For me, there's a weird, unfathomable gulf — I almost wrote gulp — between the completion of a novel and its publication. Some days this duration feels interminable, as though the book has...
Continue »
Basic concepts, but vague and scattershot (3.6 *s)
This book is a rather meandering and inconclusive look at some different conceptions of justice and connections with freedom, rights, and morality. In his study, the author examines some basic, well-known paradigms, both modern and ancient, the ideas of a few noted political philosophers, and any number of real and hypothetical example situations where the just, or right thing to do, is not necessarily easily determinable.
The two most prevalent, contemporary ideas concerning justice are based on utility and maximizing freedom of choice. Utilitarianism, based on Jeremy Bentham’s works, sees justice occurring when an outcome enhances happiness for the most people or results in benefits exceeding costs. Individuals who are on the losing side of utilitarian decisions, essentially, have their rights sacrificed to the greater good. Judgments of outcomes are not permitted outside the “currency of valuation.” If happiness is the standard, justice may be served by entertaining a majority of spectators by throwing Christians to the lions. If maximizing profits is of interest, paying damages for deaths due to gas tanks exploding may be more cost-effective than recalling autos and preserving lives. On the other hand, libertarianism emphasizes the primacy of choice for every person as being the basis of justice. Any form of exterior control or coercion on anyone to effect a greater good, whether based on utility, morality, or otherwise, is a perversion of justice. Individual rights cannot be sacrificed to majority will. Self-ownership is also a part of libertarianism. Assuming no adverse consequences to others, most any behavior is tolerated be it drug usage, selling one’s body parts, etc.
As the author indicates, so-called free-markets are regarded as being compatible with both utility and freedom concerns. For one, the sum of free exchanges increases happiness. Second, by definition, free-markets are the locus of free exchanges. In fact, some libertarians assume that most any good or service that could be for sale, should be for sale, even to the point of paying others to take one’s place in the military – a widespread practice in the Civil War. However, for libertarian justice to be realized, choices must really be free. Equal opportunity undergirds free choice. Without it, disadvantaged people may well be coerced in their choices. Another question is the relevance of civic obligations under libertarianism. Is libertarian justice consistent with any possible tearing of the social fabric due to eschewing civic duties or with “free-riding” on the backs of those who choose to serve society?
The author largely rejects the extreme positions of utilitarianism and libertarianism, which either minimize the rights and well-being of sacrificial citizens for overall happiness or adopt the pretense that maximizing free choice, including the placing of social practices not usually for sale in the marketplace, will automatically produce a robust and just community. In contrast to those concepts, Aristotle has a decidedly different notion on what is important in establishing justice. That people are socially situated cannot be ignored. There is a social necessity of “cultivating the virtue of citizens,“ and of teaching “how to live a good life.” Political association is required for people to fully exercise their “distinctly human capacity for language” and “realize their nature” by “deliberating with others about right and wrong, good and evil, justice and injustice.” Of course, such state involvement is anathema to libertarians who raise the specter of state coercion. As the author notes, American political thinking is predominated by the view that the state should be “neutral” regarding moral ends and should at the least permit individuals to pursue their own ends. Theoretical rights theorists, such as Immanuel Kant and John Rawls, hold that liberty must be achieved before any conceptions of the good can be considered.
The author addresses the dilemma of being embedded in communities with attendant “obligations of solidarity and loyalty, historic memory and religious,…, while still giving scope to human freedom.” Alasdair MacIntyre suggests that we are “storytelling beings.” Our storylines provide direction and coherency to our lives. Social identities bear directly on determinations related to morality and justice and cannot be simply set aside. MacIntyre would suggest that libertarian choice carries little meaning in the shared communities that most of us inhabit. It goes without saying that belonging to a shared community carries with it a far greater sense of obligation and responsibility than libertarian unencumbered selves. Furthermore, determining justice is far more difficult than simply aggregating preferences or claiming that one’s choices are unburdened by social concerns. Those embedded in communities must bring their moral and religious convictions to debates about justice.
The book is interesting, yet it is a bit vague and disorganized. Who is the target audience? Digressions into the obscure philosophies of hypothetical rights theorists like Kant and Rawls are too sketchy to be of much use to the general public or students. The justice of such situations as pregnancy for pay, affirmative action, apologies and reparations for wronged social groups is discussed, but rather hazily. The abortion and stem-cell debates and those on same-sex marriage are tinged with religious considerations. The author seems to down play the difficulties that religious perspectives bring to open debates about social issues. The book is really meant to accompany an introductory, non-technical survey course on justice. A this-and-that approach is probably to be expected. Borderline four star book.
Justice is pretty serious business and achieving it in the US goes far beyond religious tolerance. The author touches on the ascendance of the free-market paradigm and the huge growth in inequality over the last thirty years. He neglects to mention that the rich control the media, which in many ways are propaganda mills for their interests and distort all topics including matters related to justice. It’s most doubtful that the educational system will be producing activists in sufficient numbers to counter current trends. In actuality markets are far more controlled than free and not for the benefit of the have-nots. The latest Wall St financial fiasco, where a group of rich people nearly brought the economy to its knees and then were propped up with taxpayer money with not one investment house CEO being led to jail in handcuffs, probably says more about the prospects for justice in the US than anything. That situation goes far beyond competing versions of justice as the author would have one believe. Usurpation of justice would be more accurate.
Was this comment helpful? | Yes | No
(2 of 2 readers found this comment helpful)
This book is precipitated, first, by the loss of the last presidential election by the inglorious Republicans, or pseudo-conservatives, but also by the disappearance of any semblance of true conservatism from national politics. Two things about the book: regardless of the ridiculousness of this brand of Republicanism, their demise is greatly exaggerated; secondly, the entire concept of “conservatism” is beset by misrepresentations.
