Since apparently it's a slow-news/throw-everything-at-the-post-and-see-what-sticks week for the blog, I thought I'd just talk about a couple books that have come out recently. And yes, they're history-oriented, because that's what I do, but they're also books conservatives should check out.
While there are a lot of new good books out right now, I thought for today I'd focus on two biographies. They're both well-written and about important people, and they reveal some things about the past.
Coolidge: By Amity Shlaes
Shlaes is also the author of The Forgotten Man, a somewhat revisionist history of the Great Depression, and by "revisionist" I mean she definitely does not portray it as the story of FDR arriving to save us all from our laissez-faire sinfulness. So, clearly a woman who should be given the benefit of the doubt, and her biography of our 30th President more than justifies this trust. Stylistically, I thought the book maybe left a bit to be desired in how it abruptly shifted from one aspect of Coolidge's presidential life to another, but that's a rather pedantic, nitpicky criticism. As to what she actually has to say, her portrait of "Silent Cal" absolutely shatters the frequent image we have of a cold, callous man who did nothing to help the country. Coolidge, who had warm relationships with his family and friends, was also a principled man who was not only active in his own way, but had to really fight to carry through his vision of what the government and the country should be.
The pro-business climate of the '20s, for example, did not just happen--progressives in Washington fought to block plans for low income taxes and reductions in spending, and it required a great deal of tenacity and maneuvering by the President to overcome them. The flip side of Coolidge's reticence was his ability to make his opponents underestimate him, and time and time again he used that to blindside them. Partly he did it with a careful command of the facts--he clearly pointed out that everything they knew suggested tax cuts would actually increase government revenue over the long run, and sure enough, he was right. I have never yet met a liberal who will admit to this unfortunate truth, or who even seems aware of it.
Perhaps the most interesting that comes through in Shlaes' book is Coolidge's vision of the presidency as an institution. As the author has said in interviews, he interpreted his position quite literally--as "Presiding Officer." He would do what he needed to do to preserve or enhance national security or prosperity, but beyond that, it was his job to give his fellow citizens as free a hand as possible, and not to micromanage their affairs. Indeed, that was why, despite immense popularity, he chose not to run for another term in 1928; staying in Washington much longer, he feared, might inflate his ego and corrupt his principles. Thinking of how far we've fallen from that view, I could almost cry.
Karl Marx: A Nineteenth-Century Life: By Jonathan Sperber
Okay, full disclosure on this one: I know Sperber, a professor at the University of Missouri, and in fact he is currently my graduate advisor. No, that does not make this a shameless plug. Actually, being no conservative himself, he finds the idea of Karl Marx as a bloodthirsty totalitarian rather humorous. (My moonlighting as a right-wing blogger, if he knew about it, probably less so.) So you're definitely not going to find anything in this biography about how terrible Marx and Marxism were and are.
Why am I bringing it up, then? Well, it has a lot of keys to Marx's psyche and thus to how he developed his "philosophy." The book's main theme is that the Communist founder was more of a journalist than a careful theoretician; were he alive today, he would likely become a blogger. (The author's words, not mine. Just clarifying.) He wrote better in catchphrases and slogans than in lengthy treatises; everyone knows "Workers of the World, Unite!" but even his most devoted followers never made it through Das Kapital.
Plus, a look at Marx's personal affairs makes it much easier to understand how he could have such an inhuman outlook on the world. Only a handful of people could ever stand the guy; he belittled and alienated practically every one of his political colleagues at some point, and indeed probably delayed the growth of a broad leftist movement because of the rivalries he got bogged down in. And while he clearly loved his wife and kids, he also had no problem taking advantage of the family maid and then getting his poor friend Engels to take responsibility for the result nine months later.
Now, Sperber pedals some of this a bit more softly than I am here, and treads rather lightly on the issue of Marx's anti-Semitism. But unlike many historians of a leftist persuasion, he lets the facts speak for themselves, and they reveal a very smart, very harsh, very flawed individual who undoubtedly would have been quite the dictator if he'd ever had the chance.
