For more than 60 years, Los Angeles's origins, its underbelly, and (yes) its blondes have fueled the imagination of writers and directors from...
Continue »
Simon Axler, long a star of the stage, was a natural. But he worked at his craft. He often arrived hours before a performance just to get into the mood of a role – nothing particularly analytical. However, seemingly suddenly, Simon couldn’t let his acting flow; he was literally paralyzed by attempting to, in real-time, observe and critique his performances. “He’d lost his magic.” His failures at such places as the Kennedy Center were so total and devastating that he and the critics agreed that he no longer belonged on a stage.
Perhaps if Simon, now sixty-five, had been younger, he could have regrouped or changed. Instead Simon contemplates ending it all but chooses to check into a psychiatric facility with all of its stock, infantile treatments and therapies. He eventually concludes that life is all caprice – one can gain and lose powers practically overnight.
Left in utter isolation in his rural farmhouse in New York, Simon is surprised by the visit of the now-grown, forty-year-old daughter of acting friends from many years ago. Peegen, as it turns out, is on the rebound from a lover, girlfriend who is in the process of changing sexes, but immediately begins a most thoroughgoing relationship with Simon. He has always been attractive to women; he appeals to their need for expression. Over the next year or so, he spends large sums on her in trips to NYC. Inevitably, doubts begin to intrude, but they agree to “risk.” In his state of mind, regardless of developments and consequences, does he really have a choice?
The book is short. One is reminded of many of Roth’s recent books: aging male, infirm in various respects, absolutely still attracted to intriguing women, and an end racing towards him at nearly breakneck speed. While the book is short, it is complete. Roth says what he wants to and as always in a sharp Rothian, appealing manner. Perhaps the nature of acting and it precariousness could have been explored, but the focus here is on a character. Not great, but a nice, little book.
Coulda, shoulda … commentary on ineffective government
In this audacious rewriting of history, the author contends that the American colonies were unprepared for independence – they basically jumped the gun. The American Revolution is suffused with the heroic notion that British tyranny was overthrown and a nation created, predicated on liberty, that is the envy of the world. But the author turns a critical eye on events dating from the Albany Plan of Union, 1754, through the Philadelphia Convention, to cast a different light on this national saga. He contrasts the development of other British colonies, mostly Canada, with the path taken by the US colonies, especially in regard to the effectiveness of their governments.
In the author’s eyes, an early indication of an aversion to forming a United States is the rejection of the Albany Plan of 1754 that would have unified the colonies in a joint arrangement with Britain primarily for defense against the French and Indians, the main obstacle being a jealous regard by the colonies for their prerogatives under their various governing charters. The British ended up bearing substantial costs in defeating those foes in the seven-year-long French and Indian War, 1755-63. The author examines the multi-year sequence of taxation and trade policies imposed by the British to recoup those incurred expenses, the Stamp Act, 1765, being the most galvanizing. As the author shows, though vexatious, matters had basically been resolved until the Boston Tea Party, 1773, brought on the Coercive Acts of 1774. Even then, probably no more than 25 percent of colonists wanted independence. That reluctance is seen by the fact that the Declaration of Independence was approved some fifteen months after the troop engagement at Lexington.
The Americans had one last chance to form a joint national government with the British in the offer of reconciliation by the British in 1778. According to the author timing was key: had the entry into the war by the French on the side of the Americans been delayed, there is a strong possibility that the offer would have been accepted.
These unrealized opportunities for forming co-governments with the British allowed the colonies to proceed on an anti-government path in forming their governments. The Articles of Confederation were a crude and disastrous first attempt at a government. Even then, the delegates at the Convention in 1787 were so concerned with usurpation of governmental power either by the people or the government itself, that a government was created with so many interlocked checks and balances that an ability to deal with social and economic developments is seriously compromised. The author points to the existence of slavery and the consequences of industrialization of examples where the US government failed to, actually could not, act. A Senate with essentially small-state veto power and a nearly impossible constitutional amendment procedure ensure the continuation of the status quo. The author suggests that the British parliamentary system of government is far more responsive to majoritarian interests, but they accept the need for governmental authority.