The author’s admission that most of us are both liberal and conservative helps little. Gordon Wood in “The Radicalism of the American Revolution” made the essential point that the formation of the United States was a liberal undertaking. We rejected kowtowing to kings, priests, feudal lords, etc. We emphasized equal liberty for all (initially, white men) and created a political community based on the participation of the common man to greater or lesser extent. We accept that “We, the People” will decide what measures will be undertaken by our government. We don't automatically accept old thinking and old ways of doing things, usually reinforced by social elites. It is totally nonsensical to speak of anti-government sentiment in a democracy when it is actually our responsibility to participate in gov and address our issues and advance the cause of ourselves, if not mankind.
The author makes an invidious comparison between the French Revolution and its Declaration of the Rights of Man versus our supposedly conservative, practical founding. Of course, he has to acknowledge that our own Declaration of Independence speaks of the equality and rights of men. There is no doubt that the framers of the Constitution attempted to rein in democracy, which actually testifies to our democratic instincts. Applying political labels is almost impossible. Were the Whigs, the forerunners to the Repubs, in their advocacy of gov intervention, liberal or conservative? Were the Jacksonians, forerunners to the Democrats, in their destruction of the Bank of the US and pro-Southernism, radical or conservative? The fact is that elements of preservation and change are part of any political era and of all parties.
But the fundamental change since the Age of Jackson that pertains to today’s conservative versus liberal arguments, which the author neglects to note, is the rise of the mega-corporation and a corporate elite. Their penetration and control of our government and culture has been so complete as to be virtually undetectable. The legal order, the very nature of work and employment, the flow of information – all of these are orchestrated by corporations with an interest in profits, not a just or democratic social order. Traditional society and our mores have been far more affected by the push of huge businesses than any other factor. It is from this elite element that intense anti-gov rhetoric flows, while receiving massive amounts of gov services, if not outright welfare. Through their propaganda efforts, they have managed to convince sizeable segments of our society, evangelicals and working people, to name some, that adverse social and economic developments are due to gov excess. Of course, many others are closely tied to the self-interests of corporations.
Unfortunately, corporate capitalism, especially in its laissez-faire mode, has shown a great deal of instability through the years. The major depressions of 1877, 1893, and the early 1930s are only the tip of the iceberg. We, the People have been forced to contend with the social destructiveness of capitalism through the only entity that has any power to contain their excesses, namely, government. This is where the labeling starts. When Progressives or New Dealers attempted to deal with corporate excess – this is “liberalism.” When corporations want to continue their privileged place in society with no changes despite obvious social negativities – this is conservatism. When a party attempts to sway our society to actually live up to emancipation laws adopted over one hundred years ago or to keep evangelicals out of public affairs – this is liberalism. But to continue to ignore our founding principles concerning equality and keeping gov religion-free is conservative. Can both of these positions have equal legitimacy?
The author’s examples of true conservatives are Edmund Burke and Disraeli. Curiously, neither was anti-government, per se. Burke was against the excesses of the French Revolution, though it’s hard to see the appeal to Americans of a philosopher comfortable with monarchy – that’s in opposition to our founding principles. The author notes that some so-called conservatives of recent vintage, such as Reagan and Nixon, despite their rhetoric, were very practical in their approach to gov, with Nixon even advocating a guaranteed income. They were not knee-jerk no-change agents. One might ask again, when a political party or person is acting in the best interests of the nation as a whole, what exactly is the difference between liberal and conservative? It is hard to argue against debate in a democracy. Hopefully, it is all reasonable, transcending liberal and conservative.
The author refers to the current Republican party as “movement” conservatism. In actuality, it is a radical libertarian party completely in thrall to the rich with an agenda of preserving/conserving the privileged position of corporations and their elites in American society. And they have managed to drag along millions of people who are upset with developments in the nation but who are too blind to see that it is these very corporations who have contributed most to their woes and complaints. Who, other than business elites, gratuitously downsize, ship jobs overseas, invite in millions of visa workers, cause a near economic collapse, produce salacious entertainment products, etc?
The notion of the “death of conservatism” is quite ambiguous. The author does not clarify what it means to be conservative in a liberal, democratic order that specifically calls for the equality and rights of all men. Hopefully, a conservative is not one who supports the existence of elitism that is at best indifferent, or worse opposed, to the implementation of our fundamental principles. Secondly, the GW Bush presidency was a disaster for the nation economically and internationally. But there is not much evidence with which to contend that the corporate agenda is much diminished. The so-called liberal party has imposed few additional constraints on corporations despite their tendency to self-destruct and their acceptance of large amounts of taxpayer money. Only in times of highly skewed thinking, could the conservative demonization of liberals and gov continue nonstop despite the propping of the teetering corporate order. Given the corporate hegemony of our social and political order, rather than death, it is far more likely that the misconstrued “conservative” Republican Party will rise sooner than later.
Despite the brevity of the book and its vagueness, it does invite thinking about the nature of our politics – long overdue. For that reason, it is recommended.
Was this comment helpful? | Yes | No
(2 of 2 readers found this comment helpful)
A sobering look at American conceits and delusions
This very incisive, though often quite critical, book examines some of the major cultural currents in American society from the end of Reconstruction through WWI. It is the prevailing thinking and psychology of the period that most concerns the author. The book is not intended to be a detailed history of the era, but the author does examine such issues and developments as race, immigration, the degradation of labor, the rise of huge corporations, economic instability, consumerism, populism, progressivism, imperialism, militarism, etc, as well as reinvention of the self.