*****
So those are my mini-reviews for the "Conservative Book Club," as it were. I could probably go on if I had the time, but let's turn it over to you. Any thoughts on these books? And are there other recent publications you would recommend?
While there are a lot of new good books out right now, I thought for today I'd focus on two biographies. They're both well-written and about important people, and they reveal some things about the past.
Coolidge: By Amity Shlaes
Shlaes is also the author of The Forgotten Man, a somewhat revisionist history of the Great Depression, and by "revisionist" I mean she definitely does not portray it as the story of FDR arriving to save us all from our laissez-faire sinfulness. So, clearly a woman who should be given the benefit of the doubt, and her biography of our 30th President more than justifies this trust. Stylistically, I thought the book maybe left a bit to be desired in how it abruptly shifted from one aspect of Coolidge's presidential life to another, but that's a rather pedantic, nitpicky criticism. As to what she actually has to say, her portrait of "Silent Cal" absolutely shatters the frequent image we have of a cold, callous man who did nothing to help the country. Coolidge, who had warm relationships with his family and friends, was also a principled man who was not only active in his own way, but had to really fight to carry through his vision of what the government and the country should be.
The pro-business climate of the '20s, for example, did not just happen--progressives in Washington fought to block plans for low income taxes and reductions in spending, and it required a great deal of tenacity and maneuvering by the President to overcome them. The flip side of Coolidge's reticence was his ability to make his opponents underestimate him, and time and time again he used that to blindside them. Partly he did it with a careful command of the facts--he clearly pointed out that everything they knew suggested tax cuts would actually increase government revenue over the long run, and sure enough, he was right. I have never yet met a liberal who will admit to this unfortunate truth, or who even seems aware of it.
Perhaps the most interesting that comes through in Shlaes' book is Coolidge's vision of the presidency as an institution. As the author has said in interviews, he interpreted his position quite literally--as "Presiding Officer." He would do what he needed to do to preserve or enhance national security or prosperity, but beyond that, it was his job to give his fellow citizens as free a hand as possible, and not to micromanage their affairs. Indeed, that was why, despite immense popularity, he chose not to run for another term in 1928; staying in Washington much longer, he feared, might inflate his ego and corrupt his principles. Thinking of how far we've fallen from that view, I could almost cry.
Karl Marx: A Nineteenth-Century Life: By Jonathan Sperber
Okay, full disclosure on this one: I know Sperber, a professor at the University of Missouri, and in fact he is currently my graduate advisor. No, that does not make this a shameless plug. Actually, being no conservative himself, he finds the idea of Karl Marx as a bloodthirsty totalitarian rather humorous. (My moonlighting as a right-wing blogger, if he knew about it, probably less so.) So you're definitely not going to find anything in this biography about how terrible Marx and Marxism were and are.
Why am I bringing it up, then? Well, it has a lot of keys to Marx's psyche and thus to how he developed his "philosophy." The book's main theme is that the Communist founder was more of a journalist than a careful theoretician; were he alive today, he would likely become a blogger. (The author's words, not mine. Just clarifying.) He wrote better in catchphrases and slogans than in lengthy treatises; everyone knows "Workers of the World, Unite!" but even his most devoted followers never made it through Das Kapital.
Plus, a look at Marx's personal affairs makes it much easier to understand how he could have such an inhuman outlook on the world. Only a handful of people could ever stand the guy; he belittled and alienated practically every one of his political colleagues at some point, and indeed probably delayed the growth of a broad leftist movement because of the rivalries he got bogged down in. And while he clearly loved his wife and kids, he also had no problem taking advantage of the family maid and then getting his poor friend Engels to take responsibility for the result nine months later.
