Thomas Paine's 'The Rights of Man' Thomas Paine's 'The Rights of Man' by Christopher Hitchens
Publisher: Atlantic Monthly Press
Year: 2007
Pages: 160

I continue my torrid literary affair with Christopher Hitchens with his latest short biography. He’s previously done a slim tome about Thomas Jefferson; now, he turns to famed pamphleteer Thomas Paine, beginning a theme of which Susan Jacoby would be proud.

Ostensibly a biography of Paine, one gets the feeling early on that Thomas Paine’s Rights of Man: A Biography is going to end up being itself something of a philosophical treatise, piggy-backed on the narrative framework of a biography. Hitchens begins with a sizeable introduction which is dark with just such portent. He dispatches swiftly with Paine’s childhood and young years as a sailor, and later as an oft-fired government bureaucrat (this is in his native England). His penchant for rhetorical rabble-rousing made him a few good friends (eventually with Ben Franklin) and plenty of enemies.

His exploits in America are of course his best-known: he wrote Common Sense, the most famous of several pamphlets that he authored in support of a war for American independence—and it is notable that he called explicitly for an independent American state, since there was still a sizable population that simply wanted a redress of grievances and not complete secession from their motherland. He is, perhaps, the first to use the phrase “United States of America.” He was an ardent abolitionist, and originally influenced a passage in the Declaration of Independence denouncing the slave trade, though it was excised by committee before the final revision.

But easily half of this book focuses on Paine after the American Revolution, when he returned to France to foment a revolution there. Between France and England, Paine made plenty more enemies: his efforts east of the Atlantic were not as fruitful as those west of it. The French revolution changed states more often than a transistor, and was infinitely more bloodthirsty.

Curiously, Hitchens focuses on Paine’s intellectual rival, a man by the name of Edmund Burke, an Irish author and political theorist who wholeheartedly supported the American colonists’ independence, but strong opposed the French Revolution. Burke saw the French Revolution not as the true establishment of democracy, but a violent compulsive reaction to the suddenly unpopular notion of monarchy or hereditary power, which he curiously supported in his native Britain.

The literary catfights in this period are a subject of great interest to Hitchens, for whom they are a platform to wax idealistic, as he so often does, about the nature of liberty, the vagaries of inherited v. elected power, and the effect and wisdom of religion—specifically in connection to Paine’s Age of Reason an argument for deism among other things.

Paine eventually came back to the United States, where Federalist detested him for his ideas on government, devout religionists detested him for his ideas on deism, and yet others detested him for his associated with the French Revolution. He, poor and largely unpopular, in 1809.

If you’re interested in an in-depth history of Thomas Paine’s life, Hitchen’s brief treatment might not be for you. If you would merely like to know about Paine, and his influence, then you might appreciate what Hitchens has to say: it’s a good primer on Paine and his legacy.

§1965 · January 30, 2008 · 1 comment · Tags: , , , , , ,

The Big Con: The True Story of How Washington Got Hoodwinked and Hijacked by Crackpot Economics The Big Con: The True Story of How Washington Got Hoodwinked and Hijacked by Crackpot Economics by Jonathan Chait
Publisher: Houghton Mifflin
Year: 2007
Pages: 304

Economics books are notoriously difficult reading. It seems like even economists often don’t understand the economy. I thoroughly enjoyed Tim Harford’s The Undercover Economist. This book, ostensibly a firm rebuttal to supply-side economists, deals with the issue in two parts. The first is about supply-side economics themselves, but the second seems to be about The Big Republican Machine™.

It may surprise many of you (as it surprised me) that the origins of supply-side (“voodoo”) economics are relatively recent and humble. Essentially, a half-wit journalist saw a Laffer Curve and concluded that tax cuts increase revenue. Initially a wingnut idea that no one bothered with, it managed to impress, among others, Dick Cheney. By the time Reagan was in office, it became fiscal policy.

