Next book

THE VISION OF THE ANOINTED

SELF-CONGRATULATION AS A BASIS FOR SOCIAL POLICY

Conservative gadfly Sowell doesn't like the vision thing—at least, not as long as the vision is that of his political opponents on the left. Sowell (Race and Culture, 1994, etc.) sardonically refers to his targets here as the "anointed"—a kind of authoritarian liberal cabal whose view predominates in today's world (despite 12 years of Reagan/Bush, despite a Republican-controlled Congress). Exemplars of this mindset, according to Sowell, are David I. Bazelon, chief judge of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the 1960s, who argued for rehabilitation of criminals rather than punishment, and New York Times columnist Tom Wicker, who wrote of a "right to income." How do these do-gooders maintain their predominance? With a rhetorical repertoire that includes, for instance, what the author calls "aha!" statistics, numbers that purport to show cause and effect (e.g., low rates of prenatal care among black women and high black infant mortality rates), pointing to neglect by society of various "mascot groups" (blacks, gays, women, etc.). The anointed ignore all evidence that their theories and policies have failed: Since the war on poverty was started, Sowell claims, dependence on government largesse has increased. Similarly, despite the institution of sex education, teenage pregnancy rates have skyrocketed (the quantity and quality of these programs, let alone other factors, don't figure into this discussion). Sowell himself espouses a different vision, one that assumes the tragedy of the human condition. It's a vision of limited possibilities for social change, with no solutions, only trade-offs; no have-nots, only do-nots who deserve no compassion. The anointed are not well-meaning but rather infatuated with their own virtue; not misguided, but a threat to "the social cohesion that makes civilized life possible." Sowell's venomous tone dominates his own, sometimes thin evidence, making this a polarizing screed rather than a rational argument.

Pub Date: Aug. 2, 1995

ISBN: 0-465-08994-1

Page Count: 320

Publisher: Basic Books

Review Posted Online: May 19, 2010

Kirkus Reviews Issue: June 1, 1995

Next book

AN INDIGENOUS PEOPLES' HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES

A Churchill-ian view of native history—Ward, that is, not Winston—its facts filtered through a dense screen of ideology.

Custer died for your sins. And so, this book would seem to suggest, did every other native victim of colonialism.

Inducing guilt in non-native readers would seem to be the guiding idea behind Dunbar-Ortiz’s (Emerita, Ethnic Studies/California State Univ., Hayward; Blood on the Border: A Memoir of the Contra War, 2005, etc.) survey, which is hardly a new strategy. Indeed, the author says little that hasn’t been said before, but she packs a trove of ideological assumptions into nearly every page. For one thing, while “Indian” isn’t bad, since “[i]ndigenous individuals and peoples in North America on the whole do not consider ‘Indian’ a slur,” “American” is due to the fact that it’s “blatantly imperialistic.” Just so, indigenous peoples were overwhelmed by a “colonialist settler-state” (the very language broadly applied to Israelis vis-à-vis the Palestinians today) and then “displaced to fragmented reservations and economically decimated”—after, that is, having been forced to live in “concentration camps.” Were he around today, Vine Deloria Jr., the always-indignant champion of bias-puncturing in defense of native history, would disavow such tidily packaged, ready-made, reflexive language. As it is, the readers who are likely to come to this book—undergraduates, mostly, in survey courses—probably won’t question Dunbar-Ortiz’s inaccurate assertion that the military phrase “in country” derives from the military phrase “Indian country” or her insistence that all Spanish people in the New World were “gold-obsessed.” Furthermore, most readers won’t likely know that some Ancestral Pueblo (for whom Dunbar-Ortiz uses the long-abandoned term “Anasazi”) sites show evidence of cannibalism and torture, which in turn points to the inconvenient fact that North America wasn’t entirely an Eden before the arrival of Europe.

A Churchill-ian view of native history—Ward, that is, not Winston—its facts filtered through a dense screen of ideology.

Pub Date: Sept. 16, 2014

ISBN: 978-0-8070-0040-3

Page Count: 296

Publisher: Beacon Press

Review Posted Online: Aug. 17, 2014

Kirkus Reviews Issue: Sept. 15, 2014

Next book

GOOD ECONOMICS FOR HARD TIMES

Occasionally wonky but overall a good case for how the dismal science can make the world less—well, dismal.

“Quality of life means more than just consumption”: Two MIT economists urge that a smarter, more politically aware economics be brought to bear on social issues.

It’s no secret, write Banerjee and Duflo (co-authors: Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way To Fight Global Poverty, 2011), that “we seem to have fallen on hard times.” Immigration, trade, inequality, and taxation problems present themselves daily, and they seem to be intractable. Economics can be put to use in figuring out these big-issue questions. Data can be adduced, for example, to answer the question of whether immigration tends to suppress wages. The answer: “There is no evidence low-skilled migration to rich countries drives wage and employment down for the natives.” In fact, it opens up opportunities for those natives by freeing them to look for better work. The problem becomes thornier when it comes to the matter of free trade; as the authors observe, “left-behind people live in left-behind places,” which explains why regional poverty descended on Appalachia when so many manufacturing jobs left for China in the age of globalism, leaving behind not just left-behind people but also people ripe for exploitation by nationalist politicians. The authors add, interestingly, that the same thing occurred in parts of Germany, Spain, and Norway that fell victim to the “China shock.” In what they call a “slightly technical aside,” they build a case for addressing trade issues not with trade wars but with consumption taxes: “It makes no sense to ask agricultural workers to lose their jobs just so steelworkers can keep theirs, which is what tariffs accomplish.” Policymakers might want to consider such counsel, especially when it is coupled with the observation that free trade benefits workers in poor countries but punishes workers in rich ones.

Occasionally wonky but overall a good case for how the dismal science can make the world less—well, dismal.

Pub Date: Nov. 12, 2019

ISBN: 978-1-61039-950-0

Page Count: 432

Publisher: PublicAffairs

Review Posted Online: Aug. 28, 2019

Kirkus Reviews Issue: Sept. 15, 2019

Close Quickview