My Book Reviews

Friday, January 16, 2004

A glimpse into foreign policy history

Collective defense or strategic independence?: Alternative strategies for the future, edited by Ted Galen Carpenter

This book is based on a conference held in December 1987 by the Cato Institute. The various essays examine the then-current policies regarding the Soviet Union, referred to as a collective defense strategy. This is contrasted with alternative polices centered on strategic independence or global unilateralism. The irony of the book is that the fall of the Soviet Union was just a few short years away, a possibility unconsidered by any of the writers in this volume. The essays cover U.S. NATO commitments, security ties in the pacific basin, U.S. foreign policy in the third world, and the policy of containment.

Eugene V. Rostow kicks off the collection with a justification of the current policy of collective defense in an essay entitled, 'A Breakfast for Bonapart'. The title of that essay refers to a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Lieper in 1814, remarking on the possible consequences of Napolean's conquests and how Europe would have been merely breakfast in a menu of further conquests. Rostow is virtually alone in his endorsement of the current policy (not too surprising since the book was put together by a think tank that generally advocates a strict, non-interventionist foreign policy).

Reading the essays in this volume gives one a sense of the immortality of bureaucracy. As radical as some of the proposals for downsizing were, as I write this, the U.S. has troops in over 100 foreign countries and its defense commitments continue to be huge, with a massive defense budget that dwarfs all others. There are lessons to be learned here in reference to the current war on terror. It's saddening that over a decade after the fall of the Soviet Union, we are still massively overspending on defense, engaging in commitments that make no sense for our security and that almost certainly make us less secure as resources are diverted from the War on Terror to pointless conquests like Iraq.

Tuesday, September 09, 2003

An introduction to the real Clinton scandals

The Rule of Law in the Wake of Clinton, edited by Roger Pilon

This book is a collection of essays drawn from a conference in July 2000 held by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington, D.C. Needless to say, the contributors have a pretty low opinion of the accomplishments of the Clinton Administration in regards to the rule of law, civil liberties and the Bill of Rights. Each chapter serves as a good introduction to the various assaults by Clinton on privacy, free speech, gun rights, and so on. As a primer, the book succeeds. It was nauseating to read of Clinton relentlessly championing unlimited government and the rule of man over the individual, freedom and common sense. Unfortunately, no chapter is able to go into depth on any of the subjects so one will have to go elsewhere for an in-depth expose on any of Clinton's appalling attacks on freedom that occurred regularly throughout his reign as head of Leviathan.

Of interest is the fact that a couple of the essays are written by people currently in the Bush Administration, including Ted Olson (currently Solicitor General) and Bill Pryor (appellate court nominee). Only time will tell if they were sincere in their respect for the rule of law, after they held the reigns of power.

Hopefully (and sadly) this will be the first of many such books, each one examining the latest administration?s attack on the Constitution. It certainly looks like the current administration is off to a rousing start with the USA PATRIOT Act.

Saturday, June 07, 2003

Lincoln: Hero or Monster?

The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, by Thomas Dilorenzo

Thomas DiLorenzo lays out a prosecutor's case for the evils of President Abraham Lincoln. The author's perspective is that of an economist and so it's not a surprise that he sees Lincoln through the lens of the appallingly bad economic policies (high tariffs, corporate welfare, and a strong national bank) that "The Great Emancipator" championed his entire political career. Lincoln's defenders, like Harry V. Jaffa, look through a different lens and see a champion of natural rights, the Declaration of Independence and opposition to slavery. But no balance is to be found here, no nuanced examination of possible explanations, just a straightforward diatribe against America's first "dictator." DiLorenzo boldly concludes that Lincoln was "The Great Centralizer" and thus was responsible for many of the ills of the twentieth century.

The author does not deny that the Civil War was about slavery. He makes it quite clear that the Southern states were deeply motivated to preserve this "peculiar institution" as it was called. Fortunately, little effort is made to defend the Confederacy in this book. Indeed, it would be quite hard to do so, since the governments of the Southern states were in the grip of slave owners bent on preserving slavery at all costs. What is asserted is that for Lincoln and the Republicans, the war was about preserving the Union so that the Republican agenda could be implemented and that Lincoln clearly articulated this repeatedly. Although the author does not talk much about the (Southern) Democrats, he does admit that they were just as corrupt as the Republicans.