Now, Sperber pedals some of this a bit more softly than I am here, and treads rather lightly on the issue of Marx's anti-Semitism. But unlike many historians of a leftist persuasion, he lets the facts speak for themselves, and they reveal a very smart, very harsh, very flawed individual who undoubtedly would have been quite the dictator if he'd ever had the chance.
*****
So those are my mini-reviews for the "Conservative Book Club," as it were. I could probably go on if I had the time, but let's turn it over to you. Any thoughts on these books? And are there other recent publications you would recommend?
33 comments:
My comments are necessarily limited to what you've provided, though I would say A Nineteenth-Century Life is an apt subtitle for Karl Marx. Putting aside all the other flaws in his ideas, they are most deeply rooted in Marx's personal circumstances and experiences and thus have no hope of ever translating into a philosophy applicable to all times and places.
Unfortunately, I haven't read any good books lately. Unless you count The Cat in the Hat. Which I do.
tryanmax, and indeed that's one of the book's main points. Marx was a man of his times, and has to be understood as such. His philosophy wasn't even consistent over his career, much less outside of the nineteenth century.
The Cat in the Hat works, although I'm partial to Green Eggs and Ham.
Would our universities be filled with Marxist professors today, if the Germans hadn't let Lenin into Russia?
As for Coolidge, as much as I admire the man, he's about as relevant at this moment in time as my great aunt Lucy. Nothing less than a total collapse of the present interlocking economic/government structure would get us back to the point where Collidge could become relevant. I think David Stockman's rant lays it out rather well: LINK
Not that I believe everything he's ranting about here, but his point about the Gordian knot interweaving of government and capitalism strikes me as correct.
Marx was a man of his times, and has to be understood as such.
All people are products of their time and this why history must be understood and studied within the context of the period. This is something that is hard for people to grasp.
K, talk about your counterfactuals! Um, if the Germans hadn't let Lenin into Russia, they probably would have lost the war sooner than they did, no one would remember who Lenin was, and....probably our universities would still have professors of some weird ideological bent, because they're very susceptible to that sort of thing. It might have been nationalism, for all I know, but there would have been an "ism" of some kind.
And no, I don't see us getting back to Coolidge's model of governance in the foreseeable future. But correcting the shallow image of him that often comes through from history textbooks is a valuable step in the defense of small government.
All too true, Bev. And something Marx himself was singularly bad at.
Of course people aren't only the products of their time, for they also make the future and take it in different directions; but no historian worth his salt (and many are not) would deny your basic point.
T-Rav - What I really mean is that you can't judge someone out of the context of their time. Jefferson is good example - He was a slave owner writing eloquently about freedom. By our standards he was a bright line hypocrite, but in the context of time...he was a typical 18th/19th Century Southern plantation owner.
I've seen several mentions of Shayles' book on PJMedia - sounds interesting since I know practically nothing about him.
Marx - what I know, I don't like. Not sure if I want to know more...
rla, I recommend it. It's pretty good.
As for Marx, yeah, he was far from being the most pleasant person in the world. It's an interesting book, though.
Bev, and I would certainly agree with that, though of course it doesn't make Jefferson (or Marx) any less of a cheater.
T-Rav - "Cheater"?
I haven't read the two books mentioned above...
...but I'm still halfway through Theodore Rex, the second part of Edmund Morris' epic trilogy on the life and times of Teddy Roosevelt. Great reading, but my short-term memory is so bad that by the end of any chapter, I've forgotten half the names introduced at the beginning of the chapter!
My wish to read these books stemmed from Morris' appearance on Conan a few years ago.
And I don't know about you guys but I'm a sucker for coffee table books and I have a couple on my to-buy list, including:
Norman Bel Geddes Designs America and
Alex Steinweiss: The Inventor of the Modern Album Cover
Bev, I mean that Jefferson, like many slave owners, seems to have taken some liberties with the slave women, before and after his wife's death, just like Marx took advantage of the family maid. Sorry, I think I took that leap of logic only inside my head.