There is little doubt that the nation was in need of “regeneration” after the horrors of the Civil War. But that renewal was accomplished at the expense of those who were brutally affected by the Southern plantation system. The War was recast as an arena for heroic Anglo-Saxons, now united in their bravery regardless of which side they were on. By the last decade of the century, emancipation had given way to Jim Crow and, even worse, widespread lynching of those who did not kowtow. This spread of racism, heroism, and militarism dominated the ensuing decades. The author describes at length a national obsession among the upper classes of asserting and proving manliness. What better way to show superiority than to subject the brown peoples of the world to Yankee imperialism backed by the military? Theodore Roosevelt, in the author’s eyes, is the epitome of such thinking and actions. The author scarcely hides his disdain for the obsession of elites with individual adventure and even bodybuilding.
Of course, a huge development in post-Civil War America was the rise of enormous corporations and their huge impact on workers and the broader culture. The Farmers’ Alliance, the Populists, the Knights of Labor, the AFL, and the Socialists were all organizations that sought to counter corporate control of the economy and the degradation of work via mechanization and scientific management. They extolled the virtues of “producers” and sought to establish some form of cooperative commonwealth. Perhaps most important to them was democratic control of the financial system of the US. The chaos of economic cycles and principles of “hard” money always disproportionately affected workers and farmers.
Part of the rebirth of the nation can be looked at as attempts for purification. That took many forms: racial purity, assertion of manliness versus effeteness, and abstinence from alcohol. The Progressive movement can be seen as an effort of elites and experts to purify the economy: child labor laws, anti-trust legislation, reform of the banking system, and the like. As the author notes, their efforts were heavily compromised. Enhanced managerialism was emphasized over fundamental economic restructuring desired by populist groups and administrative regulation was usually adopted over statutory reform, which left corporations and their insiders firmly in charge. Woodrow Wilson succumbed to the impulses of purification and American assertiveness by involving the US in WWI at a great cost in lives with nothing to show for it. Though the author finds that Wilson’s ultimate failures mark the end of an era beset by any number of delusions, the New Deal was able to draw upon this era, but without the same zeal and fantasies.
This book is relevant in regards to the making of modern America in several ways. There has been no abatement in the dominance of US corporations, US worldwide economic hegemony, the necessity of the regulatory state, and the driving force of consumerism. Perhaps less appealing is the same tendency to delusional thinking: the reliance on robust militarism and the conceit that the American political and economic systems can be force fed to nations around the world.
The book is definitely far more sobering than the title may suggest. There is not a whole lot of admiration for the grandiose thinking that has been and continues to be a significant part of American culture. While the book is quite interesting, it is not without a certain amount of meandering, vagueness, and unnecessary repetition, but not to the extent that makes the book unreadable or not worthwhile. The book has a superb bibliographical note.
Was this comment helpful? | Yes | No
(3 of 3 readers found this comment helpful)
Liberty and Power: The Politics of Jacksonian America
by Harry L. Watson
Edition: Paperback
Price: $13.50
Availability: In Stock
53 used & new from $5.31
The interpretations of "republicanism", September 21, 2009
Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This book is a very insightful examination of the political thinking and alignments of the Jacksonian era - the two-plus decades after the Monroe presidency through the Polk years. The author's analysis draws upon the 18th century concept of republicanism, a somewhat nebulous notion with wide-ranging interpretations and implications. The different political factions of the era all claimed to be "republicans," yet their different understandings were such that by 1836 two well-defined political parties - the Whigs and the Democrats - had emerged based on those differences. Though the Southern system of enslavement loomed large throughout this period, the reactions to the commercial advances of the period, the Market Revolution in the author's words, proved to be most contentious as it intersected with republicanism.
Republicanism is a creed that has no tolerance for monarchy, dictatorship, nobility, aristocrats, and the like. It posits equal, free, independent, and virtuous self-governing citizens as the basis of the political community. The Jeffersonian ideal of such a person was the small, mostly self-subsisting, farmer. Liberty, above all, was emphasized but was compromised if a person was not independent, or, in other words, dependent on others for his well-being. In addition, a central tenet of republicanism was that a "common good" existed. Society with its various elements constituted a harmonious whole with no need for factions or political parties to represent "interests." Perhaps a cherished ideal, especially among Jacksonians, such an ideal social state has never existed in America. Dating from the founding, the landed gentry and commercial elites were more powerful socially and politically and certainly formed alliances. Of course, it was simply assumed that equality applied only to white men.
Most small farmers were drawn into the world of banks, currency, and credit as some of their production was directed to the marketplace. But the US financial system throughout the 19th century was unstable, subject to speculation and panics with those at the end of the credit chain being squeezed the most. Despite the obvious impact of these financial injuries, many contended that America needed to advance commercially for the overall strength of the nation. At a minimum, the manufacturing base had to be protected through tariffs, the development of transportation infrastructure was required to facilitate the movement of goods, and a robust banking and credit system was needed with paper money flowing through the economic system. This was Henry Clay's American System and was a core principle of the Whig party. Though such a system implies greater interdependence, it was claimed that individual prosperity, and thereby independence, would be enhanced.
Drawing upon his own financial setbacks due to speculative overextension, Andrew Jackson adhered to ideals of agrarian simplicity with virtually no place for a strong financial sector. He contended that issuing charters for banks and corporations and favoring the financial interests of one element of society versus another created a powerful elitist element, in direct violation of the equal liberty tenets of republicanism. In perhaps the most significant undertaking of the Jackson presidency, the Jacksonians waged a controversial war against the United States Bank of Philadelphia, headed by Nicholas Biddle and the sole depository of federal funds, throughout his presidency. His veto of the USB rechartering, his transfer of federal funds to "pet" state banks, and his insistence of specie payment for federal lands had the unintended consequence of creating financial instability in the absence of the restraining money management policies of the USB, the ramifications of which were fully realized in the panics of 1837 and 1839 after he left office.