Many aspects of Lincoln are examined in regards to the Civil War. Starting off with Lincoln's racial beliefs, the possibility of peaceful emancipation, Lincoln's real (economic) agenda, Lincoln's actions during the war, and the war's legacy are all examined with an eye for the worst. Note that this book is not a history of the Civil War (or "War between the States" as the author likes to call it). It is an indictment of one man and his legacy. This book is certainly not a good introduction to this era. It would be a good idea to read a general history of the Civil War prior to diving into this. Also, one should be sure to read some opposing views after reading this to get a balanced view. Harry V. Jaffa's recent "A New Birth of Freedom: Abraham Lincoln and the Coming of the Civil War" is probably a good defense of Lincoln (although I haven't read it).

Perhaps the most crucial aspect of the debates surrounding the Civil War is whether or not States have a Constitutional right to secede. Critics assert that DiLorenzo willfully misunderstands the difference between a Constitutional right to secede (non-existent, according to the Lincoln defenders) and a natural right to revolution and that since the Confederacy was engaged in the former and not that latter, it was illegitimate and therefore all of Lincoln's actions were justified. The actions that Lincoln took during the war are some of the most atrocious things that one will read and may seem hard to believe to the modern reader. The notion that the President could shut down newspapers at will, imprison people without trial and send in Federal troops to Maryland to ensure that only loyal Unionists (i.e., Republicans) were elected to the state's legislature boggles the modern mind. It is absurd to assert that this was all constitutional, as Lincoln's defenders do. The author points out that some of the top thinkers of this era, like abolitionist Lysander Spooner and philosopher Lord Acton, both despised slavery, but believed that the South should have been allowed to secede.

Is the author able to prove his point? I hesitate to make a judgment since this is only the second book I have read on this era, the first being Neely's pro-Lincoln "The Fate of Liberty". While DiLorenzo makes a good case for what Lincoln's "real" agenda was, it's not clear that he succeeds in showing that the Civil War was unnecessary. Slavery was just such an abomination that even if its ending was not Lincoln's intention, it was such an overwhelmingly good result that any alternative policy that delayed its ending by even a day has to be viewed with healthy skepticism. The author seems to sense this and labors mightily to show that Lincoln's efforts lead to great evil as well, even going so far as to claim that Lincoln was ultimately responsible for the rise of the Nazis in Germany!

I think one must read a good defense of Lincoln in order to determine if he's truly as monstrous as the author claims. But I believe DiLorenzo has done a fair job presenting his side. The author does seem to overstate his case at times, leave out vital information on certain topics and appear disingenuous on others. In other words, he seems to suffer from the same flaws that he attributes to Lincoln scholars who worship at the feet of old "Honest Abe".

Sunday, April 08, 2001

a mixed bag of essays from a liberal economist

This collection of essays from MIT economist Paul Krugman illustrates an important principle that applies to all scientists: the further away you are from your field, the less sense you make. Krugman's speciality is international trade, and the few essays in this book that deal with that subject shine out as examples of a willingness to stick to the facts and solid theory, even when they don't jibe with his liberal leanings. Krugman's liberal buddies must howl in agony as they read things like "In Praise of Cheap Labor," and the title essay, "The Accidental Theorist," is an enjoyable, unmerciful bashing of liberal journalist William Grieder.

Krugman takes aim at the right as well, and while he makes some good points about the follies of conservative politicians and pundits, his liberal bias starts to creep in. In "The Lost Fig Leaf: Why the Conservative Revolution Failed," he engages in the same kind of sloppy arguments that he accuses Dick Armey of engaging in just a few pages before. Listing the various items in the Federal budget that have wide support, Krugman proclaims that any significantly sized tax cut is therefore impossible. As if a tax cut of 17.8% (the remainder of unlisted items) of the Federal budget wouldn't be a gigantic tax refund!

The book really starts to go off the deep end in the last section, as Krugman deals with subjects that get farther and farther away from his speciality. "Earth in the Balance Sheet," an attempt to show that economists care about the environment, does little to convince the reader of the dangers of global warming and the wisdom of carbon taxes. "Rat Democracy" is an excellent example of how Krugman can get things exactly backwards: examining the field of public choice economics, Krugman is blind to the problems of granting unlimited wealth distribution powers to the government, instead favoring restrictions on participating in the political process. Krugman even invokes Marx at the end of "A Medical Dilemma," suggesting that the future may be "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." "Taxes and Traffic Jams" is the one semi-decent essay in this section, but it ends with a contradiction. Conservatives are bashed for not being consistently free market, the exact opposite of the criticism that was offered in the first essay in this section.