It’s important here to understand, and Chait drives this home, that today’s Republican Party, supply-siders all, have very little in common with the fiscal conservatives of yesteryear, who were actually fiscally conservative. A legacy of increased spending, culminating in George W. Bush, has no problem with large deficits, so long as they fund tax cuts for businesses. Chait pretty definitively shows that this kind (supply-side) thinking is nonsense. I know you National Review or Wall Street Journal fans will argue, flog Reagan’s “legacy,” and probably say something about “spendocrats.” Read Chait. He shows how little the GOP wanted to do with supply-side economics, even recently; yet, the phenomenon has managed to somehow infiltrate the highest levels of the party to the point where the GOP and “supply-side” are virtually indistinguishable.

Some of this has to do with the GOP’s fantastic cohesion as a party. Whereas Democrats seem fragmented, disorganized, and internecine, Republicans are lead by strong conservatives like Grover Norquist who clearly draw a party line and bludgeon other conservatives until they faithfully toe it. Thus, Republicans don’t question supply-side economics because it’s now part of the platform, even though it doesn’t work.

I could go on and on, but you’d be better off just reading the book. I was a little concerned at first, because Chait spares no effort to establish, in the introduction, that he is not necessarily a liberal. This, I assume, is to ward off accusations of bias (you know that won’t work), but methinks he doth protest too much. I must admit, having read the book, that despite his straightforwardness and occasional vehemence, Chait does a pretty good job bowling down the center. His rhetoric tends to idealize centrism, painting previous incarnations of “liberal” and “conservative” as cleaving much closer to the center. Most of his ire is reserved for supply-side conservatives, yes, but he doesn’t shy away from telling horror stories about democrats, either. Chait isn’t trying to sweep Democratic malfeasance under the rug.

I view this as something of a companion book to Thomas Frank’s What’s the Matter With Kansas; a persistent question is why many conservatives vote against their economic interest. This has to do with the lockstep nature of social conservatives with the rest of the pro-business platform, even if it harms them financially. The GOP paints it as a matter of authenticity; it’s really anti-intellectualism, which comes as blatant hypocrisy from smug conservatives educated at Ivy League schools. Republicans are just better at telling people what to believe; better, and more shameless as well. This is some indication of their success in delivering messages contrary to common sense.

If you’re a conservative of the “I like Bush” stripe, then you’ll probably be offended by The Big Con, even though I think you’d have a hard time refuting much of what it says. If you’re a classic fiscal conservative (i.e. deficit hawk, &c.), or you’re a new or old-school liberal, you’ll probably agree with most of what’s here. Regardless, it’s a solid read.

§1964 · January 29, 2008 · 4 comments · Tags: , , , , ,

Dave Barry's History of the Millenium (So Far) Dave Barry's History of the Millenium (So Far) by Dave Barry
Publisher: Putnam Adult
Year: 2007
Pages: 224

I’ve noticed that Dave Barry has been waning in recent years. Maybe it’s just me, or maybe that’s why he decided in 2005 that it was time to stop writing his regular column for the Miami Herald. Dave Barry Hits Below the Beltway was good. Dave Barry’s Money Secrets felt forced.

I shouldn’t even analyze it that much: Dave Barry is a self-deprecating humor writer. His jokes involves boogers and weasels. Still, his books, stretching back into the 80s, have always been a guilty pleasure of mine. Even his fiction novels are good (I have yet to read his books with Ridley Pearson).

Dave Barry’s History of the Millenium (So Far) is a short book comprised of his yearly “Year in Review” articles for the Miami Herald, which he has done since the year 2000 (except for 2001, when he didn’t write one). It goes month by month, highlighting all of the major (and silly) events that happened. The effect is cumulative, as Barry uses recurring jokes heavily (e.g., Iraq, the Palm Beach County election officials, etc.). I’m not sure it was intended this way, although the book ends up being a sort of chronology of the George W. Bush presidency, except with more booger jokes.

Barry, for those of you who don’t know, is a registered Libertarian, which essentially means he holds most of the government in contempt. He lambastes the Democrats pretty heavily for being unorganized, inept, and knee-jerk, and then rakes the Republicans over the rails for what’s been a non-stop decade of corruption, ineptitude, and Pat Robertson. If you’ve read him for a while, you’ll recognize some old jokes that he’s recycled for the purpose (hey, he’s been putting out books for 25 years; I’ll cut him some slack), but this book genuinely did make me laugh out loud. It’s kind of sophomoric, but it’s got a gloss of respectable satire.