Jackson's veto of the USB rechartering was only one instance of his assertion of presidential power. Jackson's presidential activism was derived not only from his supreme self-confidence and personal magnetism, but was also based on his contention that he was the most legitimate representative of the will of the people, having been elected nation-wide, and therefore by definition was entitled to act with few restraints. Upon assuming office, he took the unprecedented action of rooting out a significant percentage of entrenched bureaucrats and replaced them with supporters, with party strengthening implications for the fledgling Democratic Party. Toward the end of his first term he completely replaced his cabinet. All of these actions by Jackson were roundly denounced by the opposition as being an example of the exercise of tyrannical authority.
Jackson's era is often seen as the age of democracy. Without subjecting that notion to withering analysis there is no doubt that he favored the many, the ordinary man, over the few, with the caveat that he included only white men. Completely consistent with that view is Jackson's obsession with relocating Indians and expanding the nation's boundaries. He wanted cheap land for those wishing to establish independence, as well as the extension of the Southern plantation system. Clay and his supporters advocated high land prices to gain revenue for internal improvements and were at best lukewarm supporters of expansion, worried that social harmony would be compromised, not to mention their dislike for the Southerner's nefarious institution and the ignoring of numerous Indian treaties guaranteeing their lands.
There is no doubt that the Whigs emphasized the virtuous citizen more so than the Jacksonians. Not only did they call for infrastructure improvement, but they were concerned with individual improvement and social reform. Many of the evangelicals of the period came to be in the Whig party with calls for temperance. They tended to be nativist with a dislike for Roman-Catholic Germans and Irish and their use of alcohol. The Whigs did see society as being ordered based on merit, though they were not anti-democratic. But virtuous citizens had obligations to act for the betterment and reinforcement of society. Any exercise of authority was to be reasonable and in accordance with institutional rules. The Whigs particularly objected to concealed or arbitrary authority as represented by the Masons or Jackson in his various policies.
The author argues that the political alignments of the Whigs and Democrats came to be very stable and accepted by the late 1830s, despite earlier republican warnings against parties. They were hardly doctrinal, accepting those with a variety of concerns. The parties took the attention off of sectional issues as party discipline exerted overriding control. But as the author says, that stability did not last as the lurking issue of the Southern economic system exploded in the mid-1850s.
The book is very informative and concisely written. The summary above barely scratches the surface. It definitely provides clarification to the Age of Jackson, as an age of democracy. The author captures the nuances of the republican thinking that placed someone in one camp or the other. It is interesting to compare the party alignments of today with those that first appeared in the time of Jackson, as well as the authority asserted by Jackson compared with modern presidents.
Was this comment helpful? | Yes | No
(2 of 2 readers found this comment helpful)
This book continues with the story of twenty-six-year-old Lisbeth Salander, first introduced in “The Girl with the Dragoon Tatto.” She is surely one of most interesting and strange characters introduced in crime fiction in recent years with her reclusive, punk, misfit motif but with computer and survival skills off the chart, especially for someone officially declared as incompetent and in need of state-mandated guardianship. She has changed some from her days of working as a researcher for journalist Carl Blomkist in his search for a woman missing some forty years. Secondarily in the first book, she parlayed her computer skills to rake off a small fortune from the ill-gotten gains of Swedish industrialist Hans Wennestrom before his exposure and has thereby bettered her living circumstances with no less care being given to anonymity.
But life takes a dramatic turn for the worse for Salander when she is identified as the prime suspect in the murder of three individuals: her guardian, a freelance journalist Dag Svensson, and his roommate Mia Johansson, a sex researcher, which conveniently fits with her diagnosis of being capable of psychotic, violent behavior. Svensson was on the verge of publishing an expose of sex-trafficking in Blomkist’s magazine Millennium with many leading Swedish citizens on the list. But what was the connection of Salander to the journalist and/or the sex-business and how was her guardian involved with all of this?
The book is fast-paced, though lengthy, unraveling of all of this. A lot of missteps are taken by Swedish police, some more well-intentioned than others. There is a contradiction from the start for the authorities: Blomkist and others familiar with Salander speak of her extraordinary intelligence and sense of morality, which hardly squares with the psychiatric evaluations. Salander has to walk the tightrope of avoiding capture or arrest while being proactive in proving her innocence. It turns out that much of her past, both recent and early, pertains. The enigmatic Lisbeth is slowly revealed adding credibility to her bizarre personality, as well as moving towards a conclusion.
A reading of the first book is not totally necessary to fully appreciate this book, though it would be helpful. The cautious attraction of Blomkist and Salander that got sidetracked by the end of the first book is in a deep freeze, but this case has the potential for changing all of that. Salander needs allies, and Blomkist is at the top of the list.
Perhaps the Swedish names can be a distraction, but the real story is about human interactions, not names of places. This second book of a three-part series is a good as the first – perhaps better. The writing is insightful - not just the characters but of the scenarios in which Blomkist and Salander find themselves. One could nitpick the plot with its coincidences, implausibilities, loose ends, and the like. But the reason to read the book is to watch Lisbeth Salander in action. And there are remaining issues for book three.
Was this comment helpful? | Yes | No
(1 of 1 readers found this comment helpful)
Powell's City of Books is an independent bookstore in Portland, Oregon, that fills a whole city block with more than a million new, used, and out of print books. Shop those shelves — plus literally millions more books, DVDs, and eBooks — here at Powells.com.
Don't Miss
Customer Comments
OneMansView has commented on (88) products.
Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? by Michael J Sandel
OneMansView, October 27, 2009
Basic concepts, but vague and scattershot (3.6 *s)This book is a rather meandering and inconclusive look at some different conceptions of justice and connections with freedom, rights, and morality. In his study, the author examines some basic, well-known paradigms, both modern and ancient, the ideas of a few noted political philosophers, and any number of real and hypothetical example situations where the just, or right thing to do, is not necessarily easily determinable.
The two most prevalent, contemporary ideas concerning justice are based on utility and maximizing freedom of choice. Utilitarianism, based on Jeremy Bentham’s works, sees justice occurring when an outcome enhances happiness for the most people or results in benefits exceeding costs. Individuals who are on the losing side of utilitarian decisions, essentially, have their rights sacrificed to the greater good. Judgments of outcomes are not permitted outside the “currency of valuation.” If happiness is the standard, justice may be served by entertaining a majority of spectators by throwing Christians to the lions. If maximizing profits is of interest, paying damages for deaths due to gas tanks exploding may be more cost-effective than recalling autos and preserving lives. On the other hand, libertarianism emphasizes the primacy of choice for every person as being the basis of justice. Any form of exterior control or coercion on anyone to effect a greater good, whether based on utility, morality, or otherwise, is a perversion of justice. Individual rights cannot be sacrificed to majority will. Self-ownership is also a part of libertarianism. Assuming no adverse consequences to others, most any behavior is tolerated be it drug usage, selling one’s body parts, etc.
As the author indicates, so-called free-markets are regarded as being compatible with both utility and freedom concerns. For one, the sum of free exchanges increases happiness. Second, by definition, free-markets are the locus of free exchanges. In fact, some libertarians assume that most any good or service that could be for sale, should be for sale, even to the point of paying others to take one’s place in the military – a widespread practice in the Civil War. However, for libertarian justice to be realized, choices must really be free. Equal opportunity undergirds free choice. Without it, disadvantaged people may well be coerced in their choices. Another question is the relevance of civic obligations under libertarianism. Is libertarian justice consistent with any possible tearing of the social fabric due to eschewing civic duties or with “free-riding” on the backs of those who choose to serve society?
The author largely rejects the extreme positions of utilitarianism and libertarianism, which either minimize the rights and well-being of sacrificial citizens for overall happiness or adopt the pretense that maximizing free choice, including the placing of social practices not usually for sale in the marketplace, will automatically produce a robust and just community. In contrast to those concepts, Aristotle has a decidedly different notion on what is important in establishing justice. That people are socially situated cannot be ignored. There is a social necessity of “cultivating the virtue of citizens,“ and of teaching “how to live a good life.” Political association is required for people to fully exercise their “distinctly human capacity for language” and “realize their nature” by “deliberating with others about right and wrong, good and evil, justice and injustice.” Of course, such state involvement is anathema to libertarians who raise the specter of state coercion. As the author notes, American political thinking is predominated by the view that the state should be “neutral” regarding moral ends and should at the least permit individuals to pursue their own ends. Theoretical rights theorists, such as Immanuel Kant and John Rawls, hold that liberty must be achieved before any conceptions of the good can be considered.
The author addresses the dilemma of being embedded in communities with attendant “obligations of solidarity and loyalty, historic memory and religious,…, while still giving scope to human freedom.” Alasdair MacIntyre suggests that we are “storytelling beings.” Our storylines provide direction and coherency to our lives. Social identities bear directly on determinations related to morality and justice and cannot be simply set aside. MacIntyre would suggest that libertarian choice carries little meaning in the shared communities that most of us inhabit. It goes without saying that belonging to a shared community carries with it a far greater sense of obligation and responsibility than libertarian unencumbered selves. Furthermore, determining justice is far more difficult than simply aggregating preferences or claiming that one’s choices are unburdened by social concerns. Those embedded in communities must bring their moral and religious convictions to debates about justice.
The book is interesting, yet it is a bit vague and disorganized. Who is the target audience? Digressions into the obscure philosophies of hypothetical rights theorists like Kant and Rawls are too sketchy to be of much use to the general public or students. The justice of such situations as pregnancy for pay, affirmative action, apologies and reparations for wronged social groups is discussed, but rather hazily. The abortion and stem-cell debates and those on same-sex marriage are tinged with religious considerations. The author seems to down play the difficulties that religious perspectives bring to open debates about social issues. The book is really meant to accompany an introductory, non-technical survey course on justice. A this-and-that approach is probably to be expected. Borderline four star book.
Justice is pretty serious business and achieving it in the US goes far beyond religious tolerance. The author touches on the ascendance of the free-market paradigm and the huge growth in inequality over the last thirty years. He neglects to mention that the rich control the media, which in many ways are propaganda mills for their interests and distort all topics including matters related to justice. It’s most doubtful that the educational system will be producing activists in sufficient numbers to counter current trends. In actuality markets are far more controlled than free and not for the benefit of the have-nots. The latest Wall St financial fiasco, where a group of rich people nearly brought the economy to its knees and then were propped up with taxpayer money with not one investment house CEO being led to jail in handcuffs, probably says more about the prospects for justice in the US than anything. That situation goes far beyond competing versions of justice as the author would have one believe. Usurpation of justice would be more accurate.
(2 of 2 readers found this comment helpful)
The Death of Conservatism by Sam Tanenhaus
OneMansView, October 2, 2009
Pseudo-conservatives are not dead (3.75*s)This book is precipitated, first, by the loss of the last presidential election by the inglorious Republicans, or pseudo-conservatives, but also by the disappearance of any semblance of true conservatism from national politics. Two things about the book: regardless of the ridiculousness of this brand of Republicanism, their demise is greatly exaggerated; secondly, the entire concept of “conservatism” is beset by misrepresentations.
