![[what I read in 2002]](/images/review_banner.gif)
« December »
Why Americans Hate Politics ::
One of the core topics in this book is the way in which American politics fails to deal with the complexity of public opinion. Whereas most people do not see themselves as strictly Liberal or Conservative, Democrat or Republican, political leaders tend to view them as one or the other. Whereas people wish to embracesocial progress and fiscal responsibility within their government, they are mostly made to choose between one or the other. Public emotions about everything from budgets to race and gender equality are are complicated and nuanced, and Dionne notes:
The trouble with American politics lies in its failure to allow these complicated feelings to express themselves. As a result, substantial numbers of Americans see the political conversation as too polarized, too remote from their concerns, too caught up in the false “consitituencies” that are seen only by the political, cultural, and economic elites... The current revolt against politics is the mainstream’s rebellion against this false polarization.
I had a series of small revelations as I read this book, and one of them occurred when I read the above passage. By the time I finished the book, I felt I had a new understanding of modern politics in the United States. I learned what it meant to be a part of a system of false choices, and I was able to see why, exactly, I found it so difficult to vote in the 2000 Presidential election.
What is most disconcerting about the state of politics, however, also provides some amount of hope. The fact that our political system does not have to be this way, that there is no reason why politics has to be as divisive and polemic and plainly false as it is is rather disturbing. It makes me wonder how, exactly we got into this situation, and it makes me wonder whether it is symptomatic of a slow degeneration of the system. But looked at in a more hopeful light, this dire situation can be seen as temporal, as ready for change; it’s an issue of getting the current leaders to listen, and to advocate for a more responsive government that has an insterest in leading its constituencies, rather than dividing it up. Of course, making those changes takes a lot of work, and and the public needs to be more informed on the shortcomings of the current system, and what sort of other choices are out there. While this book doesn’t provide all of that information, it is about the best possible place to start looking for it.
The Metaphysical Club ::
I have this theory about the Cold War era. I think the moral and political absolutism we saw during that time in this country, the clarity was an historical anomaly.
For the better part of the century, there was no question in this country that we, the capitalists, were right and they, the communists, were wrong or, for that matter, that we would emerge victorious from the battle. At the time, we were lucky that the Cold War was a battle of ideologies, images, and ideas and (Vietnam and the ongoing wars in South America notwithstanding) not an outright battle of military might. However, it turned out that the damage that ideologies can do should not be underestimated. Since the Cold War ended, we seem to lack a certain purpose or vision. Having a clear enemy for so long made it easy to talk about vision and direction; when they were vanquished, our vision once again had to come from within.
To find that vision, what better place to look than history?
Enter The Metaphysical Club. The book follows four pre-Cold War thinkers -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, William James, Charles Pierce, and John Dewey -- all of whom, in some way or another, defined what was going on in the American Mind as the country transitioned from the era of the Civil War into the Twentieth Century. Their ideas (paired, of course, with their political influence), gave rise to what we have accepted by now to be Modernism -- a way of thinking of the world that started with the lack of common vision of a country that had been fragmented by the Civil War, then tried to figure out how all of these divergent people could be brought (or forced) together so our way of life could be preserved and, hopefully, improved. During the time in which the Metaphysical Club was set, the concept of the Constitution became less about the preservation of individual rights, and more about what freedoms were required in order for the Country to Survive. We also saw a reinterpretation of Religion, through the introduction of Pragmatism, which suggested that the chasm between science and faith could be bridged by the simple fact that believing in god works for people. (In psychological terms, it is the lever that gets us the food pellets.) We also saw massive changes how people were educated. The commonality among all these ideas was a desire, not to preserve the rights of individuals in this country, but to move society forward. After the tragic realities of the Civil War, it was clear to the members of the Metaphysical Club that the survival of the United States rested with its ability to move forward, and we were going to have to progress in that direction together.
The ideas of Modern thought were viewed as antiquated during the time of the Cold War. Except for a few crazy dissenters, people were typically on the same page; if some were not, they would be ignored, blacklisted, beat up, or some combination of those three. But when Communism fell, we lost our enemy, we lost our vision as well. And suddenly the ideas put forward by the Metaphysical Club have become strangely relevant once again. It seems almost as though we are picking up right where we left off before the Cold War came in and, for a time at least, made things easy.
Lullaby ::
When I read this:
Old George Orwell got it backward.
Big Brother isn’t watching. He’s singing and dancing. He’s pulling rabbits out of a hat. Big Brother’s busy holding your attention every moment you’re awake. He’s making sure you’re always distracted. He’s making sure you’re fully absorbed.
He’s making sure your imagination whithers. Until it’s as useless as your appendix. He’s making sure your attention is always filled.
And this being fed, it’s worse than being watched. With the world always filling you, no one has to worry about what’s on your mind. With everyone’s imagination atrophied, no one will be a threat to the world.
I was totally sold on this book. I didn’t care about any weaknessess in the plot, about any of the over-the-top characters that I would never buy were they presented by a lesser writer. I wanted to see just how the sharp desparation shown in those three short paragraphs were going to play itself out in the rest of the book.
Of course, you add to this emotional powder-keg the spark of a lullaby that kills anyone who hears it, the story explodes and I not only want to watch the release of energy, I want to see the destruction that is left after the smoke clears.
Part of this is because the story is unbelieveable and unpredictable. I really felt like I had no idea what was going to happen next. But the part that galvinizes the story for me, that makes me buy it unsquestioningly, is the fact that I can relate to the desparation of the hero, which is summed up in a single passage. But what really makes it a good book is that, instead of trying to make the unbelievable real to me, it instead winds up making my life seem more unbeieveable and unreal. If that isn’t the mark of a great writer, then I don’t know what is, honestly.
« top »