The author emphasizes that a stronger national government formed in conjunction with the British would have had the ability to contend with slavery. Even if force was used, it would have been on a far smaller scale than the Civil War. The author points to the British Emancipation Act of 1833 outlawing slavery in the British Empire as testimony to a commitment to put a stop to that nefarious institution.
Obviously, there is a huge problem in suggesting that history could have taken another path. In this case, British excesses were a catalyst in the Revolutionary War. It is likely that more measured responses to Canada and other British colonies were due to lessons learned with the Americans. It is pure speculation to predict where reconciliation with Britain in 1778 would have headed. That would have been uncharted waters.
The author does make good points about the nature of the US government. Principles turn into ideologies which generate myths and suddenly realities cannot be seen. The fact the US government is ineffectual is beyond question. The author suggests that a far more pragmatic course could have been followed - maybe so. The author does touch upon the class-based nature of our society, a factor in the framing of the Constitution and in the ongoing control of our government.
The book is interesting, but is, in the end, totally speculative. It is also tedious and very repetitious. The missed opportunity to form a strong central state with the British is repeated mantra-like. The recap of the American-British interactions from 1754 through the War is good as it relates to alternative interpretations is good.
Regarding the big mistake: from a perspective 235 years later, perhaps the War was a mistake. But the British were not the enlightened overseers at that time that the author would like to imagine. The real mistake was in the shortsightedness of the Constitutional founding. Caving in to Southern interests and creating an instrument ensuring deadlock and the mal-distribution power virtually ensured, if not calamity, ineffectiveness down the road. The Civil War was undoubtedly the biggest mistake and most egregious failure of social and political reasonableness in this nation. What is alarming is that we have basically the same political structure in place. While not a war, the devastating breakdown of our economy orchestrated by the rich in the late 2000’s has had a profound impact on our society. It is indicative of political failure, both philosophically and structurally. Give the author credit. His book is an attempt to shed light on how we have gotten to such a state of affairs.
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)
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 (90) products.
The Humbling by Philip Roth
OneMansView, November 21, 2009
Analysis is Paralysis (3.75*s)Simon Axler, long a star of the stage, was a natural. But he worked at his craft. He often arrived hours before a performance just to get into the mood of a role – nothing particularly analytical. However, seemingly suddenly, Simon couldn’t let his acting flow; he was literally paralyzed by attempting to, in real-time, observe and critique his performances. “He’d lost his magic.” His failures at such places as the Kennedy Center were so total and devastating that he and the critics agreed that he no longer belonged on a stage.
Perhaps if Simon, now sixty-five, had been younger, he could have regrouped or changed. Instead Simon contemplates ending it all but chooses to check into a psychiatric facility with all of its stock, infantile treatments and therapies. He eventually concludes that life is all caprice – one can gain and lose powers practically overnight.
Left in utter isolation in his rural farmhouse in New York, Simon is surprised by the visit of the now-grown, forty-year-old daughter of acting friends from many years ago. Peegen, as it turns out, is on the rebound from a lover, girlfriend who is in the process of changing sexes, but immediately begins a most thoroughgoing relationship with Simon. He has always been attractive to women; he appeals to their need for expression. Over the next year or so, he spends large sums on her in trips to NYC. Inevitably, doubts begin to intrude, but they agree to “risk.” In his state of mind, regardless of developments and consequences, does he really have a choice?
The book is short. One is reminded of many of Roth’s recent books: aging male, infirm in various respects, absolutely still attracted to intriguing women, and an end racing towards him at nearly breakneck speed. While the book is short, it is complete. Roth says what he wants to and as always in a sharp Rothian, appealing manner. Perhaps the nature of acting and it precariousness could have been explored, but the focus here is on a character. Not great, but a nice, little book.