The author’s admission that most of us are both liberal and conservative helps little. Gordon Wood in “The Radicalism of the American Revolution” made the essential point that the formation of the United States was a liberal undertaking. We rejected kowtowing to kings, priests, feudal lords, etc. We emphasized equal liberty for all (initially, white men) and created a political community based on the participation of the common man to greater or lesser extent. We accept that “We, the People” will decide what measures will be undertaken by our government. We don't automatically accept old thinking and old ways of doing things, usually reinforced by social elites. It is totally nonsensical to speak of anti-government sentiment in a democracy when it is actually our responsibility to participate in gov and address our issues and advance the cause of ourselves, if not mankind.
The author makes an invidious comparison between the French Revolution and its Declaration of the Rights of Man versus our supposedly conservative, practical founding. Of course, he has to acknowledge that our own Declaration of Independence speaks of the equality and rights of men. There is no doubt that the framers of the Constitution attempted to rein in democracy, which actually testifies to our democratic instincts. Applying political labels is almost impossible. Were the Whigs, the forerunners to the Repubs, in their advocacy of gov intervention, liberal or conservative? Were the Jacksonians, forerunners to the Democrats, in their destruction of the Bank of the US and pro-Southernism, radical or conservative? The fact is that elements of preservation and change are part of any political era and of all parties.
But the fundamental change since the Age of Jackson that pertains to today’s conservative versus liberal arguments, which the author neglects to note, is the rise of the mega-corporation and a corporate elite. Their penetration and control of our government and culture has been so complete as to be virtually undetectable. The legal order, the very nature of work and employment, the flow of information – all of these are orchestrated by corporations with an interest in profits, not a just or democratic social order. Traditional society and our mores have been far more affected by the push of huge businesses than any other factor. It is from this elite element that intense anti-gov rhetoric flows, while receiving massive amounts of gov services, if not outright welfare. Through their propaganda efforts, they have managed to convince sizeable segments of our society, evangelicals and working people, to name some, that adverse social and economic developments are due to gov excess. Of course, many others are closely tied to the self-interests of corporations.
Unfortunately, corporate capitalism, especially in its laissez-faire mode, has shown a great deal of instability through the years. The major depressions of 1877, 1893, and the early 1930s are only the tip of the iceberg. We, the People have been forced to contend with the social destructiveness of capitalism through the only entity that has any power to contain their excesses, namely, government. This is where the labeling starts. When Progressives or New Dealers attempted to deal with corporate excess – this is “liberalism.” When corporations want to continue their privileged place in society with no changes despite obvious social negativities – this is conservatism. When a party attempts to sway our society to actually live up to emancipation laws adopted over one hundred years ago or to keep evangelicals out of public affairs – this is liberalism. But to continue to ignore our founding principles concerning equality and keeping gov religion-free is conservative. Can both of these positions have equal legitimacy?
The author’s examples of true conservatives are Edmund Burke and Disraeli. Curiously, neither was anti-government, per se. Burke was against the excesses of the French Revolution, though it’s hard to see the appeal to Americans of a philosopher comfortable with monarchy – that’s in opposition to our founding principles. The author notes that some so-called conservatives of recent vintage, such as Reagan and Nixon, despite their rhetoric, were very practical in their approach to gov, with Nixon even advocating a guaranteed income. They were not knee-jerk no-change agents. One might ask again, when a political party or person is acting in the best interests of the nation as a whole, what exactly is the difference between liberal and conservative? It is hard to argue against debate in a democracy. Hopefully, it is all reasonable, transcending liberal and conservative.
The author refers to the current Republican party as “movement” conservatism. In actuality, it is a radical libertarian party completely in thrall to the rich with an agenda of preserving/conserving the privileged position of corporations and their elites in American society. And they have managed to drag along millions of people who are upset with developments in the nation but who are too blind to see that it is these very corporations who have contributed most to their woes and complaints. Who, other than business elites, gratuitously downsize, ship jobs overseas, invite in millions of visa workers, cause a near economic collapse, produce salacious entertainment products, etc?
The notion of the “death of conservatism” is quite ambiguous. The author does not clarify what it means to be conservative in a liberal, democratic order that specifically calls for the equality and rights of all men. Hopefully, a conservative is not one who supports the existence of elitism that is at best indifferent, or worse opposed, to the implementation of our fundamental principles. Secondly, the GW Bush presidency was a disaster for the nation economically and internationally. But there is not much evidence with which to contend that the corporate agenda is much diminished. The so-called liberal party has imposed few additional constraints on corporations despite their tendency to self-destruct and their acceptance of large amounts of taxpayer money. Only in times of highly skewed thinking, could the conservative demonization of liberals and gov continue nonstop despite the propping of the teetering corporate order. Given the corporate hegemony of our social and political order, rather than death, it is far more likely that the misconstrued “conservative” Republican Party will rise sooner than later.
Despite the brevity of the book and its vagueness, it does invite thinking about the nature of our politics – long overdue. For that reason, it is recommended.
(2 of 2 readers found this comment helpful)
Rebirth of a Nation: The Making of Modern America, 1877-1920 (American History) by Jackson Lears
OneMansView, September 30, 2009
A sobering look at American conceits and delusionsThis very incisive, though often quite critical, book examines some of the major cultural currents in American society from the end of Reconstruction through WWI. It is the prevailing thinking and psychology of the period that most concerns the author. The book is not intended to be a detailed history of the era, but the author does examine such issues and developments as race, immigration, the degradation of labor, the rise of huge corporations, economic instability, consumerism, populism, progressivism, imperialism, militarism, etc, as well as reinvention of the self.
