Amazon.com
When Mother Nature rages, the physical results are never subtle. Because we cannot contain the weather, we can only react by tabulating the damage in dollar amounts, estimating the number of people left homeless, and laying the plans for rebuilding. But as John M. Barry expertly details in Rising Tide: The Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 and How It Changed America, some calamities transform much more than the landscape.
While tracing the history of the nation's most destructive natural disaster, Barry explains how ineptitude and greed helped cause the flood, and how the policies created to deal with the disaster changed the culture of the Mississippi Delta. Existing racial rifts expanded, helping to launch Herbert Hoover into the White House and shifting the political alliances of many blacks in the process. An absorbing account of a little-known, yet monumental event in American history, Rising Tide reveals how human behavior proved more destructive than the swollen river itself.
Book Description
An American epic of science, politics, race, honor, high society, and the Mississippi River, Rising Tide tells the riveting and nearly forgotten story of the greatest natural disaster this country has ever known -- the Mississippi flood of 1927. The river inundated the homes of nearly one million people, helped elect Huey Long governor and made Herbert Hoover president, drove hundreds of thousands of blacks north, and transformed American society and politics forever.
A New York Times Notable Book of the Year, winner of the Southern Book Critics Circle Award and the Lillian Smith Award.
Customer Reviews:
History repeats itself........2007-08-20
I happened to read this book when I was home from work waiting for Hurricane Katrina to make landfall (I live in Baton Rouge, 80 miles North of New Orleans). It was an ironic that I read this book that day. I had no idea of the book's relevance to that day's events. John Barry documents the events and reasons leading up to the great flood of 1927 in incredible detail. Being from South Louisiana, I knew a little about the flood, but most of what I thought I knew was not correct. The facts of what the US Corp of Engineers did or did not do is readily available from a number of sources. The Corp of Engineer's competence or incompetence is subject to debate (Well, It was subject to debate until August 29, 2005). The real revelations as far as I am concerned are the cultural and economic factors that Barry weaves into an enlightening book. It shows how the powers that ruled New Orleans (Canal Bank, Whitney Bank, Hibernia Bank and the Times Picayune Newspaper) deceived and lied to maintain their power and riches at everyone else's expense. St Bernard Parish (County to most of you) was sacrificed by bombing the levee system below New Orleans to take the pressure off of the New Orleans levees (as it turns out, unnecessarily). The amazing part of the book is the "how it changed America" part. From the creation of the Federal based welfare system, Herbert Hoover's rise to stardom and the ultimate election of Huey Long as Governor of Louisiana (and had he not been assassinated, may be President of the United States), the 1927 flood changed America more than any event I can think of other than the Revolutionary War and Civil War. This is a GREAT book worth your time to read. It is said that in order to know the future, you must study the past. Too bad we're still not paying attention !!!!!!!!!!!
The Rising Tide.......2007-02-18
I've barely dipped into the first chapter of this, plus reading at random to wherever the book fell open, and I'm awed. Barry's attention to detail and exhaustive documentation of his sources are exemplary. It is also a darn good read, and it is his thoroughness which makes it that way -- the principal players stand out like characters in a good novel. There was recently a PBS special (I believe it was The American Experience) on the history of New Orleans, and although Barry appeared in it, not nearly enough attention was paid to the 1927 flood, especially to some of the most unsavory aspects such as the machinations of the local power structure. Other than the pleasure of reading this book, I highly recommend it because we had a replay of this in Katrina with a similar display of greed, insensitivity and incompetence. And if it can happen in New Orleans, it can happen anywhere!
The Great Flood.......2006-12-14
I had never heard of the Mississippi flood before picking up this book and I am surprised that I had never hard of it after reading about it. This is arguably the greatest natural disaster to hit the United States until Hurricane Katrina. To see the response of the government then and now there are shocking similarities The army corp of engineers makes a similar performance and it is through private enterprise and local political networks that areas are saved. One of the sadder points in the book is the treatment of African Americans and southern racism in this time period is clearly displayed in most areas. The flood which wiped out parts of Mississippi and spread down to New Orleans was catastrophic. Seeing the idea of detonating levees and sacrificing areas of save others were tough choices that have implications in the post Katrina world. This is a highly recommend book that will make one think about natural disaster response from a truly catastrophic event.
They're Gonna Wash Us Away - The Rest of the Story.......2006-11-02
Randy Newman told the story of the great Louisiana flood of 1927 in a few memorable but not very historically accurate verses. Barry tells it with painstaking research and narrative of 75 years surrounding and including 1927. He opens with the civil engineering debate that raged for years about how to "control" the Mississippi River--levees or controlled drainage. Once the flood happens he focuses on how people dealt with it as it was happening (race relations in the early 20th century were sorely tested) and afterwards (St. Bernard and Plaquemines Parishes, having been sacrifice to "save" New Orleans, were left almost low and dry when it came time to distribute money for recovery---sound familiar?) One memorable theme is that nature is unsympathetic to political compromise. Barry rivals David McCullough in the genre of popular history writers.
Outstanding Piece of Work in History, Politics and Humanity.......2006-10-26
Mr. Barry has done an exceptional job of weaving the elements of modern life together, natural disaster, power, money, politics, race together to tell an ingrossing and disturbing story, one that is a relevant today as it was when it happened in the late twenties. America is still affected by what happened then and faces many of the same challenges today--Katrina and whenever or whereever there is great human suffering brought on by natural disaster. (Just wait until the New Madrid earthquake occurs again. That may be the only natural disaster that could rival this flood and its effect on our nation, society and culture.)
Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely, and money--having it--makes that corruption and the arrogance that comes with it, even more dangerous, despicable and deadly. We face all of those issues and threats today, and it is not limited to a political party, but rather to class,to wealth and, sadly and alarmingly, to those we "elect" to represent and protect us.
This book is a sobering look at America as it was, and, sadly, as it is. Political parties do not matter....This not about man's highest, nor is it about man's lowest. It is about man as he is...
Customer Reviews:
Comprehensive and highly recommended biography of James Buchanan.......2007-10-14
I am currently reading a biography of every President in order. Philip Klein's biography was the clear cut choice for a full treatment of James Buchanan, with the only other alternative being the short bio from the American Presidents series.
Luckily Klein's biography is a great choice, not because it is the only one available, but because it is a great biography in it's own right. Klein's treatment is extensive enough to be a full academic level presentation but not so much as to deter the more casual reader. The writing style and organization are both excellent and the research is extensive. Klein makes a strong case that James Buchanan was not as bad of a President as history has presented him, and certainly changed my understanding of his role in the start of the Civil War.
It's easy to see why Klein's biography has remained the only full treatment of James Buchanan for nearly half a century. It is such a quality biography of our fifteenth President that it leaves no room or need for another.
dump the first half and it's great!.......2006-10-25
Bad points- 1) The first half is boring. Buchanan versus the Anti-Masons. We are treated to every detail of their fight but I couldn't tell you what one stood for versus the other except that they both wanted to be in office...
2)Little detail into Buchanan's personal Life. What made him tick? Aside from "If it isn't in the Constitution, it's wrong", we get nothing.
3)Little about Ann Coleman considering the size of the book.
4)Nothing about what endeared him to Queen Victoria despite this being his greatest accomplishment?!
Good points- 1)meticulous detail
2) gets very exciting as the secession crisis develops.
Generally Good and Eye Opening.......2006-03-09
A well done and comprehensive biography of one of the U.S.' lesser known and more maligned presidents. Not only does Klein do a very good job of allowing the reader to acquire some familiarity with Buchanan's personality, he does so with a view to showing how those traits influenced how he dealt with the sectional crisis which came to a head during his presidency. While Klien does an admirable job of disproving the various calumnies spread about Buchanan (that did nothing or actively abetted Southern secessionists) he is so focused on rehabilitating Buchanan's reputation that he somewhat overlooks how Buchanan constrained himself from doing all that he could do. Note also that the author assumes a moderate familiarity with U.S political history in the first half of the 19th Century (for example, while mentioning the various sectional Compromises, he does not discuss them in detail beyond the impact on Buchannan's actions of the moment).
(Without 'spoiling' the book, one does come to the conclusion that Lincoln's observation that "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present." would have never occured to Buchanan. It would have been nice to see the author share that observation.)
An excellent biography on an unfortunate President.......2006-01-05
Of all the Presidents only Grant and Harding rank lower in the estimation of historians than James Buchanan. His biggest fault was lacking the moral courage to act upon an evil that was destroying the country; this was compounded by his willingness to defend his inaction by pleading through the Constitution the weakness of his office and of the federal government to impose their will upon the states. A festering wound was therefore allowed to infect the whole country.
Buchanan was born near Mercersburg, PA; while at Dickinson College, he got into some kind of trouble (unspecified) and was almost expelled. He studied law, was admitted to the bar in 1812, and served in the PA state legislature for two years before being elected to Congress in 1821. A Federalist at first, when the party disbanded he became a Jacksonian Democrat. He was the Secretary of State under Polk from 1845-49, and became minister to Great Britain under Pierce in 1853. He became the 15th President in 1856 and in his Inaugural Address set his ship upon the course that would eventually lead to ruin: "...under the Constitution slavery in the States is beyond the reach of any human power except that of the respective States themselves." Bloody Kansas soon followed while Buchanan lost his soundness of judgment behind the Constitution. So did the Panic of 1857, which plunged the country into a depression, about which he maintained a hands-off policy. With Lincoln's election in 1860, the southern states threatened secession. Buchanan declared that a state had no legal right to secede, but at the same time the federal government did not have the authority to prevent it. Civil war became inevitable.
After leaving the White House, Buchanan retired to his estate at Lancaster, PA. He never married, though he was engaged to Ann Coleman (other sources spell her name Anne) as a young man; she apparently broke it off and died shortly afterwards in Philadelphia - the rumor of it being from suicide circulated a long time (Klein doesn't speculate here, but also doesn't waver from the word "rumor"). Some time ago I had read that Buchanan, always an avid reader, had stopped reading books altogether during his final years, but Klein makes no mention of this. Buchanan died in 1868.
Klein's biography is written with great authority and remains definitive. It is obvious he is fond of his subject and is sympathetic towards Buchanan's dilemma, but he is not a blind panegyrist. Under different circumstances Buchanan might have been a worthy President; even as things were he was perhaps the most honest leader the country ever had. Klein's account of the man is informative and interesting, and written with great style and elan. Highly recommended.
a good biography of a failed president.......2005-08-17
Over the last several years I've read more than 30 presidential biographies using Amazon reviewers as my guide to picking out the best book. Klein's biography of Buchanan is one of the better biographies of one of our most unsuccessful presidents (Francis Russell's biography of Warren G. Harding definitely takes the prize in this category).
Politics were the major American sport of 19th century, and Pennsylvania was one of the most grueling states to play the political game. James Buchanan (or Martin Van Buren) was the quintessential 19th century politician, and the Civil War was the culmination of 50 years of America playing politics, rather than seriously attempting to address national issues.
Buchanan is an interesting subject because of the longevity of his career and his ability to master the game of politics. He managed to finesse every issue in a way that helped him rise in the national consciousness and avoid being tarnished with actually standing for or against much of anything. He spent 35 years in elective and appointed offices constantly battling to build his power. For at least 20 years he worked towards the goal of becoming president. While this political savvy helped him gain the presidency, it certainly did not prepare him (or seemingly any politician in the 1850's) to work constructively in a way that might have prevented the Civil War from occurring.
Klein's book is well written, nicely organized, and for the most part a balanced portrayal of a political animal. He does a good job of blending Buchanan's public and private lives. Klein tends to defend Buchanan's efforts in politics while having some fun with Buchanan's increasingly crusty personality . Klein definitely underplays Buchanan's insubordination while he served as Secretary of State during the Polk administration and the Mexican War. He makes a persuasive argument that both the highly factionalized Democrats and the radical Republicans were more interested in gaining power and control than they were in addressing the issue of slavery in anything resembling a constructive fashion. In this sense Buchanan appears to be a president doomed to failure as much as one who just was not up to the job.
Book Description
Almost no president was as well trained and well prepared for the office as James Buchanan. He had served in the Pennsylvania state legislature, the U.S. House, and the U.S. Senate; he was Secretary of State and was even offered a seat on the Supreme Court. And yet, by every measure except his own, James Buchanan was a miserable failure as president, leaving office in disgrace. Virtually all of his intentions were thwarted by his own inability to compromise: he had been unable to resolve issues of slavery, caused his party to split-thereby ensuring the election of the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln-and made the Civil War all but inevitable. Historian Jean H. Baker explains that we have rightly placed Buchanan at the end of the presidential rankings, but his poor presidency should not be an excuse to forget him. To study Buchanan is to consider the implications of weak leadership in a time of national crisis. Elegantly written, Baker's volume offers a balanced look at a crucial moment in our nation's history and explores a man who, when given the opportunity, failed to rise to the challenge.
Customer Reviews:
Brief but informative.......2007-02-22
I was hoping for more information on Buchanan's relationship with Rufus King, but only a page or two is devoted to this. The parallels in personality between Buchanan and Bush are apparent.
Buchanan: an incompetent ideologue (4.25 *s).......2007-02-01
This book makes clear that James Buchanan was the wrong man to attempt to steer the United States through the slavery crisis that came to a head in the late 1850s. Buchanan was certainly credentialed enough, having served as a Representative and Senator, Secretary of State, and foreign minister to Russia and England. Buchanan was well-to-do by his thirties as a well-connected and capable lawyer in Lancaster, PA, but in his governmental career he never demonstrated any beyond mediocre talents. He seemed to be more concerned with social formalities and decorum, which led him to identify over his entire life with the pseudo-aristocratic Southern plantation life. In fact, he modeled his large home and household in PA along those lines.
Buchanan surrounded himself with Southerners when he became President, completely disdainful of the growing anti-slavery currents in the American political mainstream. He supported the radical Southern insistence that slaves should be allowed to be taken into all Federal territories with slavery then being defended by slave codes. This was a radical departure from the intent of the founders and the Missouri Compromise of 1820. That support contributed to the split of Southern Democrats from Douglas Democrats, who only supported the right of territorial residents to decide through voting, which counterproductively led to the ascension of the hated Republicans. Buchanan had, unethically, lobbied individual justices of the Supreme Court involved with the Dred Scott case that resulted in the ruling that excluding slavery from Federal territories was unconstitutional.
Buchanan was highly sympathetic to the wild claims of the Southern "fire-eaters" that the rise of the "Black" Republican Party was a threat to Southern "liberty." He basically sat on his hands when South Carolina seceded only a few weeks after Lincoln was fairly elected in accordance with all Constitutional provisions. Instead of immediately trying to quell the Southern rebellion, Buchanan gave the secession credibility by negotiating with representatives from the seceding states, in addition, to freely revealing possible strategies to potential enemies. His handling of the Fort Sumter situation was disgraceful, permitting South Carolina to control events and ensuring the taking of Fort Sumter.
It could be that the United States was simply unlucky in having two of the more inept Presidents serve at a time of national crisis, that is, Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan. Yet this seems to happen quite a bit in America. Herbert Hoover comes to mind during the Great Depression. When small-minded, ideologically minded men serve at a time when inventive leadership is needed, the results can be disastrous. It will no doubt strike many readers that we are currently in a Buchanan-like era. The current administration is intent on running the nation in a manner evocative of the era of robber-barons of the late 19th century, ignoring very serious social and economic issues. One can only wonder what the fallout will be.
The author is harsh in her judgment of James Buchanan. He was everything but the Andrew Jackson Democrat that he claimed to be. In fact, Jackson would have found Buchanan's reaction to the secession as nothing short of traitorous. She does not accept the view that Buchanan was helpless against events. In fact, he contributed to the precipitation of nation-splitting events. This book is a great lesson for the need of great leaders for our nation. The book is short; the reader probably needs to be somewhat versed in the history of the era for it to be completely understandable. But it is worth reading.
Very Readable--But Too Heavyhanded.......2005-08-16
Jean Baker has written a fascinating and very readable biography of President James Buchanan in only 152 pages. Unfortunately her excessively harsh assessment of Buchanan's career detracts from what could have been an outstanding book.
The historical realities of the sudden disintegration of the United States in 1860 and 1861 are that no human being-not even George Washington-could have prevented the Civil War. For the author to present a "failed presidency" because Buchanan failed to prevent the inevitable is much like blaming Franklin Roosevelt for failing to prevent the outbreak of World War II. Baker also implies that Buchanan was the Nation's first gay President. The same rumors circulated while Buchanan was running for office, and the voters properly dismissed them as malicious gossip spread by political enemies. We need to do the same.
Baker's description of Buchanan's mishandling of the slavery crisis in Kansas is certainly convincing. And there is no excuse for racism in any century. But despite his flaws, an overall assessment of Buchanan's 45 year political career should be a positive one. Buchanan was one of the major architects of the emergence of the United States as a world power. When he became Secretary of State in 1845, the western boundary of the United States was the Sabine River between Louisiana and Texas. When he left that office four years later, our western boundary was San Miguel Island in the Pacific Ocean. Buchanan warned the Nation for over 30 years that a friendly government in Havana, Cuba was absolutely essential to the Nation's security. Because no one ever listened, the world would go to the brink of nuclear catastrophe in October 1962. The Democratic Party's nomination of Buchanan in 1856 and their nomination of Grover Cleveland in 1884 underlined the Party's commitment to equal rights for single people. This is unfortunately not a commitment usually shared by the other Party.
Jean Baker has presented Buchanan's career in the darkest possible terms. Historical realities suggest a much more favorable assessment.
Good look at a bad president.......2005-05-03
One of the great debates in American history is about who is the greatest president of all time. Washington and Lincoln both have their proponents, with others arguing for someone else. A more interesting - or at least more amusing - debate focuses on who was the worst president ever. Usually at the top (or bottom) of this list are a pair of antebellum executives: Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan. Of these, Pierce is often given the dubious honor of "worst ever" but upon consideration, I think I will have to give the title to Buchanan.
Both men were awful presidents, contributing almost nothing positive while exacerbating events that would eventually lead to the Civil War. They were both pro-Southern Northerners (Buchanan from Pennsylvania, Pierce from New Hampshire), which led to their elections as candidates with wide geographical appeal, but their reluctance to take a strong stance on the divisive issues of the day - in particular, slavery and related problems - would eliminate any real hopes for peace.
What makes Buchanan worse than Pierce? Is it his support for the Dred Scott decision, his improper recognition of the Lecompton Consitution of Kansas or his weak initial response to the secession movement. Yes, to all these, but one thing stands out even more. Pierce was an inexperience politician plagued by family issues, so his ineptness could be expected. Buchanan, on the other hand, was a veteran politician, with decades of experience in various national posts including Secretary of State and U.S. Senator. The fact that he failed to use his skills as president - and often abdicated his responsibilities on domestic matters - makes him worse than the overmatched Pierce.
Jean Baker's brief biography of Buchanan (part of the American Presidents series) illustrates the failures of the Buchanan presidency and demonstrates that experience itself is no guide as to who will make a good president; his successor, Lincoln, had little political experience but was a much stronger president. Baker's writing is good and straightforward, and given the restraints of this series of books (limiting the volumes to around 150 pages each), she is quite detailed without being tedious. A more comprehensive biography by Philip Klein does exist, but Buchanan may not be worth the effort of a larger book unless you're a real fan of history. For most readers, Baker's book will be quite satisfactory.
Fascinating profile of a failed presidency.......2005-03-17
Jean Baker is not subtle. Right from the outset, she makes it clear that James Buchanan was one of the worst presidents ever. He was a man who served as a state legislator in Pennsylvania, congressman, senator, Secretary of State and minister to the Court of Saint James. Yet, despite this extensive resume', when he finally became president at age 65, he failed. The United States, as it moved ever closer to disunion and Civil War, had a series of weak presidents who were unable to handle the situation, most notably, Millard Fillmore and Franklin Pierce. Baker argues that Buchanan was a poor president but not because of similar weaknesses. Rather, he was quite active but pursued dreadfully wrong policies.
As a young congressman, Buchanan became friendly with southern congressmen and senators and, in fact boarded with some of them. Because he was a bachelor, there is speculation as to whether there was a homosexual component to his relationships. Regardless, he came to identify with the South and with its cause of slavery. Although a northerner, he supported slavery but then again, his home state of Pennsylvania was a lot closer geographically to slave states than to New England. He had sectional differences with New Englanders and disliked them intensely.
Before he became president, Buchanan was a staunch supporter of "manifest destiny" and, serving in the Polk administration, helped to advance that policy. No only did he want to expand west, he also wanted to expand south, seeking to expand our borders into Mexico, Central America and Cuba. This desire to acquire territory extended into his presidency. One of the reasons was to add new slave territory to the United States. As presdient, He actively sought to admit Kansas as a slave state and, despited the fact that the majority of residents of Kansas were aginst slavery, he attempted to rig elections on the ratification of a pro slavery state constitution. There is evidence, that as president elect, Buchanan lobbied Supreme Court Justices to rule as they did on the Dred Scott case. Buchanan was shortsighted in that he thought that once an issue was decided, whether it was the Dred Scott decision or the adoption of a pro slavery constituion, the issue would go away. Abolitionsist were not, however, going to give up their opposition to slavery any more than someone who is "pro life" would give up opposition to abortion following Roe v. Wade. Thus, his extreme pro slavery approach ended up dividing the nation even more.
After actively supporting slavery and the southern cause, Buchanan was slow to act when South Carolina seceded after Lincoln's election. He continued to be advised by cabinet members and advisors from states which were soon to also secede. He did not immediately move to secure United States installations in the south, such as Fort Sumter and, indeed he weakened the United States' position there by ordering that federal troops withdraw to the much less defensible Fort Moultrie. Although he stated that secession was wrong, he also stated that constitutionally, there was nothing he could do about it. Thus, upon his taking office, Lincoln inherited a divided nation due to Buchanan's failure to act early and decisively when South Carolina left the Union.
This book is fascinating. We often read about great presidents but Buchanan's failures had enormous consequences. This biography is a worthwhile historical profile of the time immediately leading to the Civil War.
Book Description
Roadside Kansas, the perfect glove-compartment companion, is a guide to the geology, natural resources, and landscapes along nine of the state's major highways. Covering more than 2,600 miles, Buchanan and McCauley have provided mile-by-mile descriptions of interesting features, both contemporary and historical, to be seen all across the state. The information is organized by highway, so that modern-day explorers can follow the road logs easily, learning about the land they travel through.
Of the tradition of roadside geologic descriptions, Buchanan and McCauley write: "In some ways highways provide convenient access to geology because roads often cut through hills, exposing formations never seen before. . . . For many geologist, road construction is an occasion akin to Christmas or the Fourth of July."
The nine highways, which criss-cross Kansas, were chosen for a variety of reasons. Some, like I-70, I-35, and the Kansas Turnpike, carry heavy traffic; some, like U.S. Highways 69 and 36, are the main highways in various parts of the state; others, like U.S. Highways 160 and 83, cut through some of the state's most interesting geology; and one, U.S. Highway 56, was picked because of its history--the road parallels the historic Santa Fe Trail for much of its route, passing the site of old forts and Indian battles.
This unique guidebook combines geological, historical, and cultural information with more than 100 photographs, drawings, and maps. Presented in a refreshingly nontechnical way, it is sure to appeal to tourist and native Kansas alike.
Customer Reviews:
Great book for the busy earth science teacher.......2002-11-08
Easy is the word that describes this book. The mile markers, bridges, towns, and other landmarks makes this text THE guide for the investigator from out of state. The museums described were excellent sources of information with plenty of friendly people to guide you toward additional landmarks. The roadcuts were full of described fossils, even my teen daughter found bags full of whole shellfish that littered the byways.
A small amount of research before hand can pay off big time in collecting the best fossils still on the back roads of America. Take this book along and the trip through Kansas will be one that you will remember for years to come.
Roadside Kansas.......2002-05-08
I found Roadside Kansas by chance in the gift shop at the Old Mill in Lindsborg. I had been showing my wife and daughter some of the sights I knew about from growing up in Ellinwood, Kansas which is located right on the Santa Fe Trail (Highway 56).
Little did I know what a treasure we had found. Beginning as a geological research project by the authors the book took on a life of its' own as a very nice directory of various interesting attractions and oddities in Kansas. Its' photographs also prove to readers once and for all that Kansas IS NOT FLAT.
The first item of note we found was that we were just minutes from Coronado Heights, named after the Spanish explorer. We also found that wheel ruts from wagons traveling the Santa Fe Trail were still visible only a few miles east of my hometown. And I found that after having spent the better part of 27 years driving past and through Fort Zarah that the old cemetery still exists just north of the park out in a field only a few yards from where I had spent many evening hours with female companionship. Imagine my surprise!
Additionally, we found that about 25 miles west of Castle Rock, which I had visited and photographed many times while in college at Fort Hays, are what is known as the Kansas or Chalk Pyramids (just off Highway 83).
Needless to say I was excited and impressed. We spent the rest of our trip running the roads looking for mile markers and the treasures that lay beyond.
The book is laid out quite simply. Find the highway number you are traveling and what mile marker you are at and the book tells you what attraction is coming up with excellent directions for the directionally impaired. Oh, and I guess the geological information is pretty good too.
Since I found this text in 1995 I have wholeheartedly recommended it to anyone traveling the Land of Ahs, both visitor and resident, and all have been impressed. If you like to seek out items of interest off the beaten path, then this is your guide. I only wish those guys would do a book like this for every state in the Union.
Kansas has a lot of rocks.......2000-09-27
This is like a Roadside Geology on steroids. The single-spaced typed list I made of rock stops along I-70 alone was four pages long. Most major roads in the state are covered in similar detail, including not only the rocks, but historical sidelights and local oddities as well. With it, you'll never be bored driving across Kansas.
The reason I'm only giving it three stars is that, while it provides plenty of opportunities to collect, it gives you almost no help understanding what you get. Most formations are not even assigned to geological periods. Very frustrating.
Book Description
A scientific study of the political and economic factors influencing democratic decision making
Customer Reviews:
Fascinating book.......2007-04-28
This is truly a fascinating book. Few books have had a greater influence on my political thought. The initial assumptions have a libertarian bent, but the construction of the argument from there is brilliant. As for an overview of the book, I feel that Mr. Templeman's review below was just about perfect.
High praise with a grain of salt.......2007-01-07
The main contribution of this pathbreaking book is by providing a rationale for the "counter-majoritarian difficulty": Why does society tolerate the "dead hand" of the constitutional framers to limit the freedom of choice of living individuals who wish to undo the constitution? The authors muse that in some previous stage, where individuals cannot identify their future preferences, each individual is threatened by two kinds of risk: The first is that others will attempt to take something that belongs to her and achieve their purpose by popular vote. From this prespective each individual desires that such a popular vote will not be made effectual unless supported by the largest number of participants. The second concern is that individuals might wish, in the future, to appropriate something that belongs to others, and may be thwarted by a popular vote, inimical to their cause. From this second perspective they wish to institute a rule that allows the appropriation to take place with only a minimal number of supportets. Each one of these two perils can be represented by a cost function, where the cost is a function of the number of voters necessary to carry the proposed measure; adding up the two functions generates an aggregate cost schedule for all rational players. The minimum of the aggregate function indicates the optimal number of individuals, as a portion of the voting population, necessary for carrying the proposed measure. If this number is greater than 50% of the population, this fact justifies the entrenchment of entitlements in a constitution. The grain of salt that must be added to this analysis is that the authors do not provide an explanation why that number might be greater than 50% of the population, or what might be the conditions that must be satisfied for the generation of that number.
Foundation for Studying Political Economy.......2006-01-28
A few other reviews have dismissed this book somehow as sloppy and even halarious. I would like to just make sure that the credibility of the work put forth by Buchanan and Tullock is realized. This book, along with a number of other great accomplishments, won James Buchanan a Nobel Prize in economics. To view this work as a right wing rationalization is way off base, study the works of Buchanan and Tullock and you will realize that statement is completely ridiculous.
Classic work in economics and political organization.......2005-03-29
The Calculus of Consent, written by James M. Buchanan and Gordon Tullock, is one of the founding publications of what has since become known as the subdiscipline of public choice, which is the application of tools of economic analysis to the domain of political decision making. In theory, political decisions are made by elected officials in their pursuit of the "general interest" or the "common good", however defined. In reality, however, political decisions reflect the outcome of the workings of a number of interested parties, which includes voters, politicians, career government officials (bureaucrats), special-interest groups, lobbyists, etc., each of whom have their own agendas and interests. When someone appeals to the public interest while making a political argument, more often than not the underlying motive is a matter of self-interest (e.g. teachers' unions angling for larger teacher salaries under the pretext of improving public education). Public choice theory does not mean to be critical or cynical about this. Instead, it is merely intended to be descriptive: that's simply the way the political decision-making process works, and we need to understand this first before we try and improve the world through politics. For his central role in the development of public choice theory, professor Buchanan would go on to earn the 1986 Nobel prize in economics.
The book's main contribution lies in its development of the analysis of political behavior, particularly so-called logrolling (i.e. vote-trading, or political exchange). The Founding Fathers set up our political system in order for the general interest to be served rather than interests that only benefit specific groups at the expense of the rest of the population. But elected officials have learned to circumvent that intent by happily trading their vote on issues on which they don't care one way or the other in exchange for votes on issues about which they do care. All members of the legislature end up voting for each other's pet projects, which all get enacted at taxpayers' expense.
The authors propose that one solution would be to distinguish between legislative rules and constitutional rules. Legislative (statutory) rules may be adopted by simple majority coalitions pursuing their own interests. Constitutional rules, on the other hand, are supposed to be decided on without regard for short-term individual consequences ("what is right in the long run?" instead of "what's good for me today?"). Legislative rules are substantive, constitutional rules are procedural. Constitutional rules are meant to restrict abuse of the legislative process by majority coalitions. The difference between legislative and constitutional rules is perhaps somewhat idealistic. After all, what's to prevent people from voting for or against constitutional rules based on their short-term interest. In theory, people are thought to realize that "what's right" will also benefit them, as everyone else will be bound by the same rules, but in practice it doesn't always quite work that way (e.g. people may be aware that a constitutional balanced budget amendment is the morally right thing to do to prevent saddling their descendants with public debt, but as of yet no such amendment has been enacted). Still, the legislative-constitutional distinction is at least helpful as an analytical device.
As the authors acknowledge, in real life things aren't always quite as black-and-white as they have here been described. Sometimes people--yes, even some politicians--vote according to their conscience rather than according to their own self-interest. But the insights and analysis offered by the book and by public-choice theory more often than not do apply. The book is highly persuasive in demonstrating that democracy's simple-majority voting rule (50 percent plus one vote) does not inherently lead to superior decisions. For example, it offers a convincing explanation for why even in majoritarian democracy, taxes and government spending, whether on public services or on redistribution, are clearly "too large", i.e. larger than the vast majority of Americans would agree to if they were to redesign and rebuild government all over again from scratch today.
Stylistically, the book is light on math and the authors have an elegant writing style. But it is somewhat on the academic side and rather heavy on preliminaries. More comprehensive and more easily digestible treatments of issues of political decision making in a democratic context do exist, but even now, some four decades after its initial publication, the book is still considered a classic work in the history of economics and political organization. Its central section is "a simple logrolling model" (pp. 136-142 in the Buchanan Collected Works edition).
Mixed Feelings.......2005-02-14
The book contains exposition of important insights. Constitutional rules of decision produce political parties as a byproduct. Representative legislatures reduce the cost of collective decision processes. Logrolling is trade in the political context, and so the participants in logrolling benefit from it. When decision authority arises fundamentally from individuals, logrolling will occur. In liberal democracies, the government will tax all persons at a fairly high rate, and the tax law will stipulate numerous special exceptions granting lower rates or exemptions.
On the other hand, the book is difficult to read. The authors mercifully avoid the mathematics that frequently obscures economic thought and creates a facade of ersatz logic. However, wading through the prose is a hard slog, tending to make the concepts unreachable.
We can't be hard on the authors, though. That they articulated the ideas at all is more than the entirety of humanity did in the preceding millenia.
Still one hopes some determined disciple will lucidly render the ideas. Both opportunity and need exist for the story better told.
Book Description
In this classic portrait of Jews in the South, Eli N. Evans takes readers inside the nexus of southern and Jewish histories, from the earliest immigrants to the present day. Evoking the rhythms and heartbeat of Jewish life in the Bible belt, Evans weaves together chapters of recollections from his youth and early years in North Carolina with chapters that explore the experiences of Jews in cities and small towns across the South. He presents the stories of communities, individuals, and events in this quintessential American landscape that reveal the deeply intertwined strands of what he calls a unique "Southern Jewish consciousness."
First published in 1973 and updated in 1997, The Provincials was the first book to take readers on a journey into the soul of the Jewish South, using autobiography, storytelling, and interpretive history to create a complete portrait of Jewish contributions to the history of the region. No other book on this subject combines elements of both memoir and history in such a compelling way. This new edition includes a gallery of more than two dozen family and historical photographs as well as a new introduction by the author.
Customer Reviews:
Evans should update his book! The South is no longer 'Fiddler on the Roof'!.......2005-07-03
I am a Jew living in a college town in Mississippi for the past 5 years. I was born & raised in the North. I think Evans should rename his book "Fiddler on the Roof in the South". His book is a very nostalgic look back at Jewish history - as it was in the past here. It's very much: the southern Jews were all so happy, they all fit in and were accepted, etc. He does cite a few instances where they had problems - but these usually involved us 'Yankee Jews', like the instances when a few (Yankee)Rabbis in the South fought for civil rights.
Evans should realize that times have REALLY CHANGED HERE! The evangelical Christians in my town (which is most people here) harrass me like crazy - 'I am praying for you!' 'Have you read the words of Jesus, who was a Jew like you?' 'When will you come to my Church'. Blah, blah, blah. Thank God for the minority of Catholics, Methodists, Presbyterians and a few others who live here. They are the only ones to accept me for the way I am, and the way I will stay - a Jew.
I want all who are reading this to realize that I am only speaking for my experience. Jews who reside in cities in the South have told me that they have had far better experiences, and that they cannot relate to what I am saying.
But I do want to ask Evans a few questions:
1) If things are so great for the Jews in the South: Why have you lived in New York for decades now???
2) Why don't you at least write either a new Forward to the book, a magazine article, etc., contrasting some of the ways in which the lives of Jews in the South have changed over time (for some of us at least), primarily due to the rise of the evangelical Christians?
I read Evans' books before I moved here, and nothing much he describes in his books is my life here. For a Jew who really cares about her/his religion living here is depressing; it is practically Jew-less; and, at best, the majority of a certain denomination of Christians here ignore me. (By the way, I am planning to move to a city!)
By the way, don't bother writing to me to tell me that I am "wrong", or to invite me to things like the Bible Study at your Church. Believe me, with all the praying for me that is going on in this town, and all the myriad attempts to convert me, if it hasn't happened by now, as they say in these parts, it just ain't gonna happen!
A great book about the Jewish South!.......2003-06-08
"The Provincials" proved to be especially meaningful to me. First, my wife gave it to me for our anniversary; I am researching the Jewish Confederacy, and I had included it on my reading list. Second, we went to Vicksburg, Miss., for our anniversary, and I began reading the book there. I have family roots in Vicksburg, where we met a number of wonderful people at the synagogue who knew my cousin, a World War II veteran who grew up in Vicksburg but now lives in Texas.
My wife and I also toured the Museum of the Southern Jewish Experience in Utica, which is very close to Vicksburg.
Putting everything together, including our visit to the Jewish cemetery in Vicksburg, I feel I now understand "the Southern Jewish experience." Eli Evans tied a lot of loose ends for me and helped put a lot of things in perspective. (I plan to view "Driving Miss Daisy" again,this time with new appreciation and understanding.)
And I might add, I found this book very easy to read. Since I'm generally reading two or three books at the same time (well, you know what I mean), I had planned to spend three weeks reading "The Provincials." I finished it in a week and was sorry when it was over.
One of the worst books I ever read.......2001-06-19
I was very interested in reading this book due to it's title, but as the saying goes, "never judge a book by it's "title"". I found the author to be arrogant, bregadocious and totally prejudiced against anything not of the "democratic" persuasion. In addition I dont think he stayed on the subject matter, but rather used this book to expound his biased views.
An interesting look at Southern Jewish culture........2001-06-01
I share many of Bonita Davis's good feelings about this book. It is a great collection of stories about Jews throughout the South and throughout much of American history. I particularly enjoyed the insights into the schism between the early-arrived German Jews and the later-arrived Eastern European Jews. In any case, the book is well written, but not as easy to read as his Judah P. Benjamin biography.
Southern, Jewish and Proud of It.......2000-01-04
To say that you are a southern Jew may sound like a contradiction in terms. After all, Jewish culture and life is demoniated by the historic enclaves of the urban north. Eli Evans' book, The Provencials breaks that stereotype by telling the story of the south's Jewish population whose very presence made an impact on a region that is so misunderstood by its northern cousins. Evans describes for us the challenges and triumphs of growing up Jewish in a southern culture. Like their southern gentile counterparts Jews in the south share a deep rooted southern soul and culture which embeds itself into one's psyche. Although the south harbors within it painful memories for Jews ( Leo Frank lynching of 1915), overall the community managed to survive and thrive. Jewish communities in many instances took on the same cultural charistics of the southern gentile but there was always that sense of being the outsider that made the community a distinct entity. Evans skillfully weaves his own autobiography of growing up Jewish in the Bible Belt with the stories of the regions' people and various events that impacted upon the Jewish community. I throughly enjoyed reading about the peddlers who went throughout the rural south bringing with them not only merchandise but news from the larger communities. The book shows the struggles Jews had in building communities, establishing synagogues, and balancing the racial tensions of the majority culture. This book is a must read for those unfamiliar with the Jewish presence in the south.
Book Description
This book offers conclusions that are very different from most of the traditional historical interpretations of the Buchanan presidency. Historians have either condemned Buchanan for weakness and vacillation or portrayed him as a president dedicated to peace who did everything constitutionally possible to avoid war. Under the scrutiny of Elbert B. Smith, Buchanan emerges as a strong figure who made vital contributions not to peace but to the accelerating animosities that produced the war.
"Historians who have considered the Civil War a necessary and justifiable price for the destruction of slavery should feel a debt to James Buchanan," Smith writes. "Those who think the war could and should have been avoided owe him nothing."
Most of the accounts of the era have concentrated on the Dred Scott Case, Bleeding Kansas and the Lecompton Constitution, the Lincoln-Douglas debates, John Brown, the rise of the Republicans and the disintegration of the Democrats, the election of 1860, and the bitter quarrels over slavery extension occasioned by these events. Buchanan has often appeared on a stage occupied by more important actors.
Whether or not the war was already inevitable by March, 1857, cannot be proved. That a subsequent series of emotion-packed events filled both North and South with rage and fear, triggering secession and the war, is undebatable. It is Smith's theory that Buchanan, in leading the United States through these fateful years, added much to the war spirit that developed in both sections. Driven by affection and sympathy for the Southerners, he tried to satisfy their demands for slavery rights in the territories. This aroused bitter anti-South feelings throughout the North, which foiled his efforts and further convinced the Southerners that they could no longer have their way inside the Union. The one event that finally triggered the Southern secession was the election of a Republican president, and Buchanan's agreement with the Southern demands and his personal hatred for Stephen A. Douglas did much to accomplish this.
Covering the most controversial period in American history, Smith presents important new evaluations for the consideration of students of both the Civil War and the presidency.
This book is part of the American Presidency Series.
Customer Reviews:
The actions of Buchanan that few know.......2001-06-24
When I was learning to drive, there was an emphasis on the "last clear chance." In the realm of responsibility for road accidents this is the principle that even if the other driver made the mistake, if you had a clear chance to avoid the accident, you could be held responsible. In trying to determine blame for the causes of the American civil war, by the time James Buchanan became president the last clear chance to avoid the war had probably passed. While the overwhelming majority in all areas were strongly opposed to disunion, the minorities in favor of the forced abolition of slavery and secession had grown large and influential enough to determine the course of history. Therefore, any analysis of the presidency of James Buchanan must be done with that in mind.
While no examination of that time can avoid an analysis of the issue of slavery, Smith makes one point that seems lost on many other commentators. A great deal of ink has been used in analyzing the economics of slavery and many argued that it did not make economic sense and would have ended. Others argue that it provided an effective source of cheap labor and would have remained economically viable. As Smith so succinctly points out, both points are of questionable validity. Slavery was no longer an economic issue, but a cultural, social and emotional one. To the south, slavery was their culture and any attempt to criticize, hinder or eliminate it was considered an attack on their very existence. In this environment, economics are a secondary concern, a point made very well in the book.
What will be surprising to many people is how expansionist a president James Buchanan was. I am in full agreement with the author that he was the most imperialist president the United States has ever had. For unlike McKinley who took Spanish territory, Buchanan's goal was to impose a brutal slavery on the new territories. He was very activist in the foreign arena, running foreign policy with a strong interventionist hand. However, nearly all of his plans for expansion were of dubious merit. The most wild was the attempt to purchase Cuba from Spain and make it another slave state. While slavery existed on Cuba, it was very mild relative to what existed in the United States and it would have taken an enormous "pacification" effort to impose American rule. Other schemes were to annex additional segments of Mexico as well as parts or all of central America. Fortunately, sectional rivalries prevented any bipartisan consensus and Buchanan would not act without support. The only plan for territorial acquisition that was eventually completed was the only one that could be executed without conflict, namely the purchase of Alaska from the Russian empire.
Clearly, Buchanan was a president who took the Southern side in most disputes, which sometimes placated the southern radicals and other times emboldened them. Could he have done more to reduce the tensions? Of course. Would it have made a major difference in the outcome? Almost certainly not. The forces in favor of dissolution were becoming so powerful that only blood could have led to a long-term conclusion. Despite his southern leanings, Buchanan was a Unionist who was the last president before the war. In that position, he was the last person to have a chance to avert the conflict. He made many mistakes and if there was any chance at all to avoid the war, those mistakes eliminated it. Smith explains all this in describing the presidency of a man who could have been one of the greatest presidents of all time if he could have found a way to satisfy a set of unsatisfiable conditions.
An adequate analysis of Buchanan's presidency........2000-04-15
James Buchanan entered the presidency in 1857 under difficult circumstances. This book tries to elucidate Buchanan's southern position, his inability to coalesce the factions in the Democratic party, and allegiance to a Jacksonian era of the past. Although the author does not portray Buchanan as a shrewd politician, he does recognize that the president tried to avert a Civil War. Furthermore, the chapter about secession clarifies the disunity in southern politics. In addition, the author explains how the slavery dispute thwarted Buchanan's quest for territorial expansion, especially his desire to annex Cuba. Besides, this penetrating study analyzes the economic panic of 1857 and the ultimate corruption in Buchanan's cabinet. In summary,Buchanan emerges as neither weak nor incompetent, but rather a man who had a clear purpose in mind. Unfortunately, Buchanan did not ameliorate the animosities about slavery and he has gone down in history as a much disparaged president. The prose made it a bit tedious to read. Also, the author treats some topics with such brevity (for instance the panic of 1857) that it helps to already have some familiarity with this subject.
On The Threshold Of Civil War.......2000-04-12
This book on the presidency of James Buchanan, as with the others in this series, is relatively short (under 200 pages), and is not meant to be a biography of Buchanan. It does, however, present an adequate discussion of the highlights of the Buchanan presidency in the political, economic and social context of the times. The author provides ample evidence as to why most historians rank Buchanan near or at the bottom of the presidential ratings list. At a time when the nation was rapidly heading toward civil war, Buchanan consistently failed to understand northern sensitivities and perspective on the important issues of the day, the most significant of which was the expansion of slavery. Moreover, Buchanan, who was from Pennsylvania, surrounded himself with cabinet members who reinforced his pro-southern views. There is much discussion in the book of the influence these men had on the President. Among other highlights are the relationship between Buchanan and Sen. Stephen A. Douglas, the effects of the Supreme Court decision in the Dred Scot case, the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858, Buchanan's surprising foreign policy objectives, and secession of the southern states and how Buchanan reacted. Although at times Buchanan seems to disappear from the narrative, this book would be of interest to readers who would like to become better acquainted with the administration of a president who served at a very crucial time in our history, but about whom not much is generally known.
Book Description
In this volume, based on a week-long symposium at the University of Munich's Center for Economic Studies, two leading scholars of governmental economics debate their divergent perspectives on the role of government and its fiscal functions.
James M. Buchanan, who was influential in developing the research program in public choice, concentrates on the imperfections of the political process and stresses the need for rules to restrain governmental interference. Richard A. Musgrave, a founder of modern public finance, points to market failures and inequities that call for corrective public policies. They apply their differing economic and political philosophies to a variety of key issues. Each presentation is followed by a response and general discussion.
Customer Reviews:
Worth reading, but avoids the underlying disagreements.......2000-09-26
I had high hopes for this book; the transcript of a symposium featuring a back-and-forth dialogue of sorts by two leading thinkers in the area of public choice and finance would seem ideal, and as an introduction to the field, it was quite good. Where it fell short is in offering an analysis of the ideas on which the differences between the participants' views lay. Rather, one tended to offer his outlook on, say, the proper redistributive function of a government, or whether brakes on power are best set at the constitutional level, and the other would offer his views. So there was very little in the way of attacking the weak points of each other's arguments directly. Put simply, Buchanan does not trust people in positions of power, while Musgrave does. Buchanan's work usually involves modeling how things work, while Musgrave looks at how he thinks things should be. But there is little exploration of the basis for, for instance, Musgrave's frequent assertions that, well, things tend to be this way and we aren't happy with that so you see we need government intervention. He just goes on, and then when it is Buchanan's turn, he goes on. And the book is rather philosophical in nature; while there is a lot of economics jargon throughout, the overall level is general. It all just seemed a bit too civil. A good enough book, but perhaps a subscription to Critical Review would be a better place to look for more penetrating discussions of the topics at hand.
Average customer rating:
- Big ideas in a little book
|
What Should Economists Do?
James M. Buchanan
Manufacturer: Liberty Fund
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback
 General
| Popular Economics
| Business & Investing
| Subjects
| Books
Theory
| Economics
| Business & Investing
| Subjects
| Books
ASIN: 0913966657 |
Customer Reviews:
Big ideas in a little book.......2002-03-31
What Should Economists Do is a little book with some big ideas. It deals with many complicated subjects. It examines the relation of economics to other academic disciplines. It examines what economists can learn from and teach to other academics. It examines the scientific method in economics. It examines the use of a-priori axioms and the empirical testing of hypotheses. It examines subjectivism in economics. It examines human nature. It looks at the human desire for self-improvement. It delves into political economy. It examines Public Choice theory and the conflict between public financed education and academic freedom. Above all it examines the nature of human choice and argues against deterministic notions of "scientific choice" that preclude real choice. This book is one of Buchanans' best works. It is one of his most readible too. It should be read, not only by economists, but by anyone who is interested in social theory.
Customer Reviews:
Don Boudreaux's review.......2006-07-16
The picture on the dust jacket of this latest book by my Nobel prize-winning colleague James Buchanan has nothing to do with the book's title or its contents. The dust-jacket shows a photographer's cloth backdrop, with absolutely nothing in the foreground or background. It's as if the cover announces "There's nothing here."
But oh how misleading that message is! As with all that Buchanan writes, this short book is a deep well of insights, creative reflections, and wisdom. In particular, this book is a collection of 12 essays, each written within the past decade - too recently to be included in the 20 volume Collected Works of James M. Buchanan published by Liberty Press.
Although now in his mid-80s, Buchanan's mind and pen are as agile as ever, showing no signs of crustiness or an urge to rest on his (many) laurels. Indeed, despite revisiting a theme that has engaged him for at least three decades, Buchanan's message is fresh.
The theme is simultaneously an ovation for, and a dissent from, F.A. Hayek's effort to ground classical liberalism in the theory of spontaneous order - that is, Hayek's effort to show that the case for individual freedom depends critically upon accepting the undesigned, unintended results of human action. Markets, law, even politics evolve over time in ways that incorporate what conservatives call "the wisdom of the ages." Wholesale efforts to redesign society based on intellectual fancies discard this wisdom and replace it with the inevitably puny and deficient academic models of social engineers. The 20th-century's awful experiment with socialism stands as a premier example of this intellectual arrogance, what Hayek called "the fatal conceit."
Hayek's struggle to expose the errors of social engineering, however, was often mistaken as an apology for conservatism. This mistake so disturbed Hayek that he concluded his 1960 book The Constitution of Liberty with a chapter entitled "Why I Am Not a Conservative." It was a difficult case to make, because Hayek did indeed counsel deference to evolved social institutions even if the rational mind can find no good reason for their existence. The reader of Buchanan's book will learn why Buchanan believes that Hayek went overboard in counseling such deference.
The title of Buchanan's book obviously is inspired by Hayek. And like Hayek - but more clearly than Hayek - Buchanan puts his finger on the chief distinction between conservatives and real, or classical, liberals: only liberals are truly dedicated to the rule of law.
At first this claim sounds odd, given that we today think of conservatives as "law and order" types. But Buchanan and Hayek don't mean by law simply the dictates promulgated by legislatures and regulators. Instead they mean the whole gamut of rules that constrain human behavior, whether or not these are formally promulgated and enforced by government. The true liberal recognizes that law, like products and prices in markets, often evolves unintended from the everyday actions of ordinary people. And the true liberal is unyielding in his insistence that everyone be bound by such laws. Nothing - not social status, skin color, religion, job title, amount of education; nothing - excuses anyone from the law.
Buchanan describes the debate as between followers of Plato and followers of Adam Smith:
Plato had no misgivings about classifying human beings along a hierarchy of superiority. To Plato, some persons are natural slaves; others are natural masters. For Adam Smith, persons are natural equals, and one of his familiar references is to the absence of basic differences between the philosopher and the street porter. [p. 4]
Plato is the conservative (or modern "liberal"); Adam Smith is the true liberal. Plato and his followers naturally believe that society's best and the brightest should have great lee-way in directing the lives of the masses. Adam Smith and his followers, while recognizing that individuals differ from one another along many dimensions, believe that we are all equal in our humanity, with none of our differences justifying the rule of some of us over others of us. When this basic equality of humans is accepted, respect for a strict rule of law follows as a matter of course.
And here, on this point, we can see clearly the true liberal's distinction not only from conservatives but also from modern "liberals." The modern "liberal" fancies himself to be enlightened and caring because he seeks to use government to improve the lives of others even when this involves forcing others to act differently than they freely choose to act. Although the true conservative's motives for constraining others' actions might (or might not!) differ from those of the modern "liberal," at root both conservatives and modern "liberals" disdain and distrust ordinary men and women. True liberals do not.
One result is that true liberals willingly allow peaceful adults do whatever they please. This willingness grows not from the liberal's lack of concern for his fellow man, but from his respect for his fellow man - from the true-liberal's mature recognition that his fellow man is, like himself, an adult with his own unique history, needs, and dreams. And when we treat others as adults, we accord them not only the freedom to pursue whatever peaceful paths they choose, but we also recognize them to be responsible.
The responsible person, of course, neither needs nor seeks the coddling and constraints imposed by the modern welfare-and-nanny state. But because the modern "liberal" believes so ardently that ordinary people must be coddled and constrained if they are to lead decent lives, the conservative roots of the modern "liberal" are exposed: the good and the wise must control the masses.
Variations on this theme of Plato versus Smith run throughout Buchanan's book. Cataloging these themes and their resulting insights here is impossible; they are too numerous and rich for detailed summary - except to say that Buchanan, following Hayek's lead if not his every step, carefully marks out the intellectual territory that the true liberal must defend, not only from overt conservatives but from the camouflaged conservatives who today are called "liberals."
I recommend that you buy - or, at a price of $75, borrow - a copy of this book and savor some of the very best economics scholarship ever penned.
Books:
- Robert E. Lee on Leadership: Executive Lessons in Character, Courage, and Vision (On Leadership)
- Robert E. Lee: Virginian Soldier, American Citizen
- Runaways Vol. 1: Pride and Joy
- Southern Horrors and Other Writings; The Anti-Lynching Campaign of Ida B. Wells, 1892-1900
- Speaking My Mind: The Radical Evangelical Prophet Tackles the Tough Issues Christians Are Afraid to Face
- Step Right This Way: The Photographs of Edward J. Kelty
- Stonewall Jackson: The Black Man's Friend
- Storm of Steel (Penguin Classics)
- Team of Rivals
- Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln
Books Index
Books Home
Recommended Books
- The Last Lion: Winston Spencer Churchill, Visions of Glory
- McDonald's Happy Meal Toys in the U.S.A.
- Bronstein's Children
- Everyday Life in the 1800s: A Guide for Writers, Students & Historians
- Gollum: A Behind the Scenes Guide of the Making of Gollum
- Mirror Symmetry
- How to Retire Happy, Wild, and Free: Retirement Wisdom That You Won't Get from Your Financial Adviso
- Alfred I. du Pont: The Man and His Family
- Corporate Capital: Control, Ownership, Saving and Crisis
- Research on Managing Groups and Teams, 1998
The Great Influenza: The story of the deadliest pandemic in history
The Great Deluge: Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans, and the Mississippi Gulf Coast
Bayou Farewell: The Rich Life and Tragic Death of Louisiana's Cajun Coast
Lanterns on the Levee: Recollections of a Planter's Son (Library of Southern Civilization)
The Storm: What Went Wrong and Why During Hurricane Katrina--the Inside Story from One Louisiana Scientist