Scott, I haven't yet read Theodore Rex, though I've heard a lot of good things about it. As long as we're still talking biographies, I would also recommend Ron Chernow's works on George Washington and Alexander Hamilton.
I've never been much for coffee-table books, except for one I read some time ago on old Southern mansions. They just don't interest me that much.
I haven't read anything lately because I've been too busy writing. :(
From what I know about Marx, which isn't a lot, it sounds like this guy is right. He was a real turd, but a bright guy, but also not a very consistent thinker.
Coolidge is interesting, but as K says, I sadly don't seen him being revived as much of an American hero. Though I agree that it would be good to correct the left's version of him in the popular culture.
BTW, as for the Germans not letting Lenin in, history would have been different, but Marxism still would be what it is today. It just would have had a different name. I don't think the modern left evolved from Marx's ideas at all. I think they're ideas are simply ages old "values" like spite and greed transformed into economic theory and whether Marx put them into a book or not, the left would still have them.
T-Rav - The concept that it is "cheating" when one's spouse is dead escapes me. ;-) That being said, marrying for love and fidelity are late 19th century concepts (for men anyway). Though I suspect Marx was probably an unlikeble jerk in any period.
Geez K, your link has depressed me for the weekend.
Bev, Never cheat on the dead! Haven't zombie films taught us anything?!!
Andrew - We should have by now! Their working motto is "You cheat/We Eat Braaaaiiiinnzzzzzzz"
Andrew, in all honesty, to say that I "read" these cover-to-cover would be an extreme overstatement. :-/
Marx was a smarter guy than most of his followers proved to be--he actually had a grasp of economics, for one thing--but as you say, not a very consistent one. As for Coolidge, agreed on both counts.
Imagining Marxism's influence in a world without Lenin's triumph is difficult. Had the Soviet Union never come to be and thus "proved" the viability of Marxism, I suspect it would still be a presence in the universities, but it would have to compete with other ideologies, Left and Right--it was never the only version of socialism, after all. That said, I don't see a world in which some kind of collectivist ethos didn't flourish among academia.
Bev, I said when she was alive, too! Sheesh! (eyeroll)
Fidelity and marrying for love were concepts before the 19th century, though. People just didn't practice them most of the time.
Kosh, a lot of our links are good for that.
Andrew and Bev, you guys have seen way more C-list zombie movies than I have. (And no, that is not a redundancy.)
T-Rav - Are in insinuating that I am old??? {{{ Mom-like death stare}}}
No, you're not old! You're experienced!....er, ageless, er....I mean....I should stop now, shouldn't I?
just got back from Durham. I am a huge fan of Amity Shlaes work in general, and very much enjoyed "The Forgotten Man." It was hardly favorable to F.D.R., but it is an intellectually honest work. To me, there was no evidence of partisan coloring. The book on Marx sounds very interesting.
Jed, Welcome back! I hope Durham was pleasant. :)
Jed, both this book and The Forgotten Man, which I have not yet read, have had very good reviews.
Welcome back to the site! :-)
Andrew and Rav - thanks! I can't say it was completely pleasant, but feel I will be in good hands over there. :)
Jed, As they say, any ___ you can walk away from is a good ___. :)
T-Rav, In most cases, I agree that it takes that one guy to have that thought. For example, it took Descarte to come up with "I think, therefore I am." But in the case of Marx, I'm honestly not so sure. Socialism seems to be a "thing" already throughout history and it just strikes me that Marxism is an angrier version of socialism. So I tend to think that even without him, you still would have had someone create it right around that time.
Andrew, socialism certainly predates Marx, though how far back you want to take it depends on how you define the term. If you have a somewhat narrow interpretation, as I do, then what we call socialism really goes back to the aftermath of the French Revolution and the crisis over industrialization. Marx's main accomplishment was to tack on a lot of scientific language to pre-existing ideas and thereby make it sound more believable.
Post a Comment