The American Revolution: A Grand Mistake by Leland G. Stauber
OneMansView, November 20, 2009
Coulda, shoulda … commentary on ineffective governmentIn this audacious rewriting of history, the author contends that the American colonies were unprepared for independence – they basically jumped the gun. The American Revolution is suffused with the heroic notion that British tyranny was overthrown and a nation created, predicated on liberty, that is the envy of the world. But the author turns a critical eye on events dating from the Albany Plan of Union, 1754, through the Philadelphia Convention, to cast a different light on this national saga. He contrasts the development of other British colonies, mostly Canada, with the path taken by the US colonies, especially in regard to the effectiveness of their governments.
In the author’s eyes, an early indication of an aversion to forming a United States is the rejection of the Albany Plan of 1754 that would have unified the colonies in a joint arrangement with Britain primarily for defense against the French and Indians, the main obstacle being a jealous regard by the colonies for their prerogatives under their various governing charters. The British ended up bearing substantial costs in defeating those foes in the seven-year-long French and Indian War, 1755-63. The author examines the multi-year sequence of taxation and trade policies imposed by the British to recoup those incurred expenses, the Stamp Act, 1765, being the most galvanizing. As the author shows, though vexatious, matters had basically been resolved until the Boston Tea Party, 1773, brought on the Coercive Acts of 1774. Even then, probably no more than 25 percent of colonists wanted independence. That reluctance is seen by the fact that the Declaration of Independence was approved some fifteen months after the troop engagement at Lexington.
The Americans had one last chance to form a joint national government with the British in the offer of reconciliation by the British in 1778. According to the author timing was key: had the entry into the war by the French on the side of the Americans been delayed, there is a strong possibility that the offer would have been accepted.
These unrealized opportunities for forming co-governments with the British allowed the colonies to proceed on an anti-government path in forming their governments. The Articles of Confederation were a crude and disastrous first attempt at a government. Even then, the delegates at the Convention in 1787 were so concerned with usurpation of governmental power either by the people or the government itself, that a government was created with so many interlocked checks and balances that an ability to deal with social and economic developments is seriously compromised. The author points to the existence of slavery and the consequences of industrialization of examples where the US government failed to, actually could not, act. A Senate with essentially small-state veto power and a nearly impossible constitutional amendment procedure ensure the continuation of the status quo. The author suggests that the British parliamentary system of government is far more responsive to majoritarian interests, but they accept the need for governmental authority.
The author emphasizes that a stronger national government formed in conjunction with the British would have had the ability to contend with slavery. Even if force was used, it would have been on a far smaller scale than the Civil War. The author points to the British Emancipation Act of 1833 outlawing slavery in the British Empire as testimony to a commitment to put a stop to that nefarious institution.
Obviously, there is a huge problem in suggesting that history could have taken another path. In this case, British excesses were a catalyst in the Revolutionary War. It is likely that more measured responses to Canada and other British colonies were due to lessons learned with the Americans. It is pure speculation to predict where reconciliation with Britain in 1778 would have headed. That would have been uncharted waters.
The author does make good points about the nature of the US government. Principles turn into ideologies which generate myths and suddenly realities cannot be seen. The fact the US government is ineffectual is beyond question. The author suggests that a far more pragmatic course could have been followed - maybe so. The author does touch upon the class-based nature of our society, a factor in the framing of the Constitution and in the ongoing control of our government.
The book is interesting, but is, in the end, totally speculative. It is also tedious and very repetitious. The missed opportunity to form a strong central state with the British is repeated mantra-like. The recap of the American-British interactions from 1754 through the War is good as it relates to alternative interpretations is good.
Regarding the big mistake: from a perspective 235 years later, perhaps the War was a mistake. But the British were not the enlightened overseers at that time that the author would like to imagine. The real mistake was in the shortsightedness of the Constitutional founding. Caving in to Southern interests and creating an instrument ensuring deadlock and the mal-distribution power virtually ensured, if not calamity, ineffectiveness down the road. The Civil War was undoubtedly the biggest mistake and most egregious failure of social and political reasonableness in this nation. What is alarming is that we have basically the same political structure in place. While not a war, the devastating breakdown of our economy orchestrated by the rich in the late 2000’s has had a profound impact on our society. It is indicative of political failure, both philosophically and structurally. Give the author credit. His book is an attempt to shed light on how we have gotten to such a state of affairs.
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)
1-5 of 90next