Posted on 01/05/2003 5:16:22 PM PST by shrinkermd
Not long ago Judge Richard Posner published a list of the top public intellectuals. Professor Wolfe was 98th of 100. The title of this book also includes, "What Middle-Class Americans Really Think About God, Country, Family, Racism, Welfare, Immigration, Homosexuality, Work, The Right, The Left and Each Other. The author's reputation as a "public intellectual" plus an all-encompassing title augurs for extraordinary expectations from this book.
The author's professional experience certainly meets expectations. Alan Wolfe is a professor of political science and Director for the Boisi Center For Religion and American Life at Boston College. He is the author and editor of more than ten books and innumerable essays, book reviews and so forth. He is a contributing editor to the New Republic and the Wilson Quarterly. He also writes for Commonweal, The New York Times, Harpers's, The Atlantic Monthly, The Washington Post and other magazines and publications.
What might not meet expectations is Professor Wolfe's political bias. In July of this year, Professor Wolfe penned an essay called "Idiot Time." The readers of the New Republic undoubtedly were pleased. Among the conclusions of Professor Wolfe were, "Our current president is a Republican whose policies favor the rich...his political guru is Karl Rove, a great admirer of William McKinley and his strategist Mark Hanna...George W. Bush will be lucky if his presidency ever rises to t he level of Taft's or Harding's..." Professor Wolfe continues this partisan rant with statements such as President Bush does not have a mandate to govern, he uses slash and burn political tactics and he has obliterated the memories of Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt. His concluding remark in this article is that President Bush has decisively shifted government to the rich.
In spite of this fierce, partisan liberal bias One Nation After All received rave reviews from the San Francisco Chronicle, The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Newsday, New York Times, Publishers Weekly, Washington Times, Chicago Tribune, Bill Bradley, Paul Wellstone, William Bennett and E. J. Dionne. Without a doubt, with so many admirers this book must have merit.
One basis for merit is the origin of the book. The author and his assistants interviewed 200 persons in eight US suburbs. The focus was on the middle class. Between giving a series of surveys and using anecdotal reports the author crafted a series of conclusions that seem quite close to his prior convictions. The author seems to take some joy in "morality writ small" and "the sensible center" and defends his fairness on pages 283 and 284. In any case, the inductive basis for his conclusions seemingly corrects for some of his partisan bias.
Professor Wolfe begins the book with a review of what the middle-class is and is not. He tries to equate it with income; however, he finally resorts to the common finding that almost all Americans believe they are "middle-class." More specifically only 10% of Americans see themselves as something other than middle-class. Basically, he posits the middle-class as people who believe their fate is in their own hands and who live by the principles of individual responsibility, obligations to others and a belief in something outside of oneself.
While a sample of 200 is not statistically valid or reliable for the conclusions the author reaches, it is better than what usually passes for commentary on morals and values. The principal overall conclusion of this book is that there is a "moral freedom" or emancipation from the authoritarian past. This is the basic premise of "morality writ small." The author agrees and substantiates that Americans hate politics but love morality and are not hesitant to profess their religious convictions. Americans do not want morality to be a part of politics. They hate to see morality politicized by fundamentalist preachers. Similarly, Americans hate to see "gay rights" politicized.
Among the basic beliefs of "morality writ small" is that it must be non-judgmental. Further, such policies as government welfare policies are moral agents of last resort. They accept them but they are not happy with this fact. Indeed, in spite of liberal misgivings the middle-class remains hostile to government. In their own lives the middle-class prize reasonableness. Reasonable people do not sit around and nurse grudges against people or plot revenge. Conflict should be avoided in favor of facts. Since "reasonableness" as defined above is absent from politics, dislike and even hatred of politicians is common in the middle-class.
Next to non-judgmentalism and reasonableness, speaking softly is a virtue the middle-class prizes. Even true words lose their credibility if delivered in a hateful way. Finally, middle-class promises are reasoned, attainable and usually fulfilled.
Why does the middle-class hate politics? Well for one thing, politics has become increasingly ideological and the middle-class treasures "reasonableness." The middle-class dislikes revolutionary rhetoric of the right or the left. The far out liberals and right wing conservatives both seem to put principle over reasonableness and working together. Similarly, the middle-class appreciates the libertarian doctrinaire economic freedom but sees the denial of traditional moral values as unreasonable. The middle-class believes moral values are necessary for social order.
Politicians often promise more than they can deliver. Further, when they fail to deliver, they blame the opposition, find other excuses or reinterpret what was promised. These promises and excuses are resented by the middle-class. Ideological squabbling, extremism and excuse making just do not sell.
Compared to other Western countries the US is a religious nation. A 1991 study by Andrew Greeley found 94% of Americans believe in God, 82% believe the Bible is the word of God, 35% believe the Bible is to be interpreted literally and 80% believe in an afterlife. Middle-class people believe God guides them in their daily decisions and a full 63% believe religion could answer all or most of today's problems. In spite of these beliefs, there is not much support for the notion that religion can play an official role in guiding public policy. In addition, tolerance is the new watchword. For example, Protestants no longer condemn Catholics and Jews as unworthy of salvation.
The middle-class sees family composition and religion in non-judgmental terms; however, two things are not tolerated --bilingualism and homosexuality. What multiculturalism means is a debate for intellectuals but if it means bilingualism, the middle-class is fiercely opposed to it. As to racial and other ethnic politics, the middle-class believes individualism trumps egalitarianism. The middle-class supports affirmative action if it does not contradict a bedrock conviction that people are to be judged and rewarded on their individual abilities rather than their group identity.
Many in the middle-class see homosexuality as choice behavior; consequently, they oppose the teaching of homosexuality in the schools and homosexual marriage. Not stated by the author is that, in spite of claims to the contrary, the average person sees homosexuality as "abnormal." Trying to convince the middle class that this is wrong is difficult since biologically and statistically homosexuality is "abnormal." The biological aim for sex is procreation not recreation. The prevalence of male homosexuality at any given time is no more than 4%. Selling homosexuality as "normal" is not easy.
The middle-class is indifferent to unions and increasingly hostile to corporations. The Roper organization's statistics reveal that in 1939 (during the great depression) 56% believed the interests of employers and employees was the same; however, in 1994 only 40% believed the interests was the same. The author believes the middle-class wants "balanced capitalism." Balanced capitalism means that corporations become more responsible to their communities. The author also quotes Hunter's finding that one quarter of the population believe the government is run by a conspiracy. Recent corporate scandals undoubtedly will exacerbate these suspicions.
Seemingly, the author misses the whole point of capitalism and the bourgeois. Without capitalism, there is no bourgeois society. Admittedly, bourgeois society is imperfect and not up to the usual standards of public intellectuals of the left. The middle-class knows that capitalism rewards those that fulfill the demands of the consumer. Because of this knowledge, they succeed economically as no previous society ever has. No wonder the public intellectuals and Marxists on the left hate them --they are staunch defenders of the current order.
The last, and most important, chapter of the book is entitled "Morality Writ Small." The author admits there are sharp differences in the middle-class but denies there is a culture war. Public intellectuals may indulge in a culture war but the middle-class masses do not. Morality Writ Small means morality is private and practical. The middle-class is still patriotic, still believes in God and admires traditional morals. Morals are expressed and experienced by example and not by an absolute, external authority. Morality is personal and not achieved by impersonal means. A Kantian imperative is absent.
"Morality Writ Small" has a nice, workshop feel about it. While the observations may be valid, the interpretation can be false. Morals could be "small" because they are less important and more private, or they could be admixed with cultural Marxism. An Italian Marxist, Antonio Gramsci, realized a long time ago that there was not going to be a revolution of the proletariat (working class) until the bourgeois support of Judeo-Christian morality was destroyed. The bourgeois morality was not only a guide for the personal life but it also supported marketplace capitalism. An alternative explanation to "Morality Writ Small" is that between academic cultural Marxism and the 1960's sexual revolution middle-class morality sustained challenges that are yet to be resolved. One could as easily say that "moral relativism" is currently a fashionable heresy. Traditionally, moral judgements are impersonal, universal and binding. If physical torture of prisoners is morally wrong, it is wrong everywhere and at any time. Claiming the Kantian imperative is missing from the current middle-class is an unsubstantiated conclusion not a definitive finding. The author has not proved his case.
I would be less than honest if I did not comment on the literary style of Professor Wolfe. If you like reading dictated medical records, you will love reading this dictated book. That this book was dictated is the only conclusion I can reach. The book is wordy, contains too many compound and complex sentences and equivocates on almost all conclusions. It takes a labor of intellectual love to pursue this book to its end. Notwithstanding this and other criticisms, the book is worthwhile. The author has used data, inductive reasoning and a profound command of the literature in reaching his conclusions. One might debate his interpretation but not his observations. It is worth the price and worth the read.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.