What’s charming about Barry’s work is that even though he professes to talk about really awful news (e.g., next year can’t possibly be any worse than this year), he does so in a way that makes it seem as harmless as booger jokes. It is, in one way, a sort of depressing cynicism about government that particular to libertarians and even moreso to humorists; yet, it’s also somewhat soothing, because I feel that if I can still laugh about government, it hasn’t yet gotten too bad.

§1962 · January 27, 2008 · 1 comment · Tags: , , , , , , ,

The “Midwestern Weather” edition.

Friday Random Ten

  1. Neurosis – [Given to the Rising #10] Origin
  2. The Dillinger Escape Plan – [Miss Machine #10] Unretrofied
  3. Second Coming – [Second Coming #01] Confessional
  4. Leaves – [The Angela Test #06] Good Enough
  5. Jeff Buckley – [Sketches for My Sweetheart the Drunk CD2 #05] Murder Suicide Meteor Slave
  6. Isis – [Oceanic Remixes CD1 #03] false light (deadverse remix by the oktopus)
  7. Do Make Say Think – [You, You're A History In Rust #04] A Tender History In Rust
  8. Opeth – [Ghost Reveries #01] Ghost of Perdition
  9. The Mars Volta – [Frances The Mute #11] Cassandra Geminni VII
  10. Ermine – [The Murra #04] The Choir My Hunters

I’m unretrofied for you:

  • None yet.
§1963 · January 25, 2008 · 2 comments · Tags: , ,

The First Word The First Word by Christine Kenneally
Publisher: Viking Adult
Year: 2007
Pages: 368

Although I’ve never pursued the subject seriously, I’ve always been a casual fan of linguistics; coming as I do from a background of reading and writing, I’ve developed a love, if nothing else, for language. I expected Christine Kenneally’s The First Word to be a bit more anthropological, like John Man’s excellent Alpha Beta. It actually ended up being more like Steven Pinker’s The Language Instinct, which isn’t bad, but merely different.

The First Word is composed of three parts. The first is a brief introduction of linguistics, mostly since the latter half of the 21st century. It sets up Noam Chomsky as the king of linguists, whose pioneering work in deep structure essentially set the tone of linguistic research for the next 30 or 40 years. Enter Steven Pinker, who, along with cohort Bloom, begin to insist that language is fundamentally tied to our evolution. This raises a ruckus: for a long time, the study of linguistics had concerned itself with the what of language—that is, grammars and vocabularies and etymologies—and asking the why had been deeply unfashionable. Kenneally introduces additional linguistics who seemed to come into the limelight once the Pinker/Bloom/Chomsky debate had blown the doors on evolutionary linguistics wide open.

Part Two talks about the nature of language, culturally and biologically. In discussing these characterics, Kenneally cites which is essentially a long list of scientific studies of language, protolanguage, or language-like behavior in animals. Apes, yes, but also birds and dolphins and &c. I admit that this tack got old after a while. I give Kenneally credit for her diligent research, but I got the point pretty early on. Her goal is to frame each of those vital characteristics to language in discrete memes which can be seen and studied in animals as well, in some fundamental way.

Part three talks much more about evolution, including culturally evolution. I recall Pinker’s book, and much of his arguments for the evolution of language, and this made a lot of sense, if somewhat redundant sense.

Perhaps the most interesting part of the book, besides the beginning that talks about the linguistic catfights of the 80s and 90s, is the epilogue, which takes a single question (basically, would language arise independently in a group of isolated children?) and lists the response from each one of the linguists that the author interviewed. It gives a broad sense of the schools of thought, and was in fact a lot more interesting than the bulk of animal studies that comprised much of the book.

I feel as though The First Word is a good book that would have been a lot better with some more editing: its focus is a little blurry, its body a bit dry, and its ultimate conclusion a bit empty. Let me point out that this is not a book for etymologists; you’ll probably like it if you’re a Pinker fan, however.

§1961 · January 23, 2008 · 1 comment · Tags: , , , , ,