There is little doubt that the nation was in need of “regeneration” after the horrors of the Civil War. But that renewal was accomplished at the expense of those who were brutally affected by the Southern plantation system. The War was recast as an arena for heroic Anglo-Saxons, now united in their bravery regardless of which side they were on. By the last decade of the century, emancipation had given way to Jim Crow and, even worse, widespread lynching of those who did not kowtow. This spread of racism, heroism, and militarism dominated the ensuing decades. The author describes at length a national obsession among the upper classes of asserting and proving manliness. What better way to show superiority than to subject the brown peoples of the world to Yankee imperialism backed by the military? Theodore Roosevelt, in the author’s eyes, is the epitome of such thinking and actions. The author scarcely hides his disdain for the obsession of elites with individual adventure and even bodybuilding.
Of course, a huge development in post-Civil War America was the rise of enormous corporations and their huge impact on workers and the broader culture. The Farmers’ Alliance, the Populists, the Knights of Labor, the AFL, and the Socialists were all organizations that sought to counter corporate control of the economy and the degradation of work via mechanization and scientific management. They extolled the virtues of “producers” and sought to establish some form of cooperative commonwealth. Perhaps most important to them was democratic control of the financial system of the US. The chaos of economic cycles and principles of “hard” money always disproportionately affected workers and farmers.
Part of the rebirth of the nation can be looked at as attempts for purification. That took many forms: racial purity, assertion of manliness versus effeteness, and abstinence from alcohol. The Progressive movement can be seen as an effort of elites and experts to purify the economy: child labor laws, anti-trust legislation, reform of the banking system, and the like. As the author notes, their efforts were heavily compromised. Enhanced managerialism was emphasized over fundamental economic restructuring desired by populist groups and administrative regulation was usually adopted over statutory reform, which left corporations and their insiders firmly in charge. Woodrow Wilson succumbed to the impulses of purification and American assertiveness by involving the US in WWI at a great cost in lives with nothing to show for it. Though the author finds that Wilson’s ultimate failures mark the end of an era beset by any number of delusions, the New Deal was able to draw upon this era, but without the same zeal and fantasies.
This book is relevant in regards to the making of modern America in several ways. There has been no abatement in the dominance of US corporations, US worldwide economic hegemony, the necessity of the regulatory state, and the driving force of consumerism. Perhaps less appealing is the same tendency to delusional thinking: the reliance on robust militarism and the conceit that the American political and economic systems can be force fed to nations around the world.
The book is definitely far more sobering than the title may suggest. There is not a whole lot of admiration for the grandiose thinking that has been and continues to be a significant part of American culture. While the book is quite interesting, it is not without a certain amount of meandering, vagueness, and unnecessary repetition, but not to the extent that makes the book unreadable or not worthwhile. The book has a superb bibliographical note.
(3 of 3 readers found this comment helpful)
Liberty and Power: The Politics of Jacksonian America by Harry L Watson
OneMansView, September 21, 2009
Show: Public Reviews | Private ReviewsLiberty and Power: The Politics of Jacksonian America
by Harry L. Watson
Edition: Paperback
Price: $13.50
Availability: In Stock
53 used & new from $5.31
The interpretations of "republicanism", September 21, 2009
Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This book is a very insightful examination of the political thinking and alignments of the Jacksonian era - the two-plus decades after the Monroe presidency through the Polk years. The author's analysis draws upon the 18th century concept of republicanism, a somewhat nebulous notion with wide-ranging interpretations and implications. The different political factions of the era all claimed to be "republicans," yet their different understandings were such that by 1836 two well-defined political parties - the Whigs and the Democrats - had emerged based on those differences. Though the Southern system of enslavement loomed large throughout this period, the reactions to the commercial advances of the period, the Market Revolution in the author's words, proved to be most contentious as it intersected with republicanism.
Republicanism is a creed that has no tolerance for monarchy, dictatorship, nobility, aristocrats, and the like. It posits equal, free, independent, and virtuous self-governing citizens as the basis of the political community. The Jeffersonian ideal of such a person was the small, mostly self-subsisting, farmer. Liberty, above all, was emphasized but was compromised if a person was not independent, or, in other words, dependent on others for his well-being. In addition, a central tenet of republicanism was that a "common good" existed. Society with its various elements constituted a harmonious whole with no need for factions or political parties to represent "interests." Perhaps a cherished ideal, especially among Jacksonians, such an ideal social state has never existed in America. Dating from the founding, the landed gentry and commercial elites were more powerful socially and politically and certainly formed alliances. Of course, it was simply assumed that equality applied only to white men.
Most small farmers were drawn into the world of banks, currency, and credit as some of their production was directed to the marketplace. But the US financial system throughout the 19th century was unstable, subject to speculation and panics with those at the end of the credit chain being squeezed the most. Despite the obvious impact of these financial injuries, many contended that America needed to advance commercially for the overall strength of the nation. At a minimum, the manufacturing base had to be protected through tariffs, the development of transportation infrastructure was required to facilitate the movement of goods, and a robust banking and credit system was needed with paper money flowing through the economic system. This was Henry Clay's American System and was a core principle of the Whig party. Though such a system implies greater interdependence, it was claimed that individual prosperity, and thereby independence, would be enhanced.
Drawing upon his own financial setbacks due to speculative overextension, Andrew Jackson adhered to ideals of agrarian simplicity with virtually no place for a strong financial sector. He contended that issuing charters for banks and corporations and favoring the financial interests of one element of society versus another created a powerful elitist element, in direct violation of the equal liberty tenets of republicanism. In perhaps the most significant undertaking of the Jackson presidency, the Jacksonians waged a controversial war against the United States Bank of Philadelphia, headed by Nicholas Biddle and the sole depository of federal funds, throughout his presidency. His veto of the USB rechartering, his transfer of federal funds to "pet" state banks, and his insistence of specie payment for federal lands had the unintended consequence of creating financial instability in the absence of the restraining money management policies of the USB, the ramifications of which were fully realized in the panics of 1837 and 1839 after he left office.
Jackson's veto of the USB rechartering was only one instance of his assertion of presidential power. Jackson's presidential activism was derived not only from his supreme self-confidence and personal magnetism, but was also based on his contention that he was the most legitimate representative of the will of the people, having been elected nation-wide, and therefore by definition was entitled to act with few restraints. Upon assuming office, he took the unprecedented action of rooting out a significant percentage of entrenched bureaucrats and replaced them with supporters, with party strengthening implications for the fledgling Democratic Party. Toward the end of his first term he completely replaced his cabinet. All of these actions by Jackson were roundly denounced by the opposition as being an example of the exercise of tyrannical authority.
Jackson's era is often seen as the age of democracy. Without subjecting that notion to withering analysis there is no doubt that he favored the many, the ordinary man, over the few, with the caveat that he included only white men. Completely consistent with that view is Jackson's obsession with relocating Indians and expanding the nation's boundaries. He wanted cheap land for those wishing to establish independence, as well as the extension of the Southern plantation system. Clay and his supporters advocated high land prices to gain revenue for internal improvements and were at best lukewarm supporters of expansion, worried that social harmony would be compromised, not to mention their dislike for the Southerner's nefarious institution and the ignoring of numerous Indian treaties guaranteeing their lands.
There is no doubt that the Whigs emphasized the virtuous citizen more so than the Jacksonians. Not only did they call for infrastructure improvement, but they were concerned with individual improvement and social reform. Many of the evangelicals of the period came to be in the Whig party with calls for temperance. They tended to be nativist with a dislike for Roman-Catholic Germans and Irish and their use of alcohol. The Whigs did see society as being ordered based on merit, though they were not anti-democratic. But virtuous citizens had obligations to act for the betterment and reinforcement of society. Any exercise of authority was to be reasonable and in accordance with institutional rules. The Whigs particularly objected to concealed or arbitrary authority as represented by the Masons or Jackson in his various policies.
The author argues that the political alignments of the Whigs and Democrats came to be very stable and accepted by the late 1830s, despite earlier republican warnings against parties. They were hardly doctrinal, accepting those with a variety of concerns. The parties took the attention off of sectional issues as party discipline exerted overriding control. But as the author says, that stability did not last as the lurking issue of the Southern economic system exploded in the mid-1850s.
The book is very informative and concisely written. The summary above barely scratches the surface. It definitely provides clarification to the Age of Jackson, as an age of democracy. The author captures the nuances of the republican thinking that placed someone in one camp or the other. It is interesting to compare the party alignments of today with those that first appeared in the time of Jackson, as well as the authority asserted by Jackson compared with modern presidents.
(2 of 2 readers found this comment helpful)
The Girl Who Played with Fire by Stieg Larsson
OneMansView, September 13, 2009
Lisbeth Salander as the hunted this time (4.5*s)This book continues with the story of twenty-six-year-old Lisbeth Salander, first introduced in “The Girl with the Dragoon Tatto.” She is surely one of most interesting and strange characters introduced in crime fiction in recent years with her reclusive, punk, misfit motif but with computer and survival skills off the chart, especially for someone officially declared as incompetent and in need of state-mandated guardianship. She has changed some from her days of working as a researcher for journalist Carl Blomkist in his search for a woman missing some forty years. Secondarily in the first book, she parlayed her computer skills to rake off a small fortune from the ill-gotten gains of Swedish industrialist Hans Wennestrom before his exposure and has thereby bettered her living circumstances with no less care being given to anonymity.
But life takes a dramatic turn for the worse for Salander when she is identified as the prime suspect in the murder of three individuals: her guardian, a freelance journalist Dag Svensson, and his roommate Mia Johansson, a sex researcher, which conveniently fits with her diagnosis of being capable of psychotic, violent behavior. Svensson was on the verge of publishing an expose of sex-trafficking in Blomkist’s magazine Millennium with many leading Swedish citizens on the list. But what was the connection of Salander to the journalist and/or the sex-business and how was her guardian involved with all of this?
The book is fast-paced, though lengthy, unraveling of all of this. A lot of missteps are taken by Swedish police, some more well-intentioned than others. There is a contradiction from the start for the authorities: Blomkist and others familiar with Salander speak of her extraordinary intelligence and sense of morality, which hardly squares with the psychiatric evaluations. Salander has to walk the tightrope of avoiding capture or arrest while being proactive in proving her innocence. It turns out that much of her past, both recent and early, pertains. The enigmatic Lisbeth is slowly revealed adding credibility to her bizarre personality, as well as moving towards a conclusion.
A reading of the first book is not totally necessary to fully appreciate this book, though it would be helpful. The cautious attraction of Blomkist and Salander that got sidetracked by the end of the first book is in a deep freeze, but this case has the potential for changing all of that. Salander needs allies, and Blomkist is at the top of the list.
Perhaps the Swedish names can be a distraction, but the real story is about human interactions, not names of places. This second book of a three-part series is a good as the first – perhaps better. The writing is insightful - not just the characters but of the scenarios in which Blomkist and Salander find themselves. One could nitpick the plot with its coincidences, implausibilities, loose ends, and the like. But the reason to read the book is to watch Lisbeth Salander in action. And there are remaining issues for book three.
(1 of 1 readers found this comment helpful)
1-5 of 88next