtue, and to bring this logic full circle, tough virtues are indispensable in times of war. At this point in her argument, the author might have enriched her discussion if she had compared and contrasted her ideas with those of Walter Berns (Making Patriots, 2001), whose view of patriotism draws upon the American Founding generation, or even with Martha Nussbaum in For Love of Country? (2002), whose cosmopolitanism might be supportive of Ben-Porath's thesis.

In conclusion, some will find this a meaningful contribution to civic education literature; others, though, may judge it an opportunity missed given that Ben-Porath's endeavor avoids several of the difficult issues at the heart of civic education in time of war. Yet, regardless of one's ultimate evaluation of the book's arguments, the author clearly addresses important issues in a distinctive and